New Jersey court ruling opens door for homosexual “marriage”

[steveandersen]

I believe the problem is that without the possibility of gay unions of some sort, according to the way NJ statutes and constitution are written, you run into equal rights issues. So because there’s nothing in the Statutes to negate gay unions and there is an equal rights issue, you wind up with something having to be done.

I’ve seen people try to make a 14th amendment issue about this and I just don’t get it.
A state’s marriage rules apply equally to all. You can marry someone who is above a certain age, gives consent, is capable of giving consent, is not already married, and is of the opposite sex. There are some minor variations from state to state but they apply to everyone. Bob may not be allowed to marry Jim but I can’t either so we’re both being treated the same.

You could probably make some very good 9th or 10h amendment arguments for homosexual marriage (maybe even the 4th) but the 14th? I just don’t see it.

I wonder, could New Jersey simply change its statutes so as not to provide any benefits of marriage therefore negating the equal rights issue?

They could. But think of the ruckus that would ensue if folks thought that they were loosing their joint filling tax perk. Which is really the only benefit the state can give or withhold. Besides, generally marriage is a social good and is economically stabilizing which is why the State became interested in supporting it to begin with.

Although with many things such as insurance are now available to unrelated/unmarried persons I’m not sure what State supplied benefit eludes an unmarried couple that can’t be supplied with a power of attorney, a living will, and a trust?

Of course that is three pieces of paper rather than one.

Hey, I just thought of something. The ancient Romans would sometimes adopt an unrelated adult as a member of their family (the imperial family did it, I’m not sure how common it was).
Could one half of a homosexual pair adopt the other? That would certainly clear up the visitation and inheritance rights issues.

Just not that same though…

 

[Paganus]

A state’s marriage rules apply equally to all. You can marry someone who is above a certain age, gives consent, is capable of giving consent, is not already married, and is of the opposite sex. There are some minor variations from state to state but they apply to everyone. Bob may not be allowed to marry Jim but I can’t either so we’re both being treated the same.

Precisely. I see “equal rights” being tossed around, but it does not seem readily apparent. It would be interesting if one of the posters would sketch out their “equal rights” argument for the illumination of the rest of us.

 

[fix]

It may not be morally good, but I do not see the issues we are discussing as morally bad either.

Relativism. We know what that leads to.

In your opinion they harm children. The are studies that show both sides of the argument, so at the moment the question is left to the opinion of every individual in this country.

I will say this, I think a loving homosexual couple can raise and provide for a child in a much more beneficial way then a single parent or foster home environment. Of course there are exceptions to that statement.

It is not a matter of opinion as in one prefers vanilla to chocolate. It is a matter of truth. Scientific methods do not determine right and wrong and the ideas of health and pathology involve more than collecting data. It presupposes that the one’s collating and analyzing tha data have a basic understanding of normal, abnormal, right, and wrong.

Too many start from an erroneous positon and then draw incorrect conclusions. Homosexual acts, unions, and the like are objectively evil. This can be known by right reason and a proper understanding of the natural moral law which is common to all humans.

As for the term “love” I suggest you see this:

…Lewis Carroll anticipated the word games that demagogues play when he had Humpty Dumpty say, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.” There are a lot of Humpty Dumptys around in our time, turning words inside out to turn the moral order upside down…

firstthings.com/

The point is moral relativism and other serious errors are leading us into chaos.

 

[wabrams]

Nope. If I recall correctly, they are based on the need to keep social order. Most homicide laws did not exist say in the year 500 AD because of the fact that the clan or tribal group could keep this in check by seeking their own justice (vengeance). The thing is after a while it becomes very hard to have social order when you have all these clans at war with each other, so laws against murder were enacted so that the responsibility for punishing murder was on the state, not the clan.

Incorrect; look at the Code of Hammurabi. He wrote these laws in 1780 BC; murder was one of the laws. The codes were not written to keep social order, but to please his gods. I’d say that’s laws based on morality.

 

[wabrams]

Folks who compare homosexuality to beastiality do so because they consider us gay guys as beasts.

Abortionist said that comparing what they do to what Kevorkian did was equating them to murderers; now look at society: euthanasia is slowly becoming fashionable.

