New Jersey court ruling opens door for homosexual “marriage”

[Holly3278]

Trenton, Oct. 26, 2006 (CNA) - New Jersey’s highest court yesterday ruled that “there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage.” However, the 4-3 ruling does claim that the state constitution gives same-sex couples equivalent civil rights afforded to heterosexual couples, but that lawmakers must decide how to grant those rights.

The court gave the legislature six months to create a structure for same-sex couples to receive all the same benefits of marriage. This ruling reverses the June 2005 decision of a New Jersey appellate court.

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=7919

We must pray and pray hard!

 

[Paganus]

I thought that there was something called ‘separation of powers’ in this country. I am surprised to learn that the judiciary has the power to command the legislature to pass legislation.

 

[BioCatholic]

I thought that there was something called ‘separation of powers’ in this country. I am surprised to learn that the judiciary has the power to command the legislature to pass legislation.

They said that certain rights were there in the NJ Constitution. They then said “We don’t legislate, so the Legislature must pass laws defining how to access those rights”.

 

[Karin]

YES…now the lawmakers have 180 days to decide if the homosexual unions are “marriages” or “civil unions” they way NJ is I have a feeling we are going to have alot of GAY MARRIAGES here soon

And I am sure that this** bozo** will be the first in linehttp://www.digitaljournal.com/photo/040814McGreevey.jpg

 

[goofyjim]

I am praying but maybe not for the same outcome as the rest of you.

 

[Karin]

I am praying but maybe not for the same outcome as the rest of you.

and one more for GOOD measure

 

[a_cermak]

I thought that there was something called ‘separation of powers’ in this country. I am surprised to learn that the judiciary has the power to command the legislature to pass legislation.

Actually, I thought the court was at its wisest when it made this call. It could have decreed for civil unions, but instead told the Leg, OK, it’s in your court.

If in the meantime, the populace wants to ammend their constitution forbidding civil unions, that’s their call as it would then be enshrined in the Const. I don’t see that happening (esp. in 6 months).

I think the MA and VT examples are showing that the world doesn’t end when gay couples get the same rights as straight couples.

The benefit of a civil union is that it doesn’t upset those who don’t want gay marriage because marriage is a Sacrament. Well a civil union is not a Sacrament, so I don’t see why any one is opposed.

 

[steveandersen]

I thought that there was something called ‘separation of powers’ in this country. I am surprised to learn that the judiciary has the power to command the legislature to pass legislation.

That is not exactly what they did

They were asked to look at the constitution to see if there was any impediment to gay marriage. And they said no there wasn’t and if the legislature wanted to get busy defining terms they were welcome to it.

This is good. It should be a legislative matter and not a constitutional one.

As for your separation of powers statement; while the various branches of government are separate and designed to check and balance each other, don’t swallow that rhetoric about judges not being able to make laws. That is for people who didn’t pay attention in civics class.
Remember that we live in a nation with a common law system. Under common law Statue, Precedent, and administrative orders are all part of The Law.
Separation of powers doesn’t mean that only one branch gets to make law.

 

[Richardols]

I think the MA and VT examples are showing that the world doesn’t end when gay couples get the same rights as straight couples…

Correct. And given the 50% or more divorce rate in this country, the very high percentage of couples cohabiting, the increased use of pre-nuptual agreements, the high number of one parent households, I don’t see that traditional marriage particularly holds the high ground any more in the minds of Americans. I’d not extend sacramental marriage to homosexuals, but a wholly civil union would seem to be the perogative of the civil government.

 

[rlg94086]

Hi Richardols,

We are the civil government…

I’ll stick with the Bishops on this one:
usccb.org/laity/marriage/samesexfaqs.shtml

What is the Church’s position on legislation to allow civil unions or domestic partnerships?
On two different occasions, in 2003 and 2006, the USCCB Administrative Committee stated: “We strongly oppose any legislative and judicial attempts, both at state and federal levels, to grant same-sex unions the equivalent status and rights of marriage – by naming them marriage, civil unions, or by other means.”

In 2003 a statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated: “Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person. Laws in favor of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex” (Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons, n.6).
**
**

Even from a non-Church view, heterosexual unions/marriages have value to a society due to the procreation and raising of children. Therefore, it makes sense for marriage between a man and woman to be encouraged. I don’t see the value to society in a same-sex union.

Correct. And given the 50% or more divorce rate in this country, the very high percentage of couples cohabiting, the increased use of pre-nuptual agreements, the high number of one parent households, I don’t see that traditional marriage particularly holds the high ground any more in the minds of Americans. I’d not extend sacramental marriage to homosexuals, but a wholly civil union would seem to be the perogative of the civil government.

 

[Richardols]

Even from a non-Church view, heterosexual unions/marriages have value to a society due to the procreation and raising of children.

Agreed.

Therefore, it makes sense for marriage between a man and woman to be encouraged.

