Gay couples seek marriage rights in New Jersey

[muellerican]

If marriage was solely a religious institution a Catholic and a Jew or a man and a woman who did not belong to any religion could not marry. That's why there's civil registries for civil marriages. I think New Jersey, New York and San Francisco and the rest of the USA ought to have the same rights that lgbt people currently have in rural Argentina, rural Portugal or rural South Africa. To be able to have a stupid wedding with mariachis like they currently do in Mexico City.

[ArtakX]

So thats what happens when you mix LSD with Speed....man that's some crazy shit Voltron

[lamboguy911]

Hahahaha, i'm sorry but that is just one of the longest, funniest, and most ignorant rants i've ever seen. you're ignorance is truly impressive.

[1Volans]

Nonsense Homosexuals are not being attacked by religion its the other way around - lesson: Homosexual lie.

Also one male spreading his butt checks offerring his bung hole as a vagina to a hetro pervert sodimizer as they nut slaP is hardly what anyone in their right mind would call normal, LOL

[idaman12345]

Really how exactly is religious cults making gays and lesbians second class citizens not attacking them?

I suppose you would cal blindly folowing a fairy tale (the bible) normal?

[1Volans]

Circus - moot since the fags lost

[ravenxcult]

fags fail again.

[CircusMaximus09]

@ravenxcult Oh yah...thank goodness

[1Volans]

So I have said my peace - but in closing just remember the Indian Brave who descended form a Mountain during the bitter deathly cold of harsh winter and was beseeched by a poisonous viper to save it and it promised it would not bite the BRAVE. So the Brave took the Viper to his chest and descended and when reaching the bottom the Viper struck a death bite - and the Brave asked why?

And the Viper said: "You knew what I was before you picked me up."

[CircusMaximus09]

@1Volans WTF is your drivel?

[1Volans]

I have posted much here but I will bet you can find no fault in what I have stated.

I just want to know that this is not "Gay Marriage," because only one is gay - the one usingits anus as a vagina - or the Lesbian that seeks a hetro companion.

And truth be told they consider themselves superior to you and hold you in contempt - and have no probelm spitting upon your religion.

But now that they need you they act all warm and cute and cuddly.

[1Volans]

And they did it again mewling in the media over the Nigerian or whatever - they were afraid of retaliation.

Now none of us would retaliate - so these gay media leftist meassges serve to implant in all non whites to not vote for a white because they can't be trusted - thats the actaul message being sent .

Its manipulation.

Unless YOU are going to tell me YOU immediately thought about forming a mob and reatliating against some poor hapless soul - so its bull shit propaganda.

[1Volans]

I do not hate gays - not at all - I could care less about em - but when they start to dictate to me what they say how things will be I got a problem with that.

[1Volans]

Particualrly when the government that serves whoever slips a dollar in their pocket will pass laws giving them special rights.

No One should have special rights - but these lunatics are in control and the gay media panders to them - hassan murders 13 and we got this low life CARE manipulating by crying Muslims are afraid of whites retaliating - thats the meassage - its political.

[1Volans]

Let me tell you why atheism has appeal to the primarily gay intelligentsia - its because they would convey - wrongly that evolution shows that being gay is just "natural."

Well its not except that defect is natural. And a recnt study in denmark proved that a sopike in gay births is directly attributable to chemical pollutants released into the environment - so spare us that you are perfectly normal because you are not.

[1Volans]

So according to the National Academy of Sciences gays are brain defective but these brain defectives call you defective for believeing in a Creator - because they have the 1850 ATHEIST INVENTION EVOLUTION being the denial of God and soul.

They push evolution down your throat and pretend it is fact when it is anything but - and I can faslify evolution and anyone can - its not quite written in stone as they have it - but that is the gay God "atheism" and evolution the Bible.

[1Volans]

So then these gays operate under atheism being secular humanism being the denial of God and soul - and it is hate make no mistake they hate you - but they smile in face for the vote while holding you in utter contempt.

[1Volans]

Make no mistake this is an agenda and you are being taken down like one bowling pin at a time.

