Comments on: civil unions? marriage?

civil unions? marriage?

amberglow — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:26:33 -0800

NJ says yes to same-sex marriage! (altho it might not be called that in the end) -- link to pdf of ruling here.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:31:10 -0800

in terms of the elections: both Kean and Melendez have said they're against federal amendments barring it, but also against legalizing it. ...Both candidates say marriage should be between a man and a woman, and New Jersey Republicans are largely Kean-Whitman moderates, not bible belters -- so it's unlikely that a pro-gay marriage decision will shake up that particular race much. ... Is this handing a redmeat issue to the GOP? fallout?

By: gurple

gurple — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:31:52 -0800

Way to energize the Republican base! Gah! I'm sorry. This is just all-around good news. But right now everything I read I place in the context of its effect on November 7. On preview... what everybody else seems to be thinking.

By: NationalKato

NationalKato — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:32:10 -0800

Who cares what it's called, equality is the issue and citizens of New Jersey have won. Good work, Garden State!

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:32:25 -0800

Start the countdown to man on dog sex. But seriously, great result, but it would have been better achieved through a legislation or a plebiscite, and it's terrible timing.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:33:41 -0800

the AP's take: AP NJ court stops short of gay marriage OK---New Jersey's highest court ruled Wednesday that gay couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but that lawmakers must determine whether the state will honor gay marriage or some other form of civil union. ...

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:34:49 -0800

George Bush's stance on the issue back in 2004:

"President Bush said in an interview this past weekend that he disagreed with the Republican Party platform opposing civil unions of same-sex couples and that the matter should be left up to the states." "Mr. Bush has previously said that states should be permitted to allow same-sex unions, even though White House officials have said he would not have endorsed such unions as governor of Texas. But Mr. Bush has never before made a point of so publicly disagreeing with his party's official position on the issue." "In an interview on Sunday with Charles Gibson, an anchor of "Good Morning America" on ABC, Mr. Bush said, "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so." ABC, which broadcast part of the interview on Monday, is to broadcast the part about civil unions on Tuesday.".... "I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between a man and a woman. Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others."

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:36:36 -0800

the NYT: ...The court gave the legislature a six-month deadline to enact the necessary legislation to provide for same-sex unions. ...

By: agregoli

agregoli — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:37:26 -0800

Hooray! This is great news!

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:38:30 -0800

I wonder how and if this will play into the Foley scandal--and the recent Crist outing also in FL.

By: bshort

bshort — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:39:15 -0800

Reading the summary from Amberglow's link, this is wonderful news, and probably won't get the Republican base too riled up. I still wish the decision had been delayed by a couple of weeks.

By: gigawhat?

gigawhat? — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:40:00 -0800

October thurprise!

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:44:17 -0800

and 8 more states have anti-marriage amendments on the ballot in November

By: CaptApollo

CaptApollo — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:46:40 -0800

This is great! And it's leaving it to the elected officials to name it (going straight from here to AskMe to ask for suggested names), so fundies can't scream about 'activist judges.' Hooray! I am so proud of the Garden State!

By: halekon

halekon — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:47:06 -0800

At a crossroads on gay unions By John Lewis, 10/25/2003 FROM TIME to time, America comes to a crossroads. With confusion and controversy, it's hard to spot that moment. We need cool heads, warm hearts, and America's core principles to cleanse away the distractions. We are now at such a crossroads over same-sex couples' freedom to marry. It is time to say forthrightly that the government's exclusion of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters from civil marriage officially degrades them and their families. It denies them the basic human right to marry the person they love. It denies them numerous legal protections for their families. This discrimination is wrong. We cannot keep turning our backs on gay and lesbian Americans. I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I've heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred, and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry. Some say let's choose another route and give gay folks some legal rights but call it something other than marriage. We have been down that road before in this country. Separate is not equal. The rights to liberty and happiness belong to each of us and on the same terms, without regard to either skin color or sexual orientation. Some say they are uncomfortable with the thought of gays and lesbians marrying. But our rights as Americans do not depend on the approval of others. Our rights depend on us being Americans. Sometimes it takes courts to remind us of these basic principles. In 1948, when I was 8 years old, 30 states had bans on interracial marriage, courts had upheld the bans many times, and 90 percent of the public disapproved of those marriages, saying they were against the definition of marriage, against God's law. But that year, the California Supreme Court became the first court in America to strike down such a ban. Thank goodness some court finally had the courage to say that equal means equal, and others rightly followed, including the US Supreme Court 19 years later. Some stand on the ground of religion, either demonizing gay people or suggesting that civil marriage is beyond the Constitution. But religious rites and civil rights are two separate entities. What's at stake here is legal marriage, not the freedom of every religion to decide on its own religious views and ceremonies. I remember the words of John Kennedy when his presidential candidacy was challenged because of his faith: "I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Jewish -- where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the pope, the National Council of Churches, or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials -- and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all." Those words ring particularly true today. We hurt our fellow citizens and our community when we deny gay people civil marriage and its protections and responsibilities. Rather than divide and discriminate, let us come together and create one nation. We are all one people. We all live in the American house. We are all the American family. Let us recognize that the gay people living in our house share the same hopes, troubles, and dreams. It's time we treated them as equals, as family. John Lewis, a Democratic congressman from Georgia, was one of the original speakers at the 1963 March on Washington and is author of "Walking With the Wind: A Memoir of the Movement."

By: matteo

matteo — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:48:34 -0800

all the GOP needs now is a gay adoption ruling. they're almost there.

By: Benny Andajetz

Benny Andajetz — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:51:24 -0800

It's a sad sign that we right-thinking liberals have been cowed for so long that we could ever consider this bad news. Rejoice. Progress appears to be marching on, and I, for one, hope this portends the upcoming Great Democratic Renaissance. Middle America is waking up to the fact that conservatism, as practiced today, is, at heart, mean-spirited and doctrinaire. While this is still a contentious issue, there is an innoculative effect when the public is confronted with it over and over. Americans, by and large, believe in fair play. Same-sex unions will come to pass.

