Seattle, Washington, USA
NJ same sex unions
Author: airliner on October 25 2006
Viewed 4446 times. 23 people liked this blog. You can rate it below if you haven't already.
--> link

NJ legislature has 6 months to extend benefits equal to marriage to same sex unions. The decision was 4-3; the 3 who dissented felt only that the ruling didn't go far enough!

"Chicago Tribune" said: "New Jersey's highest court ruled today that same-sex couples deserve the same rights as married people, but stopped short of calling their partnerships "marriage," saying that decision should fall to the state Legislature.

"Raised here is the perplexing question — 'What's in a name?'" wrote Justice Barry T. Albin in the majority opinion. "We will not presume that a difference in name alone is of constitutional magnitude."

...

In a sharply worded opinion that dissented with a portion of the majority decision, Chief Justice Deborah Poritz said the court should not sidestep the question of the word "marriage."

"Labels set people apart as surely as physical separation on a bus or in school facilities. Labels are used to perpetuate prejudice about differences that, in this case, are embedded in the law," she wrote. "Ultimately, the message is that what same-sex couples have is not as important or as significant as 'real' marriage.""
Read airliner's other blogs.airliner's Recent Blogs
Comments

1 | 2 | 3
Fantastic. Really fantastic. I love what that woman wrote in a big way.

Yay! Another state where I'm not considered a complete freak!

We got married when portland legalized; but then it was shot down by the state.

The most disheartening thing was receiving our marriage license fee back as a check. It felt like such a smack in the face.

go gay marriage. boo to those who want to restrict the rights of same-sex couples. undecided on the post being offtopic haha. but how about i offer this off-topic response to the off-topic post? if it's an electronic musician community, doesn't it make sense to allow the community their free sway as long as their part of the "electronic community." isn't being a part enough?

this is great..

i wonder when australia is finally going to give this a go!!

dont think id ever get into a union, im not really one for commitment.. but i love that its an open option to couples who want to..

i'm very glad to see that some people in this country aren't totally retarded.

but i'm still moving to Canada when my gf gets out of school.. at least i'm hoping i don't wuss out or something.

good stuff. should be everywhere.

Roshi said: "We got married when portland legalized; "

Congrats, Roshi! How's life as a married man? (F**k those bizzards that sent you back your payment. You know the union exists in your heart, and ain't nobody gonna take that away from you!)

it made my day to read this headline this morning. i wasn't expecting it at all. let's hope it sticks.
Fredo said: "
Roshi said: "We got married when portland legalized; "

Congrats, Roshi! How's life as a married man? (F**k those bizzards that sent you back your payment. You know the union exists in your heart, and ain't nobody gonna take that away from you!)"


Very similar to pre-marriage. Actually, really great, wonderful, and a daily challenge.

Yeah, when we heard that our marriage was not legal we both looked at each other and said, "They're not taking back our rings".

But for legal purposes, something marriage-like would be nice. We have a lot of the similar issues covered with other legal means, but still, there are some gaps that worry me from time to time (like hospital visitation, etc).

lots of speculation going on now that this is some strings being pulled to get that issue up again before the elections.... :-/
we can hope for the best though.

I think this all depends on what a "civil union" is. Is "marriage" a thing a religious institution grants, while the government grants a "civil union"?

If so, I can see no reason why any two (or three? four?) consenting people shouldn't be able to get one. However, any religious institution should retain its right to only grant "marriage" where it sees fit.

All this being said, I think the problem is that "marriage" and "civil union" are still very tangled up in the eyes of the law -- they have been since Day 1 I guess -- and it will be a hell of a job to untangle them. There aren't easy solutions here.

It's a step in the right direction, but no matter how identical 'civil unions' are legally to marriage, the language used itself is riddled with discrimination.

Dizzy, I don't hold any hope for this in australia in the short term. Both Labour and Liberal are opposed to civil unions, let alone same-sex marriage. The joys of living in a two party system

midgetfidget said: "...The joys of living in a two party system "


tell me about it.

This is interesting: link

The Christian Post said: "Reports indicate that if the New Jersey court had legalized gay marriage outright, the largely Democratic state could have drawn more gay couples than Massachusetts. Massachusetts bans out-of-state gay couples from marrying if their marriages would not be recognized in their home states - a law New Jersey does not have."

yes, freedom won today. let's hope it keeps up the good fight and we all get even more freedoms. fuck the police state.

1 | 2 | 3

Register / login
You must be a member to reply or post. signup or login