http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061026/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_22
It's about time too.
True that. I don't find anything wrong with gay marriages.
Hey, there had to be something good to happen in New Jersey to make up for Panic and Sean Fury.
It says that there can be no discrimination between same sex and opposite sex relationships but I think it stops short of demanding it be called marriage.
Oh well, "civil unions" are marriage. They become so by language creep. Muahahaha.
Oh wait, OMG ACTIVIST JUDGIES
Meh, Holy matrimony I am strictly 100% against. Legal matrimony is fine with me.
Hooray! It's only a matter of time before other people see the difference between the two!
Meh.... I remain indifferent on the subject. It concerns and affects me to the degree of zero. Therefor, I really don't care either way.
yay?
Fucking faggots. Everyone knows homosexuals are posessed by demons.
Finally, some liberties being given to the citizens of "the land of free".
Once again something posted in the war board happens in some other state in which I don't live and concerns people which aren't me. Yay.
This isn't the War Board.
Also, Philsdad's post is fine in theory, and I agree that it's the ideal setup, but there's massive practical hurdles to that in terms of getting it instituted either legislatively or judicially. "Marriage for all" is basically easier. For example, only SCOTUS could overturn a past decision that held that marriage is a "fundamental right" derived from the 14th amendment. A lower level judiciary couldn't do it because they're vound by that decision (Apparently it's called Loving vs Virginia).
As for the state legislatures. It sounds good in theory, but there's still every chance that there's be a slew of court battles over whether people have a fundamental right to be married by their state and so forth. It'd end up being a costlier, longer and more grinding process than simply getting marriage redefined through basic notions of equality under the law. Which will keep happening, because it's f*cking obvious and the opponents of same-sex marriage don't actually have any good arguments. We've essentially won the culture war on this front, it's just a matter of the law catching up.
More to the point, switching to "civil unions for all" wouldn't solve much. The same people who are upset about same-sex "marriage" are likely to be equally upset that they cannot get "married" and that they're now considered "equal" to the **** f*ggots. I don't think the majority arguments about the definition of marriage (and grudging acceptance of civil unions for gays instead) are made in good faith... rather, they seem to be more about maintaining at least a notional superiority of opposite-sex pairings. "Civil unions for all" wouldn't provide that notion of superiority in a way relegating same-sex pairings to separate-but-equal "civil unions" does. I'm skeptical about "Civil unions for all" actually achieving their ostenible main goal--sneaking equal rights for gays past the bigot/traditionalist crowd and satisfying opponents of "marriage for everybody".
Also, given that the definition of marriage has mostly been a state issue... there are over 1000 federal marriage benefits that don't come with a "civil union". No individual state could implement "civil unions for everbody" without depriving everyone of those even if the court battles uphold it. They are, at present, separate but not equal and the difference still means something, in practical terms. This is another practical argument for going "marriage for everybody" because it's simpler.
I will say though, that the civil union decision in NJ is very clever. It's told the legislature to decide what to do, that same-sex pairings NEED absolute equality with opposite-sex pairings, but has not said anything about civil unions or marriages. The majority did *not* rule that civil unions were equal to marriage, only that it wouldn't decide that until after the legislature acted But this requirement of absolute equality makes it very very tough for the NJ legislature to call "civil union" equal since they are, quite demonstrably, unequal. So the inevitable second round of court battles will focus on this and probably rule that, hey, marriage for all.
I'm still waiting for the SCOTUS decision telling all the states that due to full faith and credit they need to actually recognise all marriages from other states. That'll be fun.
[quote=Raptor]Hey, there had to be something good to happen in New Jersey to make up for Panic and Sean Fury.
3rd Wave Ska, you Dream Theatre-loving son of a bitch.
EDIT: I didn't think that insult all the way through...
I hate gays and they should be burnt.
Seriously though I think homos are rad.