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:52:08 -0800

But seriously, great result, but it would have been better achieved through a legislation or a plebiscite, and it's terrible timing. Actually, I think it's safe to say any Democrat's electoral fears should be put to rest. The Court specifically says that there's no constitutional right to be "married," and that the legislative process should simply allow the option of either establishing marriage without gender or creating a (yeah, ugh, but still) separate but equal terminology. This was as close the the mainstream Democratic platform for gay marriage in 2004 as any court and legislature has come, and it's blisteringly moderate and level-headed compared to the scare tactics that the right wing has been screaming about. Kean is simply not going to oppose this; if he does he's insane. The biggest gnashing of keyboards the pundits could make would be "judicial tyranny" and the Court shattered that by simply A. confirming a law that had already been passed through the Democratic legislative process, and B. mandating that the same process regulates it. All the while, gay couples are finally awarded equal rights in the great state of New Jersey.

By: caddis

caddis — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:52:27 -0800

The timing could not be worse. It's as if Karl Rove picked the date for the decision to come out. This completely undoes all of the damage done by the Foley scandal. Two more years of GOP control of both the Senate and the House.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:54:23 -0800

the couples involved have been in the courts since June 2002

By: dead_

dead_ — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:56:17 -0800

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:56:27 -0800

thanks for posting that, halekon: Some say they are uncomfortable with the thought of gays and lesbians marrying. But our rights as Americans do not depend on the approval of others. Our rights depend on us being Americans.

By: dead_

dead_ — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:56:49 -0800

I hope I don't need a "jk" after that. But just in case...

By: jonmc

jonmc — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:57:27 -0800

dude, it's Jersey. the toxic waste has mutated all residents into hermaphrodites anyway, so they probably figured 'what the hell?'

By: ob

ob — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:59:11 -0800

Good old NJ!

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:59:27 -0800

Getting elected without principles or positions is not much of a victory. This is a victory--one that we were wrongfully denied in WA and NY.

By: booksherpa

booksherpa — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:03:34 -0800

Interesting note - the decision was 4-3, and the 3 in the minority aren't opposed to same-sex marriage; they feel the ruling did not go far enough, that the ruling should have been to make same-sex marriage legal in NJ. People can say what they like about timing and all, but I am extra proud to be from New Jersey today. For local opinion: NJ.com, basically the Star Ledger's website.

By: brain_drain

brain_drain — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:05:42 -0800

Gay Marriage Proponents Hope To Send Message To Religious Right Before Election

By: matteo

matteo — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:05:55 -0800

Getting elected without principles or positions is not much of a victory. losing the fourth election in a row is not much of a victory, either

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:08:53 -0800

Eh, someone will always complain about the timing.

By: gurple

gurple — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:09:06 -0800

This is a victory--one that we were wrongfully denied in WA and NY. To that point... I don't know much about the NJ case and its political environment, but in WA, a lot of people seem to believe that, had the case gone the way it should have, there would have been an anti-gay-marriage amendment before the legislature before you could open the first bottle of champagne. Such an amendment probably wouldn't have passed, but some pro-gay-marriage folks here were actually breathing a sigh of relief that the King County case _wasn't_ won, at least not this time. So, what happens now in NJ? Is it a clearer victory there than it might have been in WA?

By: caddis

caddis — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:09:59 -0800

That Onion piece pretty much describes what happend in the '04 elections. This issue probably gave us four years of GW.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:09:59 -0800

I think it might help the GOP only in the 8 states (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin) that have the amendments on the ballots--it'll drive up turnout there--Allen definitely gets helped in VA, i think, unfortunately.

By: pardonyou?

pardonyou? — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:12:21 -0800

I guess it came too late for Vito Spatafore.

By: thewittyname

thewittyname — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:13:35 -0800

This decision will make for VERY interesting debates in the NJ Legislature in the near future. New Jersey has the potential to be the tipping point in the status of single-sex marriage in the United States. The biggest fear of conservatives has been the ability of same-sex couples to "spread" same-sex marriage outside of any state where it is currently legal. Right now, only Massachusetts allows for gay marriage. Due to the outrageously bigoted application of a long-unenforced 1913 law (which prevents out of state couples from being married in MA if their home state will not allow the marriage), single-sex marriage has effectively been "contained" in Massachusetts. (Note, this may change once Deval Patrick is elected governor, but who knows). New Jersey has no such equivalent of MA's 1913 law, so if NJ were to allow same-sex marriages and not just civil unions, it would be possible for same-sex couples from any state to be married in NJ. They would then return to their home state and sue to have their marriages recognized. These suits would probably be brought in federal court (because in many states, the anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendments make court challenges moot). Federal courts would probably rule against these couples, citing DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) which prevents a federal court from forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriages. This would be appealed, probably on multiple grounds, but especially on the grounds that DOMA violates equal protection and the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution. The case would eventually go to the Supreme Court, and everyone gets to hold their breath awaiting the result. (If the Court were to hear such a case today, it would all come down to what Justice Kennedy decides, because the rest of the Court is easily split 4-4).

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:13:50 -0800

gurple, if an amendment wouldn't have passed, why was there worry? Interesting fact about marriage in NJ: there's no residency law, unlike in Mass, so any American can marry there, and then take their marriage to their own state courts.

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:15:48 -0800

Homoleftyfilter.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:15:53 -0800

oops--rather, what thewittyname said : >

By: jonmc

jonmc — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:16:45 -0800

Hey, in Jersey anything's legal as long as you don't get caught...

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:17:03 -0800

So, what happens now in NJ? Is it a clearer victory there than it might have been in WA? Probably. NJ already passed a civil unions bill a few years ago, and the Democrats retained the legislature in the next two elections, and likely will again next year (NJ votes off-year). There would have been a bigger issue if the Court mandated gay marriage, but they didn't; they mandated equal rights and I don't see that as a winning issue for candidates to oppose in a generally left-leaning state like Jersey.

By: owhydididoit

owhydididoit — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:18:38 -0800

I'm not so convinced that this will have a big impact on the elections. It has nothing to do with the economy, Iraq, overzealous surveillance, or the death of habeas corpus, and those issues seem to be much more pivotal in the polls right now. I'm happy to call it a victory.

By: DevilsAdvocate

DevilsAdvocate — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:19:05 -0800

(going straight from here to AskMe to ask for suggested names), Why? Is discussion of possible names prohibited in this thread?

