• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

How is my rights any more than theirs? I can't marry a guy either. But guess what? I can't shack up with a woman and get the same "domestic partnership" rights that they do. Which is something I don't understand. They get all the rights and privileges a married couple gets without the red tape of a marriage license yet a heterosexual non married couple doesn't and you're complaining about gay rights? Give me a break. Like other minorities, they don't want equal rights, they want special rights. But here's a clue: they can get married. They can have the $20K dream wedding, even get the Pope himself to perform the ceremony if he is so inclined. Nothing is stopping them. No, they want the piece of paper. Hell, if I got the same privileges they got without the legal hassle when my first marriage went to pot, I'd have never gotten married in the first place. So, in a sense I don't have the same rights as they do. They can adopt as a couple, put each other on their insurance, live together for a million years if they want but the whole issue is over a little piece of paper. Please.

If you were talking about a black person marrying a white person in Virginia 40 years ago you would not look out of place. "I can't marry black people either".
 
as i've said before, a marriage outside a church is nothing more than a civil union anyway. i really don't understand what the problem is. a WORD?

I was not married in a church. Yet I am married. A building is not necessary for a marriage.
 
If you were talking about a black person marrying a white person in Virginia 40 years ago you would not look out of place. "I can't marry black people either".

Stop trying to equate being gay with being black. It's insulting to black people to infer that gay people are a "race".
 
Stop trying to equate being gay with being black. It's insulting to black people to infer that gay people are a "race".

Okay fine then use gender discrimination. A man can do something a woman can not do marry a woman.
 
Stop trying to equate being gay with being black. It's insulting to black people to infer that gay people are a "race".

Both have been and are oppressed social groups - it is more offensive to say that equality is merely an issue of race. :lol:

I am not saying homosexuals are a race, I am saying the arguments used then are the same used now.
 
Because this isn't about expanding the definition of a word. Its about changing the law. :roll:

:doh
Did you read the quoted part? Mr.V was clearly talking about the defination and not about changing the law.
 
Homosexuality is an orientation. What they do in the bedroom is a behavior. One is the way a person is. The other is an act.

Orientation does not necessarily entail behaviour - prime example; I am a homosexual, but I also choose to have sex with women.
 
Both have been and are oppressed social groups - it is more offensive to say that equality is merely an issue of race. :lol:

I am not saying homosexuals are a race, I am saying the arguments used then are the same used now.

No, they are not. A black man can't marry a man. A white man can't marry a man. A gay man can't marry a man, and a straight man can't marry a man.

There is no discrimination in that. The definition of marriage simply is what it is.
 
No, they are not. A black man can't marry a man. A white man can't marry a man. A gay man can't marry a man, and a straight man can't marry a man.

There is no discrimination in that. The definition of marriage simply is what it is.

Pre Loving v. Virginia: A black man can't marry a white woman. A white man cannot marry a black woman. There is no discrimination in that. The definition of marriage simply is what it is.

Compare that to your statement and any person can see that there *is* inherent discrimination - unless you also favor anti-miscegenation law.
 
Pre Loving v. Virginia: A black man can't marry a white woman. A white man cannot marry a black woman. There is no discrimination in that. The definition of marriage simply is what it is.

Compare that to your statement and any person can see that there *is* inherent discrimination - unless you also favor anti-miscegenation law.

Again, dreadfully wrong. The err in the Virginia ruling is obviously steeped in racism and is wrong in every way. The New Jersey ruling is simply to maintain the definition of what marriage is and always has been, and it is based in simple first-grade common sense.
 
Again, dreadfully wrong. The err in the Virginia ruling is obviously steeped in racism and is wrong in every way. The New Jersey ruling is simply to maintain the definition of what marriage is and always has been, and it is based in simple first-grade common sense.

Appeal to tradition is quite a dreadful tactic, furthermore marriage is not the "first-grade common sense" that you make it out to be.

Marriage, at its heart, is an exchange of property. Not some mystical declaration of love or what not, merely a social construct of a similar nature to buying a pair of sunglasses. In the old days, the property being exchanged was in fact the women - hence dowrys, the "giving away" part of the ceremony, etc.

If you are going to argue "its the way its always been", then get consistent and support women being treated like chattel.
 
Last edited:
Again, dreadfully wrong. The err in the Virginia ruling is obviously steeped in racism and is wrong in every way. The New Jersey ruling is simply to maintain the definition of what marriage is and always has been, and it is based in simple first-grade common sense.

By the way, the fact you thought Loving v. Virginia affirmed anti-miscegenation legislation obviously means you haven't read the ruling and don't understand why it is applicable to this situation.
 
Wrong again. It was not a class of people. It was a race of people.



You really need to read it.

Separate but Equal: Segregation in the Public Schools

It came from Brown vs the Board of Education.


You are dishonestly trying to expand its meaning to include something it never did. This is exactly the kind of thing I've been talking about over and over again. Pro gay marriage advocates trying to compare marriage to race.

Its dishonest and cannot be proven.


You are obviously not a Constitutional law scholar. The Supreme Court always refers to a "class" of people defined by characteristics such as race, gender, sexual orientation, etc when addressing issues of equal protection.