You express thoughts about gay marriage and they call you a homophobe and hate speech - since when is telling the truth hate speech? Since our government has been taken over by something I never thought could ever happen - did you?

[1Volans]

But these same gays can desecrate Christianity and You with impunity - they crap in your face - call you stupid and hay seeds and all manner of insult because you believe in a Creator.

[1Volans]

I think we need to re-evaluate who these politicians are and make sure they are not re-elected.

We got Barney Frank hooked up with fannie Mae who single handely destroyed the real easte market but while he was doing so he haD PLENTY OF TIME HOOKED UP WITH A CHICKEN BOY GAY PROSTITUTION RING IN THE White House. To me thats an abomination and pure perversion and he is still there?

[1Volans]

But New Jersy what has the government done for you?

Its a little creepy to see this gay militant agenda whereby they attempt state by state to undermine a scared institution by lying.

Again - scientifically it is not two gays being married - just one gay to a what?

here we are in economic collapse, foreclosures, layooffs, true devastaion and people are suffering but the government does nothing for us but has plenty of time along with a gay media to champion queers being married?

[1Volans]

And they are all cuddles and can't we all juyst get along? Whats the point of marriage when you desecrate it.

Whetehr you elect to let a gay marry a hetro sodomizer is New Jersy's business

[1Volans]

hen we have the W#hiteHouse Christmas Tree whereby the gays wasted no time desecrating the sybol of the Birth of the Lord jesus by adorning thios Symbol with a homosexual transvestite and Mao a guy who was an atheist communist that murdered of what at least 12 million humans.

So here the gays show no respect for you but then try to make laws where they are protected and may shat in your face

[1Volans]

Lets look at gays - take the Miss America Contest - remeber? Remeber the 250 pound gay jusge threatening to bitch slap Miss California because Miss California spoke her mind.

So here is a gay - a feamle defective brain in males 250 pound body threatening physical violence on a woman half its size.

But we have been bombarded in the media to see gays as harmeless - but thats movies but in real life we see them threatening a woman. Violence/

[1Volans]

I do not see any crime statistics that say gays are disproportionately victims - do you?

Do you wake up and go - I think I will lynch a fag today? Heck no you don't - so this whole gay right is just empowerment of one group over another - NO WAY.

[1Volans]

So on top of crapping on us - disrepescting our beliefs - spitting in our faces - enacting new tax laws - and Helath Care? Its a tax law where they throw you in jail for not wanting Insurance - its a sham.

So in light of all that they want to spit on our religion and then give homosexuals specuial rights we do not have.

Why does a gay need special protection?

[1Volans]

We need protective laws because we are being attacked and we are being shook down by this criminal government - we lost our homes jobs destryed realtionships and top of that these pigs in the government hatch new schemes to extort us for more money so they won't feel the pain they caused.

[1Volans]

Let us as a country simply legalize sexual perversion and be done with it.

let us be bold and just go for it all.

Marriage is bewteen a man and a woman - period.

The problem is we have let the minority dictate to us what we will accept - we must yeild to their perversions and/or desires.

But its not minorities but special interests - no one should have "special privileges," NO ONE.

Where are my special interests, how are they being served?

[1Volans]

Or what the heck - in this leftist atheist God denying world lets just legalize child molesters to marry children - lets just permit perverts lurking in public toilets be protected legally.

[1Volans]

So the term "Gay Marriage" is in itself a lie.

It preys upon ignorance - because most people don't think it through - this is not two gays but one gay ane straight but somehow twisted.

Desecration of the sanctity of Marriage then is stained.

So then being that the paerter is not homosexual then what?

People should be permitted to marry their dog and engage in barnyard sodomy - a male dog nut slapping.

[1Volans]

So if we want to banter about the word perversion then it is not upon the homosexual per se but rather its companion that IS NOT gay but straight but twisted and/or opportunistic.

[1Volans]

lesbian bull daggers? The same in reverse - a male brain in a female body that seeks NOT another lesbian but a real woman.

So what the is this real woman?

My bet again is that the Bull Dagger supports the hetro.

[1Volans]

marriage is sacred because it represents the cleaving of a union between a man and woman and specifically for reproduction.