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:22:32 -0800

oh, thewittyname, if NJ goes the VT route with Civil Unions containing exactly the same benefits as marriage, will the same scenario still play out?

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:23:35 -0800

owhydididoit: I'm not so convinced that this will have a big impact on the elections. It has nothing to do with the economy, Iraq, overzealous surveillance, or the death of habeas corpus, and those issues seem to be much more pivotal in the polls right now. I'm happy to call it a victory. That, and in many districts the dems have done a successful job playing the kinder gentler anti-gay party. So we go to the polls choosing between two candidates who have vowed to block gay marriage.

By: Benny Andajetz

Benny Andajetz — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:24:11 -0800

losing the fourth election in a row is not much of a victory, either Will this issue energize the right-wing loony branch? Probably. More of them may vote than would have. But the middle is breaking away from the ends, and the right fringe voter is not gonna hold sway like they did four years ago. I just don't see it as a huge problem.

By: gurple

gurple — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:24:25 -0800

gurple, if an amendment wouldn't have passed, why was there worry? Because it probably wouldn't have passed. What would be more horrific than winning a case like that and having the legislature crap all over your victory? The decision in the WA case was actually pretty fascinating. The plurality decision basically said "this case wasn't brought on the correct grounds. Come back and pitch it in a different way. Or, wait a few years while the cultural climate changes and pitch it in the same way". There was a "concurrence" of judges who agreed with the verdict but felt the need to lash out against gay marriage in their own decision. In WA the next step is definitely a legislative attempt, and I hope we see that soon.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:24:30 -0800

And meet the 7 couples here: Cindy Meneghin and Maureen Kilian met at De Paul Roman Catholic High School in Wayne in 1973 and became high school sweethearts. They have been together ever since....

By: alms

alms — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:29:07 -0800

This is a great decision. It gives people their rights, and throws the hot potato to the legislature where it belongs. Meanwhile, Barney Frank tears Republican hypocrites a new one (YouTube) in his own inimitable way.

By: hojoki

hojoki — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:31:39 -0800

Come on, New York! You gonna let New Jersey show us up like this? It's friggin' New Jersey, fucryinoutloud!

By: matteo

matteo — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:33:50 -0800

Will this issue energize the right-wing loony branch? Probably no, it's a clear-cut issue: two weeks from an election all politics is electoral -- all about math. is this ruling going to bring to the polls more Republicans who would have stayed home otherwise or more Democrats?

By: John Kenneth Fisher

John Kenneth Fisher — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:35:11 -0800

By: matteo

matteo — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:36:54 -0800

(anyway we can bookmark this thread, it'll still be open on Nov 8)

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:37:26 -0800

Come on, New York! You gonna let New Jersey show us up like this? It's friggin' New Jersey, fucryinoutloud! I know!!!! ; > and what John Kenneth Fisher said--spread the word. I hope they don't throw in a residency poison pill requirement while crafting it.

By: thewittyname

thewittyname — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:37:55 -0800

oh, thewittyname, if NJ goes the VT route with Civil Unions containing exactly the same benefits as marriage, will the same scenario still play out? I doubt it, because so far no other state has recognized a VT or CT civil union as being equivalent to a marriage. That wouldn't stop someone from arguing that NJ's civil unions are somehow different, but I don't see that as a winning argument. The Massachusetts Supreme Court got it right - it's not enough to grant eqaul rights under seperate labels. The label itself carries power, both legally and socially. It allows homosexuals to participate in the same institution that has long been given reciprocity by the states. Calling it civil unions allows a state to say, it may give you equal rights in NJ, but it's not marriage, so we don't have to recognize it.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:39:24 -0800

has Corzine commented yet? I wonder if he'll push them to do Civil Unions?

By: Benny Andajetz

Benny Andajetz — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:44:38 -0800

no, it's a clear-cut issue: two weeks from an election all politics is electoral -- all about math. is this ruling going to bring to the polls more Republicans who would have stayed home otherwise or more Democrats? It's not that clear cut. The question is will it bring out enough Republicans to make up for the voters the Republican party is hemorraghing? The religious right has only helped the Republicans over the top, they have never constituted the bulk of the party.

By: John Kenneth Fisher

John Kenneth Fisher — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:44:50 -0800

Now it's CRITICAL for NJ residents to call their state legislatures and ask them to support the bill that will shortly be introduced by Assembly Speaker Pro Tem Wilfredo Caraballo, Assemblyman Brian Stack and Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, which will make marriage proper legal for ALL citizens. It is also just as critical to identify yourselves as straight if, in fact, you are. The majority of NJ citizens support gay marriage, let's make sure the legislature know that.

By: Saucy Intruder

Saucy Intruder — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:49:30 -0800

There's no way that there's 4 votes in SCOTUS for striking down DOMA on equal protection grounds. I agree, however, that a residency poison pill is inevitable in any bill allowing gay marriage.

By: StrasbourgSecaucus

StrasbourgSecaucus — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:55:38 -0800

Way to energize the Republican base! I find it's more effective to work the Republican shaft and balls.

By: ibmcginty

ibmcginty — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:55:47 -0800

This is manna from heaven for the GOP. amberglow, you might be right about the similarity in positions between Kean II and Menendez, but 2004 showed us that that doesn't matter. The fact today is that the GOP gets the "I'm an angry persecuted Christian" vote, even though there was about zero daylight between Bush and Kerry on this issue. It's a boon for Republicans all around the country.