Yes...the philosophy of "Separate but equal" originated out of Brown v. Board of education...but it wasn't limited to issues of "race" any more than it was limited to issues involving "schools". The doctrine of "separate but equal" became the lynchpin of revisions in civil rights and remains an active consideration in equal protection analysis today....which applies to all analysis..not just those involving race.


Sorry...its not dishonest...its the facts.
 
Inequality of a different degree is still inequality.



:lol: I don't care what the churches have to say in regards to the issue, nor should you. Legalism is not a spiritual matter, just as spiritual matters are not legal matters.

I don't want to force churches to marry same sex couples; quite the contrary, I'd rather enforce complete laicity on the issue and abolish marriage as a legal institution.
It too bad you don't see the relationship of the church to this topic. Marriage to a high percentage of people is a religious ceremony. If you can't include this aspect in your thinking, maybe you should leave the subject be altogether. Frankly the world in general doesn't care about your thoughts on the matter, but they do care about what religious people think. Their thought are part of and affecting this debate, but you individual thoughts are not. Your dismissive nature undermines your credibility in this discussion, and I encourage you to reconsider.
 
It too bad you don't see the relationship of the church to this topic. Marriage to a high percentage of people is a religious ceremony. If you can't include this aspect in your thinking, maybe you should leave the subject be altogether. Frankly the world in general doesn't care about your thoughts on the matter, but they do care about what religious people think. Their thought are part of and affecting this debate, but you individual thoughts are not. Your dismissive nature undermines your credibility in this discussion, and I encourage you to reconsider.

I am dissmisive of the church's opinion because I uphold separation of church and state as a key tenet of a successful democratic republic. This whole marriage issue is demonstrative of precisely why this is so - marriage should be part of the religious sphere, civil unions part of the legal. It's the most equitable way.
 
I am dissmisive of the church's opinion because I uphold separation of church and state as a key tenet of a successful democratic republic. This whole marriage issue is demonstrative of precisely why this is so - marriage should be part of the religious sphere, civil unions part of the legal. It's the most equitable way.
Separation is irrelevant here, the church is part of the debate whether you like it or not. You can't dismiss their words or actions.
 
To the Open-Minded Folks: The far-right partisans in these same-sex marriage threads are never going to get it.

The Prop 8 federal court case, Perry v Arnold Schwarzenegger, starts on Monday. The judge is going to allow it to be streamed on youtube. Olson and Boise believe the case will go before the Supreme Court within 2 years. Proposition 8 violates the 14th Amendment and should be struck down. How that will effect laws in other states--we'll have to wait and see.

I believe it was Scalia who stated that gay marriage rights best chance would be with a strong equal protection case.

What makes this case unique is that there are 18,000 legally married same-sex couples in California. The Unmarried same-sex couples are now barred from getting a marriage license because of a ballot measure. The amended California constitution is now in violation of the 14th Amendment--equal protection under the law.

Although a majority of Californians voted in favor of Prop 8, the will of the majority can not trample the rights of the minority.

Ultimately, same-sex marriage and gay rights will not be decided by the people or the legislature (New Jersey) as they both bend to subjective prejudices and fears. SCOTUS, right of center, strict constructionists will bend the country to the will of its constitution and right-wing partisans won't be able to call it judicial activism.
 
SCOTUS, right of center, strict constructionists will bend the country to the will of its constitution and right-wing partisans won't be able to call it judicial activism.

Of course they will. Right wing partisans call every Supreme Court decision they don't agree with "judicial activism".
 
Marriage, at its heart, is an exchange of property. Not some mystical declaration of love or what not, merely a social construct of a similar nature to buying a pair of sunglasses. In the old days, the property being exchanged was in fact the women - hence dowrys, the "giving away" part of the ceremony, etc.

LOL. Uh, no.

Marriage at its heart is a religious commitment steeped in the tradition of starting a family.

To the shallow and anti-religious, it is a contract to be nullified as soon as a chance to **** someone comes along and you get caught.
 
Truthfully, to me this is irrelevant. NJ already has civil unions which affords gay couples rights for adoptions, benefits, and other things that married couples have. Though my overall position is that the term "marriage" should be used only for religious purposes and all governmental unions should be "civil unions"... gay or straight, the way that NJ handles it currently, is fine by me. I'm not sure why this is a big deal.


Because in NJ Civil Unions DO NOT afford the exact same rights as Civil "Marriages" do. They've admitted this publicly!

"Gay couples say civil unions don't work largely because employees at hospitals, insurance companies and elsewhere don't understand the concept. Gay rights groups said Thursday they would use statements made by senators to support their arguments in their lawsuit."
HTML:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/08/AR2010010800361.html
 
LOL. Uh, no.

Marriage at its heart is a religious commitment steeped in the tradition of starting a family.

To the shallow and anti-religious, it is a contract to be nullified as soon as a chance to **** someone comes along and you get caught.

Uh, no.

This is where you are totally wrong.
The idea of marriage dates back WAY before popular religions deemed it as such. It was originally a transfer of wealth...or property..which the "wife" was part of.
 
Of course they will. Right wing partisans call every Supreme Court decision they don't agree with "judicial activism".

It's ironic though, since SCOTUS is SUPPOSED to be an activist court. They're job is to interpret the Constitution and make sure laws follow its jurisprudence.
 
Back
Top Bottom