N.J. bill: Rights for gays, siblings
AP- MSNBC-TRENTON, N.J. - Conservative groups in New Jersey are pushing a proposal that would grant the rights of marriage - but not the title - to gays, siblings and others involved in domestic partnerships. The plan comes in reaction to a landmark Supreme Court ruling last month that said gay couples in New Jersey should have access to the same rights and benefits as married couples. Whether to call those rights marriages, civil unions or something else was left up to lawmakers.Under the conservatives’ plan, rights would be available to gay couples, relatives and other twosomes who are not eligible to marry, said Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council. Unrelated opposite-sex couples, who can legally marry, would not be eligible for the designation.
Do you agree with civil unions instead of marriage for gay couples?
November 30th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
I believe in civil unions for everybody.
A lot of the problem in this debate is that marriage has two definitions: the legal contractual definition and the holy religious definition. Let’s give the legal contract a different name. Take government out of the business of issuing “marriage” licenses entirely, make them civil unions for everyone.
November 30th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
“Let’s go to Jersey and get a Civil Union”???
November 30th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
(Compair to: “Let’s go to Vegas and get Married”.) The second one just sounds better. No offense.
November 30th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
Civil unions are the obvious way to go. It’s an American solution to a matter the entire world is bound to be faced with some day.
When the slaves were liberated, they couldn’t vote. Baby steps. It’s how we manage to stay on top for so long. The hard-liners dig their nails into the dirt, kick and scream the whole way, but eventually the right thing happens, piece by piece.
In ten years time we’ll look at the prison population and decide that marijuana possession isn’t a good charge to fill up a cell for. State by state…just like gays looking to make the misery official.
November 30th, 2006 at 11:58 pm
Any ground given in apeasement is too much. Calling the group that put this proposal forward, conservative, is not accurate.
December 1st, 2006 at 1:21 am
LOL Al, too true.
December 1st, 2006 at 8:27 am
Nice to read Al’s optimistic take.
Gee, the notion “marriage” sure carries some heavy emotional baggage with it, doesn’t it?
Some people are never going to be convinced that “marriage” by definition applies to anything but heterosexual unions.
I agree with your ideas about civil ceremonies.
We should have escaped from the era of belting crap out of people who are different. On the other hand, perhaps gays could do themselves a favour in being a bit magnanimous rather than confrontational, of something that carries such powerful personal and cultural coin for conventionals, at least until they find the right means of persuasion.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:36 am
paul, I think the main gay PAC hired away some political advisors from the pro-life movement…they turned out to be one note.
Equal, outside of math, is an entirely subjective concept, especially in politics. And in a democracy, the word ‘equal’ is most often applied in a way that would make Einstein shiver and vomit uncontrollably.
And since I’m already giving a lot of thought to pulling my two one year old sons out of the coal pits and training them to be divorce lawyers instead - a position that doesn’t require a union card - this civil unions/marriage distinction is six of one, half dozen of the other as I see it.
December 1st, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Marriage Builders PDF from the NJFPC website
Interesting position… more pro-traditional marriage than anything else. I’m eager to see if this position is popular overall. I suspect that the reporter who wrote the article may have misrepresented the groups position on the issue. Either that or this advocacy group has changed gears rather suddenly in response to the court ruling. I suspect that this is a fallback position on the issue and it is easier to overturn a ruling from the bench related to civil unions.
December 1st, 2006 at 5:38 pm
I don’t agree with civil Unions but in the spirit of Compromise I’ve said before I don’t mind if they close the gap regarding benefits. And I’m for retaining the def. of marriage as between members of the opposite sex. But if we keep fighting over this stuff we’re all gonna need some vaseline. We’re being distracted while Rome is burning.