By: raedyn

raedyn — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:59:02 -0800

Meanwhile, in Canada, the Conservative minority government is gearing up to hold a free vote on same sex marriage before Christmas. Even though courts in something like 5 provinces (I don't recall the exact number) have already ruled that the old way was contrary to the Charter & there have already been thousands of gay & lesbian couples married under the equal marriage law.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:00:46 -0800

HTML version of the ruling here ... HELD: Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process. ... At this point, the Court does not consider whether committed same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, but only whether those couples are entitled to the same rights and benefits afforded to married heterosexual couples. Cast in that light, the issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people. ... Thus, under our current laws, committed same-sex couples and their children are not afforded the benefits and protections available to similar heterosexual households. ... There is something distinctly unfair about the State recognizing the right of same-sex couples to raise natural and adopted children and placing foster children with those couples, and yet denying those children the financial and social benefits and privileges available to children in heterosexual households. Five of the seven plaintiff couples are raising or have raised children. There is no rational basis for visiting on those children a flawed and unfair scheme directed at their parents. To the extent that families are strengthened by encouraging monogamous relationships, whether heterosexual or homosexual, we cannot discern any public need that would justify the legal disabilities that now afflict same-sex domestic partnerships. ... Raised here is the perplexing question -- "what's in a name?" -- and is a name itself of constitutional magnitude after the State is required to provide full statutory rights and benefits to same-sex couples? We are mindful that in the cultural clash over same-sex marriage, the word marriage itself -- independent of the rights and benefits of marriage -- has an evocative and important meaning to both parties. Under our equal protection jurisprudence, however, plaintiffs' claimed right to the name of marriage is surely not the same now that equal rights and benefits must be conferred on committed same-sex couples. We do not know how the Legislature will proceed to remedy the equal pro tection disparities that current ly exist in our statutory scheme. ...

By: raedyn

raedyn — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:01:10 -0800

My point? Don't allow yourselves to relax just because you've won one victory. There are people working to defeat those hard won rights, even after they're enshrined in law & in the constitution.

By: nickmark

nickmark — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:05:50 -0800

"The issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people." What the court said.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:11:55 -0800

I find it's more effective to work the Republican shaft and balls. So does this hottie, clearly. ; >

By: smackfu

smackfu — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:14:14 -0800

Well, I really doubt it will affect the three big house elections in Connecticut. Because the reaction to our own civil union bill was a big fat yawn. Gay marriage isn't even in the list of important issues to voters, according to the last poll I saw. (We also don't care about immigration, go figure.)

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:21:03 -0800

"We also don't care about immigration, go figure." Like anyone would ever immigrate to CT.

By: sohcahtoa

sohcahtoa — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:23:11 -0800

Meant in jest, I realize, but man of my friends from CT are the children of immigrants (bankers or UNers, though).

By: Danf

Danf — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:38:12 -0800

There was this joke I recently heard that went along the lines of someone wondering why anyone could be against same sex marriage. . .because anyone who IS married knows that it's ALWAYS the same sex! On a serious note, I think that the next generation will view people who fought same-sex marriage in the same way that we think of the people a generation ago that wanted blacks to have different drinking fountains than whites.

By: norm

norm — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:38:27 -0800

Again, the courts deliver where politicians are too cowardly to do the right thing. It's cases like this that reinforce the lesson that railing against "activist judges" is usually code in favor of bigotry. Another win for separation of powers.

By: mrbill

mrbill — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:39:25 -0800

This is cool.

By: four panels

four panels — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:40:19 -0800

Don't Forget to Pray for Election Day "In a Christian nation, we have the biblical responsibility as well as the patriotic responsibility to cast our vote for those who govern us," he said. "We want people to spend time praying that those who are elected will align themselves with God's laws. We also want them to get out and vote so the Christian understanding is captured in the vote." Note: this shit is tax-exempt "You've seen Hollywood embrace "gay pride." You've been told that homosexuals make up 10 percent of the population (the actual number is less than 3 percent). Perhaps you've struggled with troubling thoughts, causing you to wonder about your gender identity, or maybe you've even sought to meet your needs for companionship and acceptance through a same-sex relationship. If so, you need to know that you do have a choice in the matter, that you're not simply "wired that way." Indeed, you don't have to be gay — there is hope for those who want to change."

By: ibmcginty

ibmcginty — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:46:07 -0800

My god, four panels, what a horrifying, deceitful, amoral website that Focus on the Pharisees one is. Preventing homosexuality. As important as parent-child dynamics are, they aren't the only concerns. The following factors can also contribute to the homosexual orientation. • the individual person's self-will • pornography • media and culture • spousal abuse in the home • molestation and pedophilia • parental adultery • moral relativism • seduction by peers • chemical imbalances • failure of leadership

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:49:36 -0800

You know, next time I need to explain why I think the progessive movement in the United States is a piece of shit, all I have to do is point to the moral and political cowardace demonstrated in this thread.

By: graymouser

graymouser — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:04:41 -0800

Nice. We also have a moratorium on the death penalty at the moment, which is all shiny. As to how this will play in NJ politics: well, there will probably be some jokes about McGreevey (who came out of the closet a couple of hours before he was going to get called corrupt); and maybe the in-state newspapers will stop screaming about property taxes or government corruption for 5 minutes, that's always a possibility. ... But unless gay marriage / civil unions somehow changes the property taxes or corrupt officials have gay weddings, I don't see it making a big dent.

By: wfc123

wfc123 — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:07:40 -0800

Way to energize the Republican base! Exactly. How else do you get the non-rich to vote for Republicans? Invent or co-opt "issues", like abortion, flag-burning, family values, marriage "referendum", the Ten Commandments on gv't. property... blah blah blah... The GOP could never run on its true agenda, because only 1% of the population would vote for Republicans every time there was an election.

By: fixedgear

fixedgear — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:11:42 -0800

Hooray for the Garden State!

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:26:12 -0800

There was this joke I recently heard that went along the lines of someone wondering why anyone could be against same sex marriage. . .because anyone who IS married knows that it's ALWAYS the same sex! That's from Bill Maher:

"All marriages are same-sex marriages--you go to bed every night, and it's the same sex!"

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:30:11 -0800

I find it's more effective to work the Republican shaft and balls. If you're going to get fucked by the GOP you might as well enjoy it.

