New Jersey court recognizes right to same-sex unions

[aquajet]

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/25/gay.marriage/index.html)

TRENTON, New Jersey (CNN) -- In a decision likely to stoke the contentious election-year debate over same-sex marriage, the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that state lawmakers must provide the rights and benefits of marriage to gay and lesbian couples.

The high court on Wednesday gave legislators six months to either change state marriage laws to include same-sex couples, or come up with another mechanism, such as civil unions, that would provide the same protections and benefits.

The court's vote was 4-to-3. But the ruling was more strongly in favor of same-sex marriage than that split would indicate. The three dissenting justices argued the court should have extended full marriage rights to homosexuals, without kicking the issue back to legislators.

Advocates of same-sex marriage hailed the decision, a respite from many defeats this year in courts nationwide.

"That is wonderful news," said Cindy Meneghin, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit by seven same-sex couples that prompted Wednesday's decision. "We can only hope that that means marriage, because that is the only way they can give us full equality." (Watch a couple say why they want to call their 32-year relationship marriage -- 2:01 )

Garden State Equality, a gay rights group, announced that three state legislators plan to introduce a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. In an e-mail to supporters, the chairman of the group, Steven Goldstein, vowed that only "over our dead bodies will we settle for less than 100 percent marriage equality."

...

(my emphasis)

Interesting...

[vniow]

So will this make New Jersey suck less?

[DZ/015]

Dear God, no! Now NJ will have a complete moral and social collapse just like we did up here in Massachusetts when same-sex marriage was legalized.

I am straight and pretty conservative on most issues but could never understand the outcry over allowing same-sex marriage. As far as I am concerned, marry whomever will have you.

[pseudobrit]

So will this make New Jersey suck less?

Suck less what?

[Queso]

The North-Eastern states show once again how they're a completely different country to the rest of the DSA :p

I'm so confused as to how the US, which for so long led the western world when it came to the acceptance of gays, has now fallen so far behind.

[leekohler]

One more state that I can go live in now and feel equal. Cool! I've always wanted to check out Asbury Park. I hear it's being revived (by homos, no less. ;))

[jelloshotsrule]

this is really awesome to see, especially coming from a state where i lived my high school years out.

now, if they could just tackle the cancer/pollution problem.... :p

[IJ Reilly]

The North-Eastern states show once again how they're a completely different country to the rest of the DSA :p

I'm so confused as to how the US, which for so long led the western world when it came to the acceptance of gays, has now fallen so far behind.

California also has a civil unions law, if that makes you feel any better about the rest of the country. New Jersey will probably end up with something similar, if I read the state's politics correctly.

The "m-word" is still a hot-button across the nation, but I'm seeing more successful efforts to detour around it and to extend the same legal rights as marriage to anyone who desires it, but without the name. Maybe some day I'll get my way (fat chance) and government will get entirely out of the marriage business. They will simply oversee the civil domestic contract, and allow churches to decide who they want to call "married."

[Queso]

California also has a civil unions law, if that makes you feel any better about the rest of the country
I've always said that California will be the first state that tries to secede if the US carries on the way it's going, so the different country label applies there too.

[mdntcallr]

Dear God, no! Now NJ will have a complete moral and social collapse just like we did up here in Massachusetts when same-sex marriage was legalized.

I am straight and pretty conservative on most issues but could never understand the outcry over allowing same-sex marriage. As far as I am concerned, marry whomever will have you.

What difference does it make if gay people are allowed to marry?

Fine, don't call it marriage. call it partnering. whatever. Just let them be. they aren't hurting people like the gay people in the catholic church. whoah those priests have issues.

People who object are morons. bigoted morons. Besides, isn't a woman marrying another woman a beautiful thing?
http://www.ananova.com/images/web/282422.jpg

ummm.... errr.... maybe we ought to rethink this. maybe women getting married isn't so hot. (just kidding)

[LethalWolfe]

At first I was confused by the title because I thought it was about labor unions.:o


Lethal

[Thanatoast]

I just can't think of any legitimate reason not to allow gay marriage.

Unfortunately "it's in the bible" doesn't fly for me. Especially when it's Old Testament.

[Queso]

Unfortunately "it's in the bible" doesn't fly for me. Especially when it's Old Testament.
Well, if it says it there in Leviticus, then the Good Lord put it there for a reason.

**Chomps down on bacon sandwich**

[aquajet]

Just in case anybody else is hungry...

[scem0]

yay :). I'm so happy for New Jersey. Hopefully this means the states is moving in a better direction, faster.

e

[beatsme]

I just can't think of any legitimate reason not to allow gay marriage.

