Garden State Equality Sabotages NJ. Civil Union Law

[thor2003to2009]

You're right, it does affect future generations.

It makes their lives easier, and gives them more freedom and equality.

[DEricKesler]

There is no rational reason to oppose gay marriage.

[EatSleepBreathMovies]

Separate but equal is never equal. The civil union law has FAILED, and the entire concept that a same-sex couple cannot marry simply because of their genitalia is asinine. Marriage is a partnership between two individuals that love and support each other. We pay our full taxes (and then some, since partner benefits in healthcare are taxed, and also legal fees for additional protections that marriage would grant but civil unions fail to), we deserve equal recognition and protection under the law

[aTuWitty]

Logic. Why can't a man marry his mother/sister? Why can't a woman marry her father/brother? Because marriage is not just a union of two people, but a union that will bring the next generation into this world, hence consanguinity clauses- the state recognizes that MARRIAGE has the element of procreation built in, which is something homosexuals cannot achieve. Sure, some people marry past childbearing age, others cannot, but exceptions to the one man one woman rule DO NOT MAKE THE RULE.

[lisztnut]

Marriage has NOTHING to do with procreation. Marriage is a LEGAL contract between TWO people and their government. Why do we have restrictions o marriage between relatives? It's for health reasons, both mental and physical. Otherwise, first cousins can marry in some states but not in other states. Tell the 70-80 percent of unwed black mothers that marriage is a precondition. I don't think they get the connection yet. And, you're right, elderly folks marry, too.

[lisztnut]

Besides the fact that marriage will protect those gay parents who already have children. I guess your rights trump their children's rights, huh? And, I guess straight couples who can't conceive shouldn't be allowed to marry either? You LOSE on all your points, sorry... These issues are unrelated to the topic at hand, which is gay marriage:

teaching in schools, procreation, adoption and religious freedoms. You'll have to come up with something more compelling that that....

[aTuWitty]

@lisztnut Did you miss the part where I said "the exception never makes the rule"? And yes. Marriage is about the FAMILY, a piece of a bigger whole. Marriage is indeed a contract between two persons, but it is ALSO the insurance that any children will be born into the ideal situation, being raised by their biological mother and father. The consanguinity clauses are there for biological reasons for the children. Mental and physical problems arise in many normal marriages. Try again!

[lisztnut]

I insist that marriage is NOT about procreation. And, I stand by that. Marriage is between TWO persons, and that's why when two people get divorced the courts sort out what to do with any children involved. The children aren't divorced are they? That's because the marriage is between the parents ONLY. And, what about gay couples who already HAVE children? Are their rights not important? And, what about straight couples who adopt children? Do those children have no rights in your book?

[MacMorrighan]

Actually, there are numerous first-hand accounts of Gay and Lesbian couples being denied (sometimes multiple-times, each), at different hospitals throughout the state! So, it's certainly NOT a made-up store as you seem to believe.

[newjerseyequality]

I am not saying that it is a made up story. All I am saying is hospital policies are not decided by the civil unions law. Also other people have had problems with hospital polocies. By the Way Steven Goldstein had made up so many stories in the past.

[lisztnut]

See your profile page. I have suggested a new name for your profile. I think it's more than a bit disingenuous to call yourself "newjerseyequality," when you actually stand for "inequality."

[aTuWitty]

So... calling an apple an apple is discriminating against oranges? Two men or two women together is NOT the same as a man and a woman. It is NOT discrimination to call different things differently. What is NOT equal is someone like Don Mendell, who feels that marriage is between a man and a woman, being threatened with the loss of his livelihood for himself and family for exercising his first amendment right in saying so. THAT is unequal.

[lisztnut]

Who is Don Mendell? Not that I care all that much, but if you're talking about someone, I'd like to know what you're talking about...

Marriage evolves, and society evolves, and the concept of marriage has now expanded to include same sex couples. Get over it. My marriage will not have the slightest impact on your life. I'm legally married in CA, do you think my neighbors care? They don't even know, so why should it matter to them that I can get my spouse's health benefits? Or a tax refund

[lisztnut]

Here's a good definition of marriage (see below). Notice, NO mention of children, and NO mention of men and women. There is no gender mentioned... This definition was taken from a very old English language dictionary, and there is no reason to say that gay marriage is "redefining" the word marriage, since this definition is inclusive of same sex couples.

Marriage is a social contract between two individuals that unites their lives legally, economically and emotionally.

[lisztnut]

By leaving out children of gay couples in this argument, you are failing to recognize the reality that gay people have families, too. Why haven't you mentioned this? Many same sex couples have children. Do these children not deserve rights because their parents are of the same sex? Same sex couples often adopt children from failed heterosexual parents, or they have biological children (either through artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, or previous heterosexual relationships).

