• 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

Warspite said:
I wouldn't do it personally, but whatever floats your boat.

Civil rights means protecting the things you hate as well as the things you like.
Click to expand...

So can I marry three women and two men?
 
Erod said:
So can I marry three women and two men?
Click to expand...

No, because then you aren't entering a personal contract that designates one person as irreplacable.

If you want to enter an arrangement with three women and two men, you may enter a contract of incorporation, I suppose. But as for a marriage or civil union, no.
 
Warspite said:
I would also like to point out the delta between marriage and children - the two are not dependent on each other.
Click to expand...
Indeed, there are perhaps a few ways in which monogamy alone benefits the state (the reduction of sexually transmitted disease is one that is used) - but it's difficult to argue with the fact that the state has less of an interest in a marriage without children. On the flip side, a reduction in illigitamacy has long been used as a reason for why the state has an interest in promoting marriage.
 
jallman said:
No, because then you aren't entering a personal contract that designates one person as irreplacable.

If you want to enter an arrangement with three women and two men, you may enter a contract of incorporation, I suppose. But as for a marriage or civil union, no.
Click to expand...

Psh, "irreplacable". If perpetuality was a requirement of marriage divorce would not be legal - your relationship with your significant other can be terminated like any other contract.
 
Taylor said:
Indeed, there are perhaps a few ways in which monogamy alone benefits the state (the reduction of sexually transmitted disease is one that is used) - but it's difficult to argue with the fact that the state has less of an interest in a marriage without children. On the flip side, a reduction in illigitamacy has long been used as a reason for why the state has an interest in promoting marriage.
Click to expand...

If the state had a vested interest in marriage for the sake of reproduction then only reproductively viable couples should be allowed to marry, and only be allowed to remain married as long as they produced children within a grace period of say; 3 years.
 
Taylor said:
I was referring to your position that any "two consenting adults of equal standing" should be allowed to marry, or it is a civil rights issue.

No Supreme Court justice is going to agree with that.
Click to expand...

Depends who the justice was.
 
Warspite said:
Sure thing! Dunno why you'd want to, but it's fine by me.
Click to expand...

So the concept of marriage to you is about as deep as registering for this discussion board. LOL
 
Warspite said:
Psh, "irreplacable". If perpetuality was a requirement of marriage divorce would not be legal - your relationship with your significant other can be terminated like any other contract.
Click to expand...

And at the time it is terminated, the "irreplacable" status is terminated. But while the marriage contract is in effect, your marriage partner is designated as the one person who is irreplacable to you in your life. This has been part of the language used in marriage law since Perez v Sharp.
 
hazlnut said:
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.
Click to expand...

I noticed some of the partisans skipped over this...

They're so busy celebrating New Jersey as some kind of moral victory--they forgot about the little bi-partisan sleeper cell moving quietly through the Federal Court system.

Equality is coming... But we can't depend on legislators or the voting majority to get it right. Legislators are too scared of their constituents to do the right thing, and the voting majority is just plain scared of something they don't fully understand...

It's sex--we can't shake our Puritan roots; at least not publicly.

Airport restrooms, okay.

But in the voting booth when the church group (and God) is watching? No way, Jose.

Got some news for y'all, God is watching. It's time to do the right thing.

It occurred to me that some of the most profound artists, musicians, painters, writers were gay. If God chose them to speak to us, inspire us the way great art does... Then who are we to judge them to be less-than deserving of happiness?
 
jallman said:
And at the time it is terminated, the "irreplacable" status is terminated. But while the marriage contract is in effect, your marriage partner is designated as the one person who is irreplacable to you in your life. This has been part of the language used in marriage law since Perez v Sharp.
Click to expand...

If children aren't involved, I think "irreplacable" is a stretch at best.
 
Erod said:
If children aren't involved, I think "irreplacable" is a stretch at best.
Click to expand...

Legally, it is spot on. The marriage contract treats the married couple as one unit in the eyes of the law. So much so that the 5th amendment is expanded to the couple not being required to incriminate one another. Taxation, mutual inheritance, automatic power of attorney...

In the eyes of the law, when you marry someone, you name them to be your one irreplacable person. How you feel about your spouse is a personal matter but the law sees your marriage as you naming them irreplacable.
 
texmaster said:
Read the OP again. Its about changing the law.
Click to expand...

Again, I was responding to what Mr.V said. Don't like it then perhaps you should be trying to remind the person that brought it up instead of the person that responded to it.
 
Code:
JustineCredible said:
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.
Click to expand...




I think only a liberal would consider this SCOTUS and activist court.....The 9th circuit, yeah......
 
Navy Pride said:
Code:




I think only a liberal would consider this SCOTUS and activist court.....The 9th circuit, yeah......
Click to expand...

No. The SCOTUS is not an "Activist" court...but there are people out there that are certainly trying to make it into one in order to advance a right-wing social agenda. That's for sure.

They don't even try to hide the fact. They have been active in the last decade hoping to get enough activists on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and then continue with their right-wing agenda.
 
hazlnut said:
I noticed some of the partisans skipped over this...

They're so busy celebrating New Jersey as some kind of moral victory--they forgot about the little bi-partisan sleeper cell moving quietly through the Federal Court system.

Equality is coming... But we can't depend on legislators or the voting majority to get it right. Legislators are too scared of their constituents to do the right thing, and the voting majority is just plain scared of something they don't fully understand...

It's sex--we can't shake our Puritan roots; at least not publicly.

Airport restrooms, okay.

But in the voting booth when the church group (and God) is watching? No way, Jose.

Got some news for y'all, God is watching. It's time to do the right thing.

It occurred to me that some of the most profound artists, musicians, painters, writers were gay. If God chose them to speak to us, inspire us the way great art does... Then who are we to judge them to be less-than deserving of happiness?
Click to expand...

So you reposted a case in the future that has no outcome and laced it with hope for your point of view again as always without factual justification for your position and you expect us to reply to what? Your hope?
 
Navy Pride said:
I think when a gay couple can make a baby they will be equal........
Click to expand...

Do you consider infertile heterosexual couples marriage inferior to those who have children?

What about fertile couples that choose not to have children?

BTW Navy....I know many gay couples who were able to make a baby and have children. Do you consider their marriages equal since they have children?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I think the big deal is that NJ authorizes both marriages and civil unions.

If NJ stuck to authorizing civil unions as you suggested they should, there wouldn't be an issue.
Click to expand...

Excellent point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom