Thursday, October 26, 2006

New Jersey Backs Rights for Gays To Have A Civil Union: Do you Agree?Tell us

Google did the pictures

"New Jersey Court Backs Full Rights For Gay Couples"

"But Justices Direct Legislature To Decide on Issue of Marriage"

by David W. Chen

New Jersey Opens the Door To Civil Unions For Gays: Is this Okay? Are you on Board?

New York Times

October 26,2006

According to Mr. Chen,

New Jersey Supreme Court decided that Gay couples have the right to civil unions like heterosexual couples do; with the tuition assistance in college, workman's compensation in emplyment situations and special privileges in trials.

Chen said that

this was done apparently to satisfy the legal rights people who had addressed rights issues with this court. This act did not cover grounds for calling the couples married. The Supreme Court wants our Congress to decide this.

Chen tells us further that

three Democratic senators apparently who work with Garden State Equality,  gay rights group, said that Congress will approve gay marriage with their help very soon.

I had been told about the legal rights issue and I do understand this.

What is your opinion about the marriage issue? Are these senators representing you?Are you on board?And what religion do you suppose this covers?





ravenjuiced said...


sugar1337 said...

Well since religion and government are supposed to be separate, all those fundamentalist religious people that say "gay marriage" is wrong, well I think as one of my fav movies said "there is a special kind of hell for them" not that I believe in hell for I don't, but that is how strongly I feel nonetheless.  I only hope to see all states allowing for civil unions or marriages in my lifetime.  I think though that if a church wants to marry a same sex couple or not in their church that is their right to do so too, for there are just as many churches in any given religion that will as there are that don't so same sex couples can just go to the ones that do.

sugarsweet056 said...

I'll stay out of this one dear Nat, as I try not to get involved in certain issues on line.
Blessings, Sugar

lifesabench6 said...

Nat- as a regular reader of mine, you know my stance on this subject.  I think it's deplorable that again, judges decided to do congress's job in legislating even when many citizens are opposed to it.  They stopped short of a specific demand to legalize marriage, but it's still the same thing- legislating from the judicial branch is clearly imposing in a way that would make the founders turn in their graves.  People should be extremely wary when judges think they can pass law instead of interpreting it only.  It's meant to be up to the people in each individual state to pass or vote against an ammendment!  Carolyn

shermeen0621 said...

I'm sure i'm going to rub someone the wrong way here, but I think that homosexuals should have the right to a civil union. they love just like hetrosexuals love. i have a different opinion when it comes to church marriage. but i do think they should have the right to have their love recognised.

i dont however think that judges should have this right to make a decision. whilst its not entirely fair to have the majority rule on the minority, that's what democracy is all about. and one judge shouldn't be able to change everything for everyone.

Shermeen xx

bhbner2him said...


gehi6 said...

I think that the divorce rate is higher among gay couples than previously reported and that is going to create a heck of a mess.  I think gays will have reason to wonder why they fought for this so hard.  I liken it to the problem with marrying when you are old.  You will lose your apt if you are in HUD, you will lose income, and very likely one or the other of you will have a serious illness very soon.  Living together or rather visiting each other for as long as you might want seems more practical. I think AIDs caused many to suffer over what they felt was not having enough legal status to be treated with respect and compassion.  Gerry