By: parmanparman

parmanparman — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:34:44 -0800

I interviewed Mel White today, he is the leader of Soul Force, which is working to end religious-based discrimination of gay and lesbian Americans. Unfortunately, this judgement passed after I had completed the interview, but he outlines to me that the religious right's war on gays began because they could no longer get people motivated to fighting communism. Members of the religious right met and discussed the supposed Gay Agenda, which is as hoaxy as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (but was inserted into the Congressional Record anyway). Listen to Christian conservative leaders talk about gays and lesbians: Pat Robertson: "The America that homosexuals are demanding is a sewer of moral filth, a place of spiritual anarchy, an environment that's incredibly dangerous to our children, a culture that despises Christian faith and morality." James Dobson: "This is an issue America has got to wake up to. The homosexual agenda is a beast. It wants our kids...Moms and dads, are you listening? This movement is the greatest threat to your children. It is a particular danger to your wide-eyed boys, who have no idea what demoralization is planned for them" Change 'gay' and 'homosexual' to Jew and Jewish and you get the idea of the kind of prejudice gays and lesbians are facing from the religious right. It is time we, as faithful Americans who pray not for but together and in alliance with our gay and lesbian brethren, stop laughing at Pat Robertson when he cites Leviticus and start talking out against him. Be angry, be strong, fight back. God bless America.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:36:21 -0800

The basic fact of the matter is, it's never going to be the "right time." I live in the midst of the Hill(D)/Sodrel(R) shoot-out in which Hill(D) is running to regain the seat he lost in 2004. The Sodrel campaign has pulled out scare-votes from 4 years ago in push-polls. Something like, "did you know that Hill voted against prescription drugs for senior citizens?" If this decision fucking came out on Christmas day, it would be carted out for the next the next primary cycle. These are people who still are bitter over Clinton eight years ago. To heck with that, they will go on about how the 70s were a big mistake, and half of them can't remember that time. Gay rights pisses off bigots. Get over it. Or better yet, get over your cheap self and find your local pflag chapter. Put the rainbow flag on your porch next to the American one. Wear the pink or purple triangle and let people make their own conclusions at first glance. Push the issue in the city council and your city newspaper. Rather than bitching about "energizing the Republican base" at every step forward, why not get off your ass and undermine it? For that matter, you don't even need to get off your ass. Just openly wear queer and queer-positive badges showing where you stand, and you will be amazed at how many allies you energize, and how small conversations can open up minds. And lets be blunt here. Isn't it pathetic that the only thing that the Democrats have to go on is coattails of scandal and current events? The Republican party deserves to loose, but the Democrats don't deserve to win. The Democrats have offered no agenda, no justice, no clear platform, just a promise that a deadlocked federal government couldn't be worse than the government we have. Yeaaaaa! Whoop di god-fucking dooo! (And to stave off the snark, yes, I voted by paper ballot and have been encouraging everyone I meet to do the same.)

By: caddis

caddis — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:02:37 -0800

How else do you get the non-rich to vote for Republicans? Invent or co-opt "issues", like abortion, flag-burning, family values, marriage "referendum", the Ten Commandments on gv't. property... blah blah blah... The GOP could never run on its true agenda, because only 1% of the population would vote for Republicans every time there was an election. posted by wfc123 at 6:07 PM EST on October 25 Exactly The basic fact of the matter is, it's never going to be the "right time." True, but two weeks before an election is really the wrong time. If this had happened say last December it would be a non-issue by now. The country is in dire, dire straights, and it really was starting to look like the Dems might pull it off and take back at least the House. Now, I am not so sure. Perhaps people are really more disgusted with the Iraq war than I give them credit for, but this issue cost the Dems the '04 election and now it is poised to do the same in '06. In '04 I thought the people pushing this were just being selfish as they knew what it meant for the overall election. This time, the timing is not their fault, it is just horrible luck with a justice casting the deciding vote facing mandatory retirement tomorrow. Aghhhhhhhhh!

By: eriko

eriko — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:11:13 -0800

Now, I am not so sure. Exactly. Gift from the heavens for the GOP, because they'll start screaming Gays!, and that will knock Foley right out of the meme pool. Next three days will be Gays!, then we'll have Dear Leader's new course for Iraq. Dems gain niether house, lose seats in the Senate. The glimmer of light is that Joe Lieberman will be *fucked* -- no reason for the GOP to be nice to him if he's not the Fox Democrat, no reason for the Democrats to be nice to him if he can't give them the majority. If the Democrats had actually *fought* this issue before, rather than dodging it, this wouldn't have happened. Now, the GOP is going to headlight this, and the Fucking Democrats are going to spend the week trying to weasel out of saying "Well, gays should be able to marry."

By: scody

scody — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:19:06 -0800

Jesus christ, we're never going to have a meaningful progressive movement in this country until people who claim to be on our side refuse to be fucking cowed by fear any longer that they quit biting their nails and start using their fucking spines. The right will never be defeated until we start winning victories at every chance we get. The Dems may think "cower" is a suitable strategy for winning rights, but they are fucking mistaken.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:47:23 -0800

what scody said. And it's not even progressive to be for same-sex marriage, but just normal and even traditional. The Democrats have all run away from this issue--too fucking bad if it bites them again. The GOP always uses it--they should have learned way before now.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:01:03 -0800

Debbie Woodell: We are married

By: Slarty Bartfast

Slarty Bartfast — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:10:08 -0800

Equal marriage is a human rights issue, there is a clear line between the right side of the issue and the wrong side of the issue. Yes, the Republicans will use it to bring out the rednecks to the polls and I agree the timing of this case is less than ideal. However, continuing to avoid the issue is, in the long run, detrimental to the Democrats. It's akin to voting for the Iraq war because it was politically expedient at the time. 10 years from now, we'll be asking the Democrats who run from this issue, "Where the hell were you when it mattered?" The response to the rednecks who might be thinking of switching their vote because of this is, "Look at what has happened to your financial security, your personal freedom, and your physical well being in the last six years. You are in much greater danger of being fucked in the ass by the Republicans in power than by the married gay couple down the street."

By: Slarty Bartfast

Slarty Bartfast — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:14:31 -0800

And furthermore, running from the issue just reinforces the idea that Democrats have a secret agenda that isn't in line with ordinary working folks in middle America. Get a back bone you pussies! Stop letting the Republicans push you around!