So sex as reproduction then we have homosexuals , two male bodies imitating reproduction.

[1Volans]

And I will bet you money that more oft than not that the homosexual supports the hetro that is into bung holing.

So really then the homosexual is buying companionship.

[1Volans]

BUT its counterpart is NOT a homosexual but rather a pervert heterosexual that has a prediliction for sodomy.

see, homosexuals have female brains and seek a "real man." That real man is not by definition a homosexual.

[1Volans]

However this is NOT GAY COUPLES - thats the dirty little lie - a homosexual is female brain in a male body.

So itseeks companionship by sexual intercouyrse whereby it uses its anus hole as a vagina.

[1Volans]

Lets cut to the quick : The National Academey of Sciences has irrefutably proved that homosexualism is brain defect at birth. Homosexuals then are of defective brains.

[bndkllr2]

I fear for natlawful's kids if any of them are gay.

"sexual union is the core difinitive purpose of marriage and sodomy isn't sexual union"?

Uh, sexual union is not dependent upon which hole is used, but the meaning and expression of love involved. Anal sex between two adults who love each other is just as life-giving and precious as vaginal sex. Also, according to NOM's statement, older folks who can't have sex should get divorced. LOL

[nnjhansen]

Anal sex is life giving????

[bndkllr2]

Uh yes. You should try it sometime. There's nothing quite as beautiful as the physical, emotional and spiritual bond that occurs when you love someone enough to share your body with him/her and make yourself truly vulnerable. So yes,nnjhansen, anal sex is life giving.:)

[nnjhansen]

That may be the single most ridiculous comment I have ever read.

Anal sex is NOT life giving no matter how enjoyable you find it.

Sexual intercourse is life giving as it is how human life is naturally created.

[bndkllr2]

If creating human life is the only purpose of sex, then why don't you tell my friend's parents to stop having sex? They're both in their sixties.

[nnjhansen]

Who said creating human life is the only purpose of sex? It is, however the only way in which having sex is 'life giving.'

[natlawful]

this is so wrong on every level. its disgusting. if these guys want to engage in perversion, do it behind closed doors, but allowing innocent little children to view this set-up as o.k. is so cruel. i fear for the kids.

[Boudiga]

So having a loving carrying home is bad for the kids? Would it be better for them to be living crowded group homes or even mental hospitals (thats were the send kids when foster homes and group homes fill up.) And how are they behaving any differently from a str8 couple with their children? I didn't see anything different, except unlike most being raised by str8 parents, they have two parents!

[BIitzed]

Why is it that people always have to equate gay relationships with sex, whereas straight relationships are equated with love? Gay marriage is not about what we do "behind close doors", the last of the United States' sodomy laws were overturned in 2003. Civil same-sex marriage is about providing rights and legal protections to gay families across America. Right now, same-sex households are suffering because they are financially burdened by this institutionalized discrimination.

[BIitzed]

It's hilarious that dumbass Damon Owens would quote Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a supporter of civil rights for gays. Coretta Scott king has even stated that her late husband would have whole-heartedly supported marriage equality. Of course, this is hardly surprising. This is, after all, the same guy who refers to his hate-peddling, gay-hating group of bigots as a "rainbow coalition".

[Boudiga]

Irony! What can I say. King, Gandhi, Susan B Antony, etc... are all rolling in their graves. Its nice to know their sacrifice for man kind fell onto deaf ears. Those who got their freedoms jumped on the bandwagon in being in tolerant to others.

[worshipman69]

good video.

[arnblazer]

Marriage is about two people swearing life together. The state should accept such regardless gender, granting the rights as for a couple. Gay marriage isn't a threat. Church must be out of civil issues.

[MacMorrighan]

Why do people choose to be heterosexual? After all, the human animal operates on a continuum of spectrum of various sexual orientations (according to Dr. Kinsey) in which VERY few people are actually completely heterosexual. Indeed, according to the late Harvard prof. of History, John Boswell, we are living in a Western culture of enforced heterosexuality, despite our innate sexual orientations. And, that's just not emotionally or psychologically healthy!