I dunno about legitimacy, but I can think of one...maybe.

the American Journal of Public Health (http://www.ajph.org/) did a study a few years ago re: health issues among gay men and women. IIRC, the study showed that gay men/women tend to have a higher incidence of cancer* or other costly medical conditions than the rest of the population...I think. I'm quoting from memory so please correct me if I'm wrong.

anyway, if that's true (here again, IIRC), then it may be that insurance companies and businesses that offer spousal coverage will want to charge more for gay couples than straight couples, since gay couples are (statistically) likely to file more expensive claims.

such a scenario would raise a ton of questions about privacy and equitable treatment before the law. Personally, I'm not sure the country is ready for that.

*it should noted that women who go in for breast cancer screenings are routinely asked fairly personal questions about their spouses, and it is suspected that many gay women avoid being screened for fear of being "outed," the consequence of which is that many gay women do not receive the quality of treatment that early detection can provide.

EDIT: just to be clear, I am in no way opposed to gay marriage. I'm merely presenting what I think is a plausible concern.

[Queso]

the American Journal of Public Health (http://www.ajph.org/) did a study a few years ago re: health issues among gay men and women. IIRC, the study showed that gay men/women tend to have a higher incidence of cancer* or other costly medical conditions than the rest of the population...I think. I'm quoting from memory so please correct me if I'm wrong.
If your Government had enough courage to sort out the US healthcare system, that potential problem would also go away. :rolleyes:

[beatsme]

If your Government had enough courage to sort out the US healthcare system, that potential problem would also go away. :rolleyes:

you mean a comprehensive health-care plan that covers everyone regardless of age or income? HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHA :D what planet are you from?


oh...you're from the planet where every industrialized nation besides the US offers comprehensive health care...:(

[leekohler]

I dunno about legitimacy, but I can think of one...maybe.

the American Journal of Public Health (http://www.ajph.org/) did a study a few years ago re: health issues among gay men and women. IIRC, the study showed that gay men/women tend to have a higher incidence of cancer* or other costly medical conditions than the rest of the population...I think. I'm quoting from memory so please correct me if I'm wrong.

anyway, if that's true (here again, IIRC), then it may be that insurance companies and businesses that offer spousal coverage will want to charge more for gay couples than straight couples, since gay couples are (statistically) likely to file more expensive claims.

such a scenario would raise a ton of questions about privacy and equitable treatment before the law. Personally, I'm not sure the country is ready for that.

*it should noted that women who go in for breast cancer screenings are routinely asked fairly personal questions about their spouses, and it is suspected that many gay women avoid being screened for fear of being "outed," the consequence of which is that many gay women do not receive the quality of treatment that early detection can provide.

EDIT: just to be clear, I am in no way opposed to gay marriage. I'm merely presenting what I think is a plausible concern.

And what causes a lot of this? A lack of way to legally bond two same-sex people. Promiscuity increases the chances of contracting HIV. Marriage or other legal options would encourage monogamy among gays, lessening the chances of HIV contraction. That's just one reason why marriage rights would be beneficial to everyone.

[aquajet]

And what causes a lot of this? A lack of way to legally bond two same-sex people. Promiscuity increases the chances of contracting HIV. Marriage or other legal options would encourage monogamy among gays, lessening the chances of HIV contraction. That's just one reason why marriage rights would be beneficial to everyone.

True, but there are other possible explanations (http://www.thecancerblog.com/2006/06/14/gay-males-at-higher-risk-for-cancer-and-heart-disease/). This one (http://www.thecancerblog.com/2006/06/14/lesbian-women-at-higher-risk-for-breast-cancer/) too. Both are pretty disturbing, especially the self-destructive behavior of many gay men, something that I've witnessed all too often.

[XNine]

Court > Christian/Southern/Redneck bigots.

It's about time someone stepped up. The quote isn't "That all men, except for those that are gay, are created equal." The guote is "that ALL men are created equal."

[Queso]

True, but there are other possible explanations (http://www.thecancerblog.com/2006/06/14/gay-males-at-higher-risk-for-cancer-and-heart-disease/). This one (http://www.thecancerblog.com/2006/06/14/lesbian-women-at-higher-risk-for-breast-cancer/) too. Both are pretty disturbing, especially the self-destructive behavior of many gay men, something that I've witnessed all too often.
There are self-destructive people in every societal group. For instance, some married women are battered, but that doesn't mean that a woman is more at risk of being battered if she gets married. However, when it comes to gays a lumping together of everyone under one label seems to be acceptable. Why?

We're not all chain-smoking bed-hopping druggies and if anyone attempted to make me pay increased insurance premiums based on these studies and my sexuality without actually looking at my vegetarian non-smoking monogamous lifestyle first I would kick up a right stink in as many media outlets as I could.

[yg17]

So, how long until Fred Phelps & Co. head over to New Jersey and protest?

[Queso]

So, how long until Fred Phelps & Co. head over to New Jersey and protest?
Had to check ;)

http://www.godhatesnewjersey.com/

[jelloshotsrule]

Had to check ;)

http://www.godhatesnewjersey.com/

that is awesome

[zimv20]

Had to check ;)

http://www.godhatesnewjersey.com/
ha!