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:31:28 -0800

caddis: True, but two weeks before an election is really the wrong time. If this had happened say last December it would be a non-issue by now. I disagree. I'm getting campaign mail talking about stuff that happened three and four years ago. The gay marriage and domestic partnership issue came up in the primaries. It is foolish to think that the right does not have long memories. The only way it's going to be a "non-issue" is for gay rights advocates to either just give up in the United States, or finally win this battle. The country is in dire, dire straights, and it really was starting to look like the Dems might pull it off and take back at least the House. Now, I am not so sure. Perhaps people are really more disgusted with the Iraq war than I give them credit for, but this issue cost the Dems the '04 election and now it is poised to do the same in '06. In '04 I thought the people pushing this were just being selfish as they knew what it meant for the overall election. This time, the timing is not their fault, it is just horrible luck with a justice casting the deciding vote facing mandatory retirement tomorrow. Aghhhhhhhhh! Those who would call others selfish for attempting to claim the basic human rights owed to them are bigots and traitors. Bigots because those who are truely for basic human rights will justify no compromise or quarter, and would not presume to call people selfish for demanding those rights. Traitors because the promise of these rights are the foundational principle on which the United States is built. And if you are not LGBT, and if you are not willing to take the risk of being seen as LGBT, then your opinion on this matter isn't worth a pile of shit anyway. (Less because a pile of shit is actually good for something.) (And yes, my position on this has changed a bit, because I finally realized that the "right time" means "never.") scody: Jesus christ, we're never going to have a meaningful progressive movement in this country until people who claim to be on our side refuse to be fucking cowed by fear any longer that they quit biting their nails and start using their fucking spines. The right will never be defeated until we start winning victories at every chance we get. The progressive movement is dead (mortally wounded after Seattle and Philly), and never did much anyway besides play follow the radicals. Here is what we need, my dear old grandmother may have had many faults, but in the '60s she refused to collaborate with segregationists. She'd sit at the colored counters, used the colored restrooms, and drank from the colored water fountains. It's time for straight democrats to shit or get off the pot here. Resist or collaborate. Either take the risks of crossing the line and taking a stand. Or be outed as yet another coward collaborator and bigot. Those who are not willing to openly identify themselves as lgbt, who are not willing to stand in front of angry crowds, and classrooms of stupid questions. Those who refuse to march or only do so with the "straight but not narrow" shirt. Those who wouldn't dare show the rainbow, labrys, or triangles for fear of what others might think. Those who have never led discussions, manned hotlines, or helped a person through one of the three plagues of queer life in America (HIV, drug abuse, and suicide). Those who have never walked hand in hand or kissed a MOTSS openly on the street. Those who have never and would never take the risk of being targeted for anti-lgbt prejudice, don't have any right or privelege to say "not the right time" or say that others are "selfish" for their politics.

By: eriko

eriko — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:38:42 -0800

The progressive movement is dead (mortally wounded after Seattle and Philly) Dude, the Progressives were mortally wounded in 1978, and mostly died out early in Reagan's term. The last progressive politician died in a plane crash in MInnesota years ago. I'd be fucking happy if the moderates grew a spine, but the Democrats apparently think the Tories are too fucking leftist.

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:39:02 -0800

I'm currently siding with the "wait-and-see" camp as to what impact today's New Jersey ruling will have on the national level for the mid-term elections. Iraq looms so large -- as further evidence by Bush's press conference today. The original Republican pre-election strategy of focusing on terrorism has been supplanted by a need to address the dire situation in Iraq. How this plays out over the next 13 days -- who knows? This evening's NBC Nightly News looked at Ohio and the current political climate there. Whether it will be a bellwether for the rest of the country has yet to be determined.

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:41:23 -0800

However, Bill Frist's advice to GOP candidates: Don't Stress Iraq. A case of "na-na-na-na, I can;t hear you?"

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:46:01 -0800

(And yes, my position on this has changed a bit, because I finally realized that the "right time" means "never.") Bingo. Exactly. Just as I -- and others -- have realized that there is never a "right time" to come out to one's family and friends. Relying on "the right time" canard is just an excuse and a debilitating crutch -- an avoidance of what's right and inevitable (if one is to be true to one's self).

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:25:11 -0800

And ok, "progressives" who don't want to loose elections over this need to take a page out of the playbooks of the black civil rights movement and the womens' movements. You push the legislation and the lawsuits but you also push the electorate. You do what is called "consiousness raising." You speak out to your churches and sports teams about the evils of prejudice. You openly wear symbols and talk openly when someone asks about them. You march in solidarity taking the risks. You make a point of drinking at "that bar" and buying something from "that bookstore." You volunteer for petition drives. You write letters to the editor as often as they will let you. In your day to day conversations you use every anti-gay joke and slur as a teaching moment. Some will call you obsessed, strident, shrill, unfun, naive, silly, pervert, queer-lover, satanic, or if you are lucky, "gay." Some will tell you to go home, shut up, or just give it a rest. You might find yourself the target of harassment or violence. But more frequently you will find allies and fellow travelers from unexpected directions. You won't convert the most hard-core bigot (perhaps move them a bit), but you will chip cracks in the wall of certainty of many, and pull fence-sitters to your side. And really, that's all you need to do. Support your fellow travelers, welcome the undecided, and open up doubt in the certain. It is so easy to undermine the Republican base on this issue. The landscape has changed to an amazing degree since Reagan. They know that base is being washed out from under their foundation year after year which is why "marriage" is the line of sandbags. If "progressives" want to speed this up, turn the trickle of LGBT advocates into a flood. Openly wear the pride colors and symbols. Boldly flirt with the possibility that you will be seen as LGBT. (This means no "straight but not narrow" shirts.) Then when someone asks, give your testimony, short, sweet and simple. If you need to, write it on a card and practice in the mirror. You don't have to argue with the closed, just honestly describe your convictions to the interested. And that is the foundation of social revolutions.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:30:56 -0800

NJ says yes to same-sex marriage! utter nonsense. who'd marry new jersey?

By: McGuillicuddy

McGuillicuddy — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:41:02 -0800

It has probably been posted elsewhere, but there has been a recent Superior Court ruling in Massachusetts that allows same-sex couples from Rhode Island to get married here. More info...

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:48:41 -0800

Congratulations, New Jersey! Meanwhile, our idiot federal government is threatening to re-open the issue. God, I hope we get a new election PDQ.

By: Divine_Wino

Divine_Wino — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:09:59 -0800

Hurray for good old dirty Jerz and good old dirty human rights!

By: scottreynen

scottreynen — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:11:07 -0800

Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" - Martin Luther King, Letter from Birmingham Jail

By: HyperBlue

HyperBlue — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:42:48 -0800

KirkJobSluder's passionate framing in this thread has inspired me to vocalize my support of LGBT rights more vehemently. Does this make me gay? If so, open the motherfucking closet cause I'm coming out! (no mean feat in Oklahoma, Bible Belt Buckle, USA) Thanks for making it so crystal.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:45:44 -0800

Cool, welcome.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:09:09 -0800

So what is it about New Jersey that makes it so progressive? My impression from a coastline and country away is that it's an industrial type of place. But then I also associate it with cows...