 

[Richardols]

Homosexual acts, unions, and the like are objectively evil. This can be known by right reason and a proper understanding of the natural moral law which is common to all humans.

One can also simply observe over a space of time to determine if a couple (hetero- or homo-) has a loving relationship, and the maturity to raise a child. There’s no evidence that such couples train their children to become homosexuals.

Honestly, who goes around judging everything “by right reason” and the “natural moral law” except those who also spend some time estimating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? There’s the world of the philosophers and the world of reality, I think.

 

[fix]

One can also simply observe over a space of time to determine if a couple (hetero- or homo-) has a loving relationship, and the maturity to raise a child. There’s no evidence that such couples train their children to become homosexuals.

What is love? Does not love intend hoping the best for another, as in eternal salvation? How does one who intentionally exposes another to disordered behavior, objective sin, and psychological distortions intend what is best for the other?

Honestly, who goes around judging everything “by right reason” and the “natural moral law” except those who also spend some time estimating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? There’s the world of the philosophers and the world of reality, I think.

I would hope those who are logical, coherent, and seek what is best for their fellow man judge that way. The opposite is to make emotionalism and moral relativism one’s guide which is what we have done today. The result if for all to see including the fact some would condone objectively evil actions as morally correct and suitable for innocent children. God help us all.

Also, please see the link in post 83.

 

[Richardols]

What is love? Does not love intend hoping the best for another, as in eternal salvation?

And you apparently believe that homosexuals are incapable of wishing the best for those they love. I think that they are as capable of demonstrating love or even hatred as any heterosexual.

I would hope those who are logical, coherent, and seek what is best for their fellow man judge that way.

I doubt that many outside a monastery have the luxury of sitting down with a pile of philosophy books and theological tomes to start evaluating everything in their lives. Nice work if you can do it, but most people have to grapple with a hostile world for their survivial and that of their families.

The result if for all to see including the fact some would condone objectively evil actions as morally correct and suitable for innocent children.

I may be wrong, but you seem to be presuming that children raised by homosexuals will be introduced to acts unsuitable for innocent children. I think that those homosexual parents would be as discreet as I and my wife were in shielding our children from observing our sexual activity.

 

[setter]

I may be wrong, but you seem to be presuming that children raised by homosexuals will be introduced to acts unsuitable for innocent children. I think that those homosexual parents would be as discreet as I and my wife were in shielding our children from observing our sexual activity.

The fact is that a child being raised in a home comprised of homosexual liason are receiving a step-down, and not a step-up to lauch themselves as well-adjusted adults (in accord with natural moral law). They are being raised in an environment that is hostile in overt and covert levels against a properly nurturing environment. No amount of garnishment and dressing can nullify or hide this fact. This is reality, unless of course one does not subscribe to the notion that truth may be known, and that there is an absolute Truth.

 

[fix]

And you apparently believe that homosexuals are incapable of wishing the best for those they love. I think that they are as capable of demonstrating love or even hatred as any heterosexual.

How does one choose love when they expose others to grave sin? Is that not a contradiction? My point is simply claiming love when one’s actions are seriously wrong does not make the situation “loving”.

If I teach my kids to shoot drugs am I a loving father?

I doubt that many outside a monastery have the luxury of sitting down with a pile of philosophy books and theological tomes to start evaluating everything in their lives. Nice work if you can do it, but most people have to grapple with a hostile world for their survivial and that of their families.

How about simply formimg one’s conscience as God requires them to do? Is that too great a burden? I think you mean many of us just want to be unprincipled and claim conforming our will to His is too difficult.

I may be wrong, but you seem to be presuming that children raised by homosexuals will be introduced to acts unsuitable for innocent children. I think that those homosexual parents would be as discreet as I and my wife were in shielding our children from observing our sexual activity.

It is not just acts. It is exposing them to a lack of complimentarity and distorting the role of authentic father and mother. Hardly a small issue.

 

[Richardols]

If I teach my kids to shoot drugs am I a loving father?

You seem to be assuming that homosexual parents will perform sex or teach their kids to perform acts usually associated with homosexuals (the equivalent of shooting drugs in this context).

It is not just acts. It is exposing them to a lack of complimentarity and distorting the role of authentic father and mother. Hardly a small issue.

What of men or women, even widows/widowers, raising children without exposure to a mother or father?

 

[fix]

You seem to be assuming that homosexual parents will perform sex or teach their kids to perform acts usually associated with homosexuals (the equivalent of shooting drugs in this context).

Nope, they would be exposing them to a disordered, maladpative way of living. Their example would contradict reason and grace. It would teach the children that living as they do is normal and acceptable. It would confuse. It would do moral harm and psychological harm even if the children never saw any homosexual acts.

Again, this is more than simply being raised by two blue eyed folks or two red haired folks. It goes to the very nature of gender roles and deprives children of their authentic rights.

What of men or women, even widows/widowers, raising children without exposure to a mother or father?

That is not ideal, but it is not morally wrong or confusing for the child. Can you not see a difference bewteen a widow trying to raise her kids and two same sex persons posing as a mother and father? The difference is striking.

 

[setter]

You seem to be assuming that homosexual parents will perform sex or teach their kids to perform acts usually associated with homosexuals (the equivalent of shooting drugs in this context).

What of men or women, even widows/widowers, raising children without exposure to a mother or father?

These loving unions are not fundamentally flawed in the psychological and relationship realm (SSA is a symptom of an underlying psychological disorder) or intrisically disordered and gravely sinful according to the natural moral law.

Unless one acknowledges this, one can spend their entire argument dancing around the ‘elephant in the room’.

 

[steveandersen]

Precisely. I see “equal rights” being tossed around, but it does not seem readily apparent. It would be interesting if one of the posters would sketch out their “equal rights” argument for the illumination of the rest of us.

On the other hand… the government routinely treats different segments of the population differently. For instance if you are over a certain age or disabled you get a pension or if you are a man of a certain age you have to register with Selective Service. None of these have been challenged (that I know of) on 14th amendment grounds.

Similarly, the ADA was developed under the equal access clause; saying something like “I have to climb steps and the guy in a wheelchair has to climb steps so we’re both being treated equally” is clearly not the way the 14th amendment has been historically used.

So just like we have male and female public toilets (a government required separate but equal treatment) I’m sure some smart lawyer could argue the need for straight and gay marriages.

PS: The English language has one of the largest vocabularies in the world. Usually there are many words to express the same idea. Unfortunately “gay” wasn’t one of those words. It used to have a special meaning that can’t really be duplicated with “carefree”. The Gay 90’s, the Enola Gay, the Gay Cavalier….it used to be very nice non-sexual term. Now it is little else.

 

[Richardols]

That is not ideal, but it is not morally wrong or confusing for the child. Can you not see a difference bewteen a widow trying to raise her kids and two same sex persons posing as a mother and father? The difference is striking.

You use the term “posing.” That’s an obvious bias. Why must those people be “posing”?

 

[fix]

You use the term “posing.” That’s an obvious bias. Why must those people be “posing”?

Yes, I am biased for the truth. How would two men, as one example, claiming to be parents in the same way a man and woman are parents not be posing?

What role are they providing? They are both “fathers” yet they live as man and wife?

 

[Richardols]

They are both “fathers” yet they live as man and wife?

And, if a widower shared a home with her children and her sister or if a widower shared a home with his children and his brother, would they not be no more than two mothers or two fathers?

Quite frankly, this is nothing I lose any sleep over, regardless of how the legal matter will ultimately be settled.

 

[fix]

And, if a widower shared a home with her children and her sister or if a widower shared a home with his children and his brother, would they not be no more than two mothers or two fathers?

Not in the same way, and depth, that two homosexual persons would be doing. The distinction is self evident.

Would the widowers be acting as if they were married and have the same relationship as a married couple?

 

[Richardols]

Would the widowers be acting as if they were married and have the same relationship as a married couple?

What is “acting as if they were married” as you see it?

What is the “same relationship as a married couple” as you see it?

 

[fix]

What is “acting as if they were married” as you see it?

Pretending to be an authentic husband and wife. Is this not self evident? Are the roles of father and mother, husband and wife, simply an artifical construct? Is God not the author of marriage?

What is the “same relationship as a married couple” as you see it?

Do widowed same sex heterosexual persons generally consider other same sex heterosexual widowed persons to be their spouses?

Is every relationship now considered a marriage?