[lisztnut]

I guess under your terms for marriage, EVERY couple MUST procreate, otherwise there is no marriage. That's BS, and you know it. Otherwise, we'd never allow infertile couples to marry, elderly couples to marry, and those who simply don't want children (and there are plenty of straight couples who don't want children, but DO want marriage). And, while we're at it, why don't you tell the 70-80 percent of unwed black mothers that marriage is a requirement for procreation?

[lisztnut]

Face it, the procreation argument is dead in the water. It is a NON-argument against gay marriage. Another grasping at straws. Youll have to think of something more compelling in order to keep gays from having marriage equality. The CA Supreme Court discussed procreation at length and decided that procreation was irrelevant to marriage. I concur...

[aTuWitty]

You seem to have missed what I put into both of my arguments: THE EXCEPTION NEVER MAKES THE RULE. Just because there are couples who cannot have children does not mean that marriage is not about children. This is the idea that I am combating, the idea that the family is a malleable, changeable term that we can bend and twist in any direction. Marriage is about CHILDREN, first and foremost. If you don't see and understand that, you're PART of the reason that children are born to unwed mothers.

[aTuWitty]

This "evolving" thought process that you speak of has produced no-fault divorce, which has undermined marriage and created the idea that marriage isn't that important and can be shrugged off at any time. It has produced the idea that boyfriends and girlfriends can have children together and it's not a big deal. It's the slippery slope we've been on for YEARS in this country and you can't see it for the fact that you're part of it, which breaks my heart. This is not about equality.

[lisztnut]

At least we can agree that marriage is NOT a religious institution, except to the couple themselves. On a government level, religion is NOT a requirement. Do we agree on that?  Marriage is, therefore, a LEGAL institution primarily, and a religious institution by personal choice. In society's view, the religious aspect is not applicable, because we are FREE to worship in any way we please... Can you at least accept this principle? Marriage equals LEGAL contract...

[lisztnut]

OK, so let's accept YOUR opinion that marriage IS about children. So, what about gay people who HAVE children (the means by which they have children should not matter in the least)? Apparently, those children's rights don't matter to you, right? That's VERY hypocritical, don't you think? Only children of straight couples matter. Children of same sex couples are entitled to NO rights. Boy, do YOU have it WRONG!

[aTuWitty]

Nope. I'm for gay rights. The Washington referendum that was passed? I'm in support of that. And I'm in support of anything that will change inequality anywhere. Oh, and Don Mendell was on a TV ad in Maine supporting marriage, and he was attacked and threatened with losing his job. For exercising free speech.

[lisztnut]

Thanks for explaining Don Mendell. I live in CA and missed that one. Did you know the pro-Prop 8 crowd (those against gay marriage) sent threatening letters to businesses if they didn't go against gay marriage and send money to their campaign? It is well documented, and an article was written about it in the LA Times. These sorts of vicious attacks go both ways, I'm afraid. Glad you are on board with marriage equality, and glad you agree that marriage isn't ONLY about children!

[moor4348]

Couldn't even create your own video - pathetic. Justice will prevail. Same-sex marriage will prevail because it is fair and just and supports families - yes, we have families too. Thank you to all of the people who support marriage equality!

[newjerseyequality]

Marriage equality is a man and a woman. For children marriage equality is a dad and a mom. Same sex marriage is 100% sexist. It reject the other sex and does not even knows the tru value of a man or a woman.

Same sex "marriage" will create more fatherless and motherless families. It viloate the human right of children to their father and mother. It is a great injustice to all.

This video is a misleading fabrication from Steven Goldstein and HRC.

All you need ot add is Perez Hilton

[lisztnut]

It's funny to watch how desparate you people become in your "crusade" against gays and marriage equality. There's NOTHING sexist about a man and a man and a two women marrying. That's nonsense. You're grasping at straws now. Read this NY Times article: Bigots last hurrah, April 19, 2009 You will LOSE this fight, because marriage equality is gaining momentum around the world. This is no longer a local issue. It is international.. Just thought you'd like to know that you WILL LOSE.

[lisztnut]

Within the past few weeks marriage equality has gained more ground. Buenos Aires became the first territory in South America where the court overturned the ban on same sex marriage, just recently, and Portugal's new government has vowed to pass marriage equality through their legislature. The Prime Minister supports it and has vowed to sign into law same sex marriage law. The Swedish Lutheran church has voted to condone/perform same sex marriages. Nepal's Supreme Court ordered SSM in 2008