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:20:56 -0800

Also, as a guy with a common-law marriage I have to admit I'm a little curious as to why the word "married" is so damn important. The word has been rendered essentially generic. We refer to one another as husband and wife, say we have been married twenty years (yay us!), and legally we have most of the rights of a civil marriage. In fact, I say there's no such thing as a religious marriage. There's a religious ceremony that some people practice, yes, but it is not legally considered a marriage until government papers are signed.

By: booksherpa

booksherpa — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:22:23 -0800

fff: We get the industrial thing a lot. Many people only see the area around Newark Airport, which is an industrial wasteland. We also have a ski resort, lots of coastline, many farms, historical areas - we're really quite a pretty state. Why are we progressive? No clue.

By: davy

davy — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:29:19 -0800

I'm against gay marriage. And straight marriage too. I'm also opposed to people marrying dogs, rocks or solar winds. Marriage is regressive, and this is simply ensnaring queers in a broadening botch. And if people must practice "identity" politics, can't somebody at least come up with an identity? Does anybody sit their parents down and say "Mom, Dad, I need you to know I'm El Gee Bee Tee?" This is not the stuff of a Social Revolution. If this is the best issue "progressives" can find it's no wonder America has been progressing backwards since 1980. (Now watch some twit with an overly simple black-&-white brain call me "homophobic.")

By: davy

davy — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:36:06 -0800

"[I]t is not legally considered a marriage until government papers are signed." BINGO. In what way is begging a government to "recognize" your relationship "progressive"? As for shared health benefits, etc., instead of going the long way around why not require employers and government agencies to honor your choice? And why must people concentrate on sexual relationships; is there something wrong with wanting to include a niece or a platonic friend on one's policy?

By: VulcanMike

VulcanMike — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:42:16 -0800

orthogonality writes "Start the countdown to man on dog sex." I think mother nature misheard you.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:25:08 -0800

This issue probably gave us four years of GW. Yeah, right. Fuck you to all the supposed liberals who blame queer folks for the 2004 loss. They conveniently ignore the fact that North Carolina, Idaho and Missouri - states that tilted heavily for Bush - all elected open lesbians as state legislators in 2004. But those darn gays cost Dems the election. Whatever. Hell, in Dallas County, Texas - which, of course, voted overwhelmingly for Bush - all of those right-wing "moral" voters elected a lesbian as their sheriff in 2004. Meanwhile, Democratic candidates blatantly demeaned and insulted the estimated 4 million voters who self-identified as gay to exit pollsters in 2000 by unconvincingly staking out right-wing positions on social issues. How moronic and self-defeating is that? As if there were hordes of anti-gay voters just waiting to vote for a Democrat over a hardline Republican. Puh-lease. Winning as a Dem is all about framing left-leaning issues in a way that appeals to the center. That Dem candidates in 2004 ignored that obvious reality, preferring instead to take bad advice from centrists who told them to run screaming from anything close to a gay issue, is hardly the fault of gay people. Jesus. Blaming gay rights for Bush's 2004 win is the most disgusting, most off-base analysis I can possibly imagine. Open your eyes, caddis.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:26:06 -0800

Why are we progressive? No clue. As Jersey became more and more suburban (of both Philly and NYC), and its urban areas revitalized, and less and less rural/small-town, it got more progressive--or at least less reactionary. I had a HS Social Studies teacher who used to say Jersey voted like Southern States did, but that was decades ago.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:29:57 -0800

(i should add, and he was an old Freedom Rider, and I think even then it wasn't true anymore) : >

By: BrotherCaine

BrotherCaine — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:00:48 -0800

Awesome news; I'm proud of two states now, but there's forty-eight to go. Let's make it happen, even if it takes 30 more years.

By: JackFlash

JackFlash — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:36:45 -0800

Excellent, scottreynen!

By: tkchrist

tkchrist — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 23:46:25 -0800

Hooray New Jersey! And. KirkJobSluder RULES! Gay marriage is the answer to so many things. Straights need to open thier eyes to government intrusion on our lives. Modern marriages are crumbling because of the pressures modern life excerts on two people. Marriage need help. So my wife and I have been shopping around for another husband and wife. Not that we're swingers or poly's or gay or anything but if THAT's what it takes to get the shelves built, a pot holder hung, the living room painted, and a decent dinner cooked, then by damned I'll go gayer than Tom Cruise if I have to! Way gayer. The rightwing nutbags are standing between me and my right to have a mowed lawn and tasteful wall paper! I stand with you my Gay Brethren and ... er... Sistren?

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:03:24 -0800

mediareport: It's perfectly cromulent that lesbians can be elected in backasswards states: lesbians aren't viewed as a threat to men. Gay men, on the other hand, make the priests and councillors and representatives — all male in great majority — all a-quiver in fear.

By: caddis

caddis — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:19:35 -0800

It's funny how marriage has changed. The Pilgrims, conservative Christians beyond compare, considered marriage a purely civil matter to be performed by civil magistrates, not the Church.

By: nickmark

nickmark — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:32:56 -0800

The last progressive politician died in a plane crash in MInnesota years ago. Wellstone voted for the DOMA.

By: raedyn

raedyn — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:58:25 -0800

KirkJobSluder is my new hero. You are bang on. Preach it brother! I absolutely agree with you saying that those who believe in equality need to advocate loudly, consistently, publicly, and at every opportunity. Absolutely. Flagged as fantastic.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:11:50 -0800

Do Rights of Marriage Equal Marriage?-- ...this overlooks the fact that a civil union law that gave same-sex couples access to all the state law rights of married couples would not just be preserving a "difference in name alone." It is a difference in status that disempowers same-sex couples from being able to argue that their union must be recognized in other jurisdictions and by the federal government, and, as Poritz pointed out in her dissent, that preserves an inequality in human dignity by its very separateness. ...