[TheElksLodge]

troylustig: Did you actually watch that video? Your comment is some of the dumbest garbage I've yet heard. I feel sorry for you level of abject stupidity. I work so hard, every day, to make sure that people like you don't get to spread any of it.

[MacMorrighan]

Apparently the Logical Fallacy in your "argument" hasn't struck you, yet. This is a red herring--animals are not permitted to enter into a legally binding contract between two consenting adults! More Americans really ought to study Critical Thinking Skills--and, as soon as I get my teaching license, that's precisely a subject I will be proposing to the school board as a mandatory necessity!

[MacMorrighan]

Don't forget, the American Psychological Association staunchly has found, through generations of studies, that one does not, nor can they willingly choose, their personal sexual orientation! I, for one, have been attracted to males ever since I can remember...even in pre-K when I was about 5 I knew that I liked boys the way in which boys were "supposed" to like girls!

[MrSTANDFORAMERICA]

if it's not taken to the voters all that try to pass a faggot law for a state should be hung.

[J0hn3577]

Mr. Deo, the US Supreme Court has not held a driver's license to be a civil right. The Court has, however, held marriage to be a civil right.  There is no misnomer here, so get a clue.

[nnjhansen]

The US Supreme Court found marriage, defined as the union of a man and a woman, to be a right. What they said was, "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." Still thing they were referring to any other type of union?

They also clearly

[J0hn3577]

I was not addressing same-sex marriage in my comment, only that Mr. Deo's broad argument that seemed to be that gays don't have a right to marry each other because no one has a right to marry each other and the state simply extends the privilege to whomever it wants was completely wrong. Marriage, generally, is a civil right, not a privilege.

[nnjhansen]

That is also arguable as civil marriage is a legislative construct and as such can be repealed by the legislature. Were the legislature to dissolve the civil institution, do you believe the courts could order it reinstated? I don't think so.

The Court's statements that have been taken to say marriage is a right are being taken out of context. They have all been predicated on "if" the state institutes marriage.

[J0hn3577]

I'm not so sure about that (that the legislature can remove it from law), but it's difficult to say. I'm certainly not going to argue about it here.

[nnjhansen]

You question whether the legislature can repeal a state statute? Honestly?

[J0hn3577]

I'm questioning to what extent they may fail to recognize marriages. I believe the California Supreme Court at least considered addressing this question in either In re Marriage Cases or the Prop. 8 case, I forget which one. I don't think they ended up taking on the question, but they considered it.

[J0hn3577]

So, yes, I do question whether the legislature can repeal a statute that embodies privileges that have since been declared by the Supreme Court to be constitutional rights. The question is what is the scope of the marriage rights, and does it include those mundane financial and social rights attached to it by the legislature. I don't know the answer to that question.

[nnjhansen]

Then you obviously have no appreciation of the concept of separation of powers. The legislature can repeal any portion of the state code that a majority sees fit (with the governor's consent of course). There is nothing the courts can do about it.

[J0hn3577]

I understand the separation of powers fine. The legislature does not have the power to repeal constitutional rights. They can codify those rights in a statute and later repeal that statute, but if it is truly a constitutional right, then the statute is unnecessary, and its repeal is without effect.

[J0hn3577]

For instance, the marriage equality law has a clause that codifies the first amendment right to free exercise of religion. It's sole practical function is to make people feel better because even without it, that right could not be infringed. A later repeal of that section of the statute would not mean people no longer had a right to the free exercise of their religion.

[J0hn3577]

Or more accurately, the legislature can repeal whatever law it wants, but I question whether it can stop the enforcement of constitutional rights by repealing the statute embodying those rights.

[nnjhansen]

Have you even read the decision?

The holding clearly states that they are referring solely to those rights and benefits afforded "under the civil marriage statutes."  If there were no civil marriage statutes, there could not be rights and benefits afforded under them.

[J0hn3577]

That's certainly one argument, but another is that those rights have become so fundamental that they cannot be taken away. Maybe some can but others can't. Maybe filing joint tax returns is not a fundamental right of marriage, but not being required to testify against one another in court is. Maybe employee spousal benefits are not a fundamental right of marriage, but the right of inheritance is. These questions would have to be specifically considered by the court.

