I feel nervous and a little sick about the New Jersey marriage ruling today. No matter what the decision, the repurcussions will not be pretty. I am just sick and tired of my life being debated about, and treated as a problem by so many. I particularly don’t care for those who claim that I am insane, and lying about it. But even the moderates drive me crazy now, becuase I don’t feel that you can be moderate and still treat me like a second class citizen.
If the court rules against marriage rights, its yet another social insitution that says we don’t have the same rights as straights.
If the court rules for marriage rights, its a gift to the republican party and their homophobe wing to use as a tool to more tightly rope in issues votors that might have stayed home in the face of the insane incompetence of the bush administration. But nothing brings out certain voters than the threat of homo’s having the same rights as them.
Why do so many people define themselves by what they have and others don’t, and fight so hard to make sure that the have-nots never become the haves?
Note: I know this is emotional, and not completely rational. I also put this in MPSIMS instead of the Pit becuase I am more sad than angry.
Looks like it’s set to be handed down in (checks watch) 90 minutes. I’m expecting yet another victory for bigotry and cowardly judging but maybe I’ll be pleasantly surprised.
I don’t define myself by what I have and others don’t. About the only thing that makes any sense in the anti-GM argument is the linguistic tradition. That said, I don’t lose sleep at nights worrying that people “different” from me don’t have the rights I have.
I think it’s ridiculous to be opposed to GM, even in the linguistic sense. OTOH, it’s nearly equally stupid to not be in support of civil unions: it just seems senselessly provocative. ('course I don’t know your stance on that.) I do hope that you will no longer receive a prejudicial treatment by governmental institutions.
However, you are still a political football from my perspective since I wouldn’t mind that if in the GM/CU debate the end result is that government gets out of the marriage business entirely, since I, as someone without likely prospects of marriage, don’t especially like subsidizing marriage with my tax dollars. (But that would “destroy marriage” :rolleyes: )
I have my doubts there will be anything fair or just in the outcome of the issue. It’s such a political polarizer that waffling politicians are more than happy to come down on the side that seems to have the best chance of winning. I have no dog in this particular fight, but I’m all for marriage of any stripe, so long as both participants are human. Unfortunately, human rights issues best voted upon by those who are still in possession of their humanity, and that has the unfortunate tendency to rule out politicians in general.
TANSTAAFL. People think that the only way for you to gain something is if they lose something. What, exactly, they’re losing is left kinda vague in this instance.
Well, I am reading the decision, and they pulled a Vermont. Per the NJSC, same-sex couples have the right to the same benefits and obligations as marriage, but it doesn’t have to be called marriage. It looks like, but I am not sure on first glance, that the legislature is responsible for setting up the actual mechanisms where same-sex couples can register for the rights and benefits under whatever name the legislature picks.
Well, honestly, I think this screws us the most. Same-sex unions in NJ will have the presumption of non-portability built in, not even to states that allow SSM. And the republicans will use this as a renewed call to arms.
Thats why I want out of this country. I hate to travel now, becuase the rights that Mr. Jeeves and I enjoy in California are bupkiss in the rest of the country. When we were in Tennessee this summer I was very worried that something would happen and we wouldn’t be able to make decisions for each other.
Oh, and for those who say we can take care of it with additional legal agreements, that doesn’t even work for several states now. And if those documents are challenged, you will be screwed waiting on enforcement or non-enforcement while your loved one has decisions made for him by someone he doesn’t want. Think about how that would make you feel.
It was a 4-3 decision on the “due process” claim and whether or not the arrangement must be called “marriage.” But every justice was in agreement that the current system violates NJ’s equal protection equivalent, and that same-sex couples should get the same benefits as opposite-sex married couples. I’d consider it a victory for SSM advocates on the whole.
Again. Every single justice agreed that giving same-sex couples less rights than opposite-sex couples is unconstitutional in New Jersey. That’s certainly saying something.
Jeeves, not to belittle your concerns, because I fully support you, but can’t you and your partner have a legal document of some sort that says you’re each others’ health-care proxy and all that happy stuff? So you at least don’t have to worry about that part of your relationship.
Yes we can and do. That doesn’t nessecarily do you any good. it is not valid in OH, VA, and possibly other states. And if it is challenged we would hare to go to court to have it enforced. Not something you want todo in an emergency.
I suppose you can call it a victory, but much of it boils down to the same political hedge. They acknowledge that gay couples are, in fact, gay, and they can’t do anything about that just now, and it would appear politically improper and constitutionally unsound not to impart the same rights upon gay couples as straight, but, to call that marriage? <inhales through teeth> I dunno, man. I dunno. That religion thing, y’know? Lotta religious voters, too. Whaddya gonna do?
Maybe you can email a Mod and ask that this thread be named something more indicative of the subject matter?
Have now skimmed the ruling and it looks like a solid ruling. While I wish that courts would understand that the SCOTUS marriage precedents should apply to same-sex couples and just find that the fundamental right to marriage encompasses SSM already but at least they recognize that it’s their job to rule on the case instead of punting it to the Legislature.
I particularly like this bit from near the chief justice’s, as a nice little bird flipped at all the people who will be lined up screaming “judicial activism” and “leave it to the legislature” (and you know who you are):
Most of those people were trying to make sure a judge intervened in the Terri Schiavo case. They wanted to interfere in a marriage between a man and a woman.
Why do you say this? Of course you have the right to marry. You just have to follow the rules: if you’re a man you have to marry a woman and vice versa. This is like arguing that the state won’t let you drive because you only want to drive 150 miles an hour.
I feel sad and depressed, too, because this is another blow to the traditional family. If this movement spreads, it’s going to lead to the eventual legalization of polygamy and other alternative unions, none of which will be good for the country.
I’m just a tich homophobic myself, but come on. Do you seriously think that any gay person was going to say, “What? You mean I can’t marry Fred? Okay then, I’m going to go out and marry Sue and pop out my 3.5 kids right quick!”
Or maybe you think that if we DO let gay persons marry, they’re going to suddenly up and start slaughtering all the “traditional” married persons they see. As, you know, gratitude, for being given rights and equality and stuff.
Yeah, all the “traditional” families are gonna break up because the state has to accord the same respect to families you don’t like. Except of course there isn’t a single place anywhere in the world where same-sex marriage is legal where the “traditional” family has suffered in the slightest. Funny how, if SSM is so toxic to the “traditional” family, mixed-sex marriage seems to be thriving in Spain and the Netherlands and Canada and Massachusetts.
I’d hoped that just once we could have a thread where someone expressed sadness or anger about discriminatory policies without someone jumping in to express their approval of discrimination.