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:17:32 -0800

also from there: ...Democrats hold 47 of the state Assembly's 80 seats and 22 of the state Senate's 40 seats. Jon Corzine, the Democratic governor, said in press interviews following the decision that he would sign a gay marriage bill if it passed the Legislature. ... You need majorities in both houses to get it passed and thru to the Governor in NJ, I believe, which means almost every single Democrat has to vote for it, which is unlikely, especially since they're all up for re-election next year. I'm not as thrilled as i was yesterday.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:02:26 -0800

fff: The "fuck you" to supposed liberals who blame gays for the 2004 loss still stands. To choose yet another bit of evidence, there was a ton of analysis of turnout rates in states with and without anti-gay ballot initiatives in that election, and none found evidence that the ballot initiatives dramatically increased turnout among Republican voters in those states. Again, the issue is simple: Republicans pander to their base on this issue, while Democrats ran screaming from their base on the same issue. That's all the analysis you need, and it includes the prescription for turning the losses around. Hint: it's not ignoring or insulting gay voters again.

By: Twang

Twang — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 00:25:33 -0800

Marriage has been obsolete ever Kinsey demonstrated that marriage is a one-size box that fits many very poorly, and the rest not-too-well. But it'll be around until the last Las Vegas JOP is strangled with the guts of the last Right-Wing-Radio host.

By: Twang

Twang — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 00:29:53 -0800

"The last progressive politician died in a plane crash in Minnesota years ago." Progressives leading the way again. Oh that I should live to see all the rest die ....

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:30:13 -0800

WTF is wrong with you, Twang? ... This just isn't how the law works, and it is always so ironic -- and more than a little contempt-inspiring -- when people who proclaim to oppose "judicial activism" condemn a judicial decision based not on what the relevant constitutional law requires, but instead based on their personal opinion of the policy outcomes (or based on some informal "belief" about what courts should and shouldn't be "involved in," independent of what the Constitution requires). Such individuals are engaged in the very crux of the crime of judicial activism which they claim to despise (that is, deciding legal questions based not on law and precedent but on their own personal preferences). Either the New Jersey State Constitution -- as defined by the governing precedents applying it -- compels the legal conclusion reached by the New Jersey Supreme Court or it does not. That is the only relevant issue. It's not a matter of picking and choosing which issues we think it would be nice for a court to resolve and which ones we'd sort of prefer -- given our subjective druthers -- the court leave to the will of the majority. ...

By: John Kenneth Fisher

John Kenneth Fisher — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:05:36 -0800

New Jersey Senate and Assembly Alphabetical List of Members

By: cyrusdogstar

cyrusdogstar — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:16:58 -0800

Is it just me, or is Kirk saying that us straight folk who support gay marriage are idiots unless we act gay? That's kind of stupid :( I shouldn't have to pretend to be something I'm not just to get people to listen to a good point. Other than that, though, I agree. This issue is just the latest iteration of the same old process concerning basic human rights, and should be treated as such.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 10:28:17 -0800

he's more saying he wants to see visible support, even if that misleads others into thinking you're gay, i think. I want to see more support too--our elected politicians would be a start, and you guys always voting for those who support us as well, and speaking out against those everywhere who don't.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 13:46:06 -0800

editorial cartoons on the ruling

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 14:14:50 -0800

My gosh, whatever would I do if other people thought I was gay? Oh, wait, I remember: I wouldn't give a shit. It's not like I'm exactly trying to win their sexual approval. People care too damn much about others' genitalia.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 14:17:19 -0800

I like this cartoon. Praying to gonads, indeed.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 14:37:34 -0800

In Canada, we have the province of Québec. In that province they have some laws that do not apply for the rest of Canada; and Canada has some laws that do not apply for Québec, IIRC. Mainly language, schooling, and religious laws, I think. Works well enough for them, I suppose: they're the "French" province and certainly appear to have a unique way of doing things. Why not the same for the US? The religious nutjob/LITB¹ conservatives appear to flock together, down toward that southish/eastish area of the USA. Draw a line — heck, maybe a line along the Civil War area! — and simply apply federal laws differently between the two halves. The North Will Rise Again! ¹Leave it to Beaver, stereotype of idealized 1950s whitebread suburban family. Not based on reality.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 15:23:52 -0800

Your federal Charter applies even in Quebec, no? Our own Constitution is supposed to apply in all 50 states, not just some. Why not the same for the US? Because people and families who need these rights and benefits live in all 50 states, not just Blue States.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:11:36 -0800

NYT Editorial today: ... All this is, as everyone knows, just a show for rousing the base. If the last month has taught us anything about the Republican Party, it is that homophobia is campaign strategy, not conviction. Congressmen who trust their careers to gay staffers vote for laws to enshrine second-class citizenship for gays in the Constitution. Gay appointees and their partners are treated as married people at official ceremonies and social gatherings. Then whenever an election rolls around, the whole team pretends it's on a mission to save America from gay marriage. ...

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:14:12 -0800

I'm not entirely sure whether the Charter supercedes all Québec law, or whether it deals specifically with Québec alternatives. Or maybe I'm out to lunch...

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:45:35 -0800

let us know, fff---i believe the Charter applies to everyone everywhere--or at least it's supposed to. Isn't it what was used to legalize marriage there? rudepundit: Queering the Election: Well, at least we'll get to find out if the issue has any traction anymore. ...

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 20:13:03 -0800

Well, hell, I guess I get to go look it up... [putters] 'k, the wp word is

The notwithstanding clause authorizes governments to temporarily override the rights and freedoms in sections 2 and 7–15 for up to five years, subject to renewal.

Which is the source of my confusion; there was a time when Québec was using it repeatedly. Anyway, looks like these days the Federal Charter supercedes Provincial Charters. Too, it's a simpler document that provides a foundational framework; Provincial law builds upon it. So when our Federal judges decide the correct path toward a better society is a broader acceptance of people's private lives, and legalize gay marriage, the Provincial governments are pretty much obliged to fall in line eventually.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 14:08:06 -0800

pretty much obliged or absolutely compelled?

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:19:47 -0800

We're Canadian: compelling a province to do something it doesn't want to do would be impolite.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 18:12:00 -0800

: >

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:55:57 -0800

President Bush has tried for months to define the midterm elections as a choice about two issues: taxes and terrorism. Now, with polls predicting bleak results for Republicans, he is trying to fire up his party by decrying gay marriage. ...