[nnjhansen]

Except of course that the spousal privilege in NJ is based on a statute as well. That too could be repealed by the legislature. At best, a court could recognize a common law marriage in the absence of a statutory one and apply a common law privilege to communication or next of kin.

You are under the mistaken impression that we live under a system of judicial supremacy. We do not, the people are sovereign and the legislature is their representatives.

[J0hn3577]

You completely misunderstand my argument, and I think that is because while you accuse me of thinking we live in a judicial supremacy, YOU think we live in a system where the judiciary is virtually powerless. Neither is the case, and I have not made any argument to the contrary. Of course the people are ULTIMATELY supreme. That doesn't mean they get to make casual changes along the way whenever they want. What exactly does "the People" mean anyway? A majority? A supermajority?...

[nnjhansen]

No, I believe we live in a system were the judiciary is empowered to settle disputes under the law. If that dispute involves varying interpretations of an existing statute or constitutional provision, the court should interpret the law in a way that most accurately reflects the plain text of the law and what that text meant at the time it was enacted. The judiciary should never interpret based on what THEY think it SHOULD mean.

[J0hn3577]

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." What happens when the plain text and the apparent intent are contrary to one another? Herein lies the problem. Legislatures don't have intent; legislators have intent. And 100 different legislators can have 100 different intents. That's why we look at the plain text. The plain text of the equal protection clause is very clear.

[nnjhansen]

I am not concerned with intent. I am concerned with what the words meant at the time they were written. The words of the 14th Amendment did not mean that the state could not confine marriage to a man and a woman. They did not mean that then, they cannot therefore mean that now.

No one is denied equal protection as the law applies equally to everyone.

[Boudiga]

Actually this site shows in many places people are denied equal protection. Say if I were gay and I had to go to a hospital. My partner would not be able to make legal choices for my health in the event I can't do so for myself. My partner would know my wishes better than anyone else. So I could be given medical attention I don't want or not given the attention I would I want.

[J0hn3577]

Is it your position that a law that says that I may only marry someone who is the same race as I am, and that applies equally to all races, does not infringe upon the Equal Protection clause? I hope not, or you are simply not to be taken seriously. The fact is that a law that allows some to have the freedom to marry the person of their choosing, but completely bars me from marrying any person that I would ever even possibly choose to marry cannot be said to apply equally.

[J0hn3577]

The law seems to pretty clearly discriminate on the basis of GENDER as well, although the majority of courts have not agreed with me on this analysis. The simple fact is that I am precluded from marring a man simply because I am a man, but my sister would not be barred from marrying a man because she is a woman. That means, the legal ability to marry a man is given to her and not me based on sex. That is not a law that applies equally to men and women.

[J0hn3577]

But again, you are missing the point. I may win in court or I may not. People can disagree on what Equal Protection means. The definition of "equal" and "protection" have not changed since they were written in the constitution; they mean the same thing now that they meant then. Although you deny it, what you are really concerned with is the INTENT behind the words then as opposed to now. The plain text speaks for itself, and I've already demonstrated how it is AT LEAST open to interpretation.

[J0hn3577]

And, again, if the People don't like the result, they can amend the constitution by a 2/3 vote of their representatives in Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures. If allowing gay couples the happiness and security that comes with the ability to marry is that much of a societal problem, then there should be no problem gaining that sort of consensus to amend the constitution.

[J0hn3577]

Obviously, you may have a different opinion about that sort of constitutional interpretation than I do, but this is not a matter of making stuff up. The text is there. And, again, if the People don't like it, then 2/3 of their representatives can change it.

[J0hn3577]

We both know the answer depends on the situation the people are ruling upon. You see, the People created a constitution to lay out basic principles of government the People did not want to be casually infringed upon. The People set up a representative democracy with a legislature to make laws and the Courts to interpret laws and the constitution itself. The People also provided for a way to change the constitution if the People didn't like the way the Courts interpreted it....

[J0hn3577]

That is where the ultimate will of the people lies. So, if a court rules that spousal privilege is a part of the marital relationship that is constitutionally protected, the legislature cannot unilaterally change that. The People can do that by amending the constitution. In NJ, that means passage by the legislature of a ballot question in two consecutive sessions by a majority or in one session by a supermajority and then ratification by the People in an election...