Agreed.

I don’t see the value to society in a same-sex union.

I can see granting to same-sex couples the equivalent civil rights afforded to heterosexual couples. I would not call it marriage because of the historical social meaning of marriage, but some wholly civil, non-religious recognition of a particular relationship could be allowed IMO.

 

[rlg94086]

What makes it a civil right?

Agreed.

Agreed.

I can see granting to same-sex couples the equivalent civil rights afforded to heterosexual couples. I would not call it marriage because of the historical social meaning of marriage, but some wholly civil, non-religious recognition of a particular relationship could be allowed IMO.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Was flipping stations when I heard this being said on the View and the audience clapped and cheered – what has the world come to?

 

[Richardols]

What makes it a civil right?

The notion that all people should be equally before the law and should be able to enjoy the same legal privileges as any others.
50 years ago, there was also a question whether or not black people should enjoy the same rights as whites in this country. Our nation answered affirmatively, in spite of foot-dragging by some.

 

[rlg94086]

We are all treated equally before the law. Any man is able to marry any woman (and vice versa) with restrictions - age, brothers/sisters, etc.

Are you saying that a person’s sexual preference is the same as race? Really??? So, you disagree that same sex attraction is gravely disordered?

Btw, are you saying that brothers/sisters ability to marry should also be changed? They are two consenting adults.

The notion that all people should be equally before the law and should be able to enjoy the same legal privileges as any others.
50 years ago, there was also a question whether or not black people should enjoy the same rights as whites in this country. Our nation answered affirmatively, in spite of foot-dragging by some.

 

[Richardols]

So, you disagree that same sex attraction is gravely disordered?

What does that have to do with granting civil union privileges? Given that even Catholics divorce at about the same rate as non-Catholics, are you willing to state that much opposite sex attraction is disordered?

Btw, are you saying that brothers/sisters ability to marry should also be changed? They are two consenting adults.

What mainstream homosexual rights organization has promoted marriage between siblings? Boogeymen arguments don’t hold much weight.

 

[fix]

The notion that all people should be equally before the law and should be able to enjoy the same legal privileges as any others.
50 years ago, there was also a question whether or not black people should enjoy the same rights as whites in this country. Our nation answered affirmatively, in spite of foot-dragging by some.

This concept is false. Human liberty
grants man the possibility to act as he wishes, but not
necessarily the right to do so. Man’s actions must conform
to right reason and natural law. “Nothing more foolish can be uttered or conceived than the notion that,
because man is free by nature, he is therefore
exempt from law.”2

According to natural
law, the State has the duty to uphold public
morality. This does not mean that the
State must enforce the practice of every
virtue and proscribe the practice of every vice,
as supposedly attempted by the ayatollahs of
today. Rather, it means that, when legislating
on moral matters, the government must realize
when something directly affects the common
good, and then legislate so as to favor
virtue and obstruct vice.

This contention is false. First of all, one
cannot compare two essentially different realities. A man
and a woman of different races are not comparable to two
men or two women.
A man and a woman wanting to marry may be
completely different in their characteristics: one may be
black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; one
learned, the other not; one tall, the other short; or one may
be famous, the other unknown. None of these differences
are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two
individuals are still man and woman, and thus the
requirements of nature are respected.
Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals
of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature,
erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of
an insurmountable biological impossibility.
There is simply no analogy between the interracial
marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage”
between two individuals of the same sex.
Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot
be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior.

tfp.org/tfc/same_sex_boston_arguments.pdf

 

[rlg94086]

What mainstream homosexual rights organization has promoted marriage between siblings? Boogeymen arguments don’t hold much weight.

Why does anything the mainstream homosexual rights organizations is promoting or not promoting have a bearing on your argement?

You are equating sexual desire to someone’s race, which is ridiculous. People have sexual desires for others of the same sex, animals, children, multiple partners and relatives. These desires, whether natural or not, should not be recognized by society as valid. None of them have a benefit to society.

What society has recognized is the value of the union of one man and one woman. As you didn’t refute the fact that we currently all have the same right to marry, I take it you have no argument.

 

[rlg94086]

What does that have to do with granting civil union privileges? Given that even Catholics divorce at about the same rate as non-Catholics, are you willing to state that much opposite sex attraction is disordered?
.

Divorce is a strawman in the Gay Marriage debate. People remarry, and those marriages are still important to society. And how does the divorce rate have any bearing on the disordered nature of opposite sex attraction? That’s the weirdest statement I’ve seen.

 

[Richardols]

Sounds just lovely, Fix, but I’m not for sacramental marriage for same-sex couples, either. There’s too much cultural and historical baggage attached to the notion of traditional marriage to grant it to same-sexers.

If the State, however, will grant them a fixed legal relationship, call it what you want, granting them the same civil rights as those afforded opposite sex couples, I won’t fight it, though I won’t promote it either. I simply don’t have a dog in that fight.