[J0hn3577]

That is why we don't live in a judicial supremacy. However, absent that process, the judicial interpretation of the law stands, even in the face of a contrary state statute. Now, we're arguing over something that we may ultimately agree on. As I said, I don't know what rights of marriage would be inherent in the relationship such that courts would say they are currently required by the constitution. Maybe it's none but the basic right to associate and call it a marriage, maybe more than that...

[J0hn3577]

But, if the court rules on the issue, the people are stuck with it unless and until they go through the process that they placed upon themselves in the constitution to overrule the court by changing the constitution itself. I would add that even if the people of NJ change the state's constitution to overrule a particular court decision, the federal constitution still reigns supreme, so that if the US supreme court found a right to exist under the federal constitution....

[J0hn3577]

...then the process for amending that document would have to be followed to overrule the Court. And, if that process is successful, then the People will have had the final word. If that process is unsuccessful, then the People STILL would have had the final word because the required number of people that the People placed on themselves would have declined to act and thus tacitly agreed to the result.

[J0hn3577]

So, yes, the People are ultimately supreme, but that doesn't mean Courts have no power or that every time a Court reaches a result that the current simple majority doesn't like that we are living in a de facto judicial supremacy.

[J0hn3577]

Regarding the new issue you've brought up, same-sex marriage was not before the court in that instance. But notice, they say "marriage and procreation" as two separate things. Gay couples get together in NJ today and they raise children, whether their own biological children or adopted children. We need not consider procreation to extend the argument that marriage is just as fundamental to the survival of their children as it is to children of straight parents.

[J0hn3577]

After all, marriage is not required for procreation. Straight people can and would have children without it. Why, then, is it fundamental to our existence? Because of the stability is creates in raising children. Since both straight and gay couples raise children, the fundamental importance of marriage applies to both types of couple. How the children got there is irrelevant.

[nnjhansen]

No, marriage is not required for procreation but it was created to both encourage and regulate it. As the DC Court of Appeals put it, "the Supreme Court has seen marriage as having a traditional principal purpose: to regulate and legitimize the procreation of children."

[J0hn3577]

"Regulate and legitimize the procreation of children." Again, my point is that this issue hasn't been before courts until recently. Gay couples have children, so the argument that marriage is just important to them still applies.

[nnjhansen]

Same sex couples do not "have" children in the biologic sense. They may raise children but there are any number of structures in which children are being raised. Single mothers living with their own mothers, single fathers living with siblings, etc... Are these all marriages as well?

[J0hn3577]

Infertile straight couples don't have children in a biological sense either, but they can still get married. Same with old people. These are tired arguments, that I am tired of addressing. As I said, raising children is not the only purpose of marriage. Raising children does not make you married. I only talk about gay couples raising children to point out that even if you would say that NOT raising children somehow precludes you from marriage, that wouldn't stop gay couples.

[J0hn3577]

You're playing with false syllogisms here, and I'm not going to play your game anymore.

[nnjhansen]

Your unwillingness to engage simply points to the vacuity of your argument.

Enjoy.

[J0hn3577]

If you say so. I think I've engaged plenty.

[nnjhansen]

Except that the case in which the court said that, Skinner v. Oklahoma, was about forced sterilization and the court mentioned marriage only in the context of an ability to procreate. It is important to remember that as the court said in Zablocki, "if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place (marriage)."

Courts for centuries have linked the two.

[J0hn3577]

Regarding the other cases, the entire point is that scores and scores of cases have declared marriage to be a "right." I wasn't addressing the scope of the right or whether it applies to gay couples in my original comment, although my opinion on that is obvious.

[J0hn3577]

In any event, I'm not going to waste my time discussing it with you here. I'll save it for the NJ Supreme Court if the legislature doesn't pass this marriage equality law, because the other thing that is clear is that according to the NJ Supreme Court, the NJ Constitution DOES require that gay couples be given all the rights of marriage, and after the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing the other day, it's clear that EVERYONE on both sides agrees that the civil union law has failed to do that.