Ruling: Gay couples should have the same rights as hetrosexul couples

darkcrow

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6083744.stm

New Jersey court backs gay rights

Only one US state has allowed same-sex marriages so far
The US state of New Jersey's Supreme Court has ruled that gay couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples.
But the court says it is for the legislature to decide whether the state will honour gay marriage or some other form of civil union.

Lawmakers have been given six months to decide whether to change marriage laws.

It follows a case brought by seven gay couples, who claimed that the state's constitution entitled them to marry.

"The issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people," the court said in its 90-page ruling.

Domestic partnerships

Currently, only Massachusetts allows same-sex marriages.

New Jersey is one of only five US states without either a law or a state constitutional amendment blocking same-sex marriage.

Advocates on both sides had believed that New Jersey was more likely than other states to allow gay people to wed, as it has a tradition of expanding civil rights.

The state authorised domestic partnerships two years ago.

In July, the top court in Washington state upheld a gay marriage ban.

The decision followed a string of setbacks for same-sex marriage advocates in other parts of the US, including in several states where votes were held on amending bans on same-sex unions.

Cases similar to that in New Jersey are pending in California, Connecticut, Iowa and Maryland.

Lawyers for the seven couples had asked the court to overturn an appeals court ruling that the New Jersey legislature must decide whether gay marriage should be allowed, rather than the state's Supreme Court.

The ruling means that the appeals court decision was upheld and it remains the responsibility of the legislature to take the decision on sanctioning gay marriage.

ItsEvolutionBaby74

Good thing , I hate those bigoted bastards that think just because that gays have a different lifestyle thaat they are living a sinful lifestyle . That is why is hate Dr. James Dobson, not so much for his opinions but for his actions and the influence he has on those right-wing idiots.

qwerty1

Welcome to the 21st century New Jersey.

darkcrow

qwerty wrote:

Welcome to the 21st century New Jersey.

we in the uk are almost there. we have something called "civil partnerships" which is basically a marraige but not called that as the crazy religious nuts (mainly christians) would have a fit.

rebornFixer

darkcrow wrote:

crazy religious nuts (mainly christians) would have a fit.

Christianity isn't the only religion that sanctions bigotry toward homosexuals. In fact, a few denominations allow homosexual pastors, which is downright progressive.

Pearl Jam and toast

It's good that NJ did that, but it shouldn't even be an issue... this is in such clear violation of the seperation of church and state it makes me want to throw up that no one tossed it out of the courts ASAP.

Also, those "civil partnership things" are complete bullshit. Seperate is not equal.

sonicreducer

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

seperation of church and state

it's just a god-damn piece of paper!

Pearl Jam and toast

sonicreducer wrote:

it's just a god-damn piece of paper!

It's a bullshit religious issue that openly discriminates towards gays without remorse that might have won the 2004 election for Bush to me.

sonicreducer

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

It's a bullshit religious issue that openly discriminates towards gays without remorse that might have won the 2004 election for Bush to me.

i was referring to bush referring to the constitution.

Guiness

i never truly understood why conservatives feel that banning homosexuals from marrying will protect marriage...with a divorce rate of 50%, it seems to me that heterosexuals are doing a poor job of protecting marriage

this is just discrimination masked as legislation...i believe in equal rights for all

keeponrockin

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

It's good that NJ did that, but it shouldn't even be an issue... this is in such clear violation of the seperation of church and state it makes me want to throw up that no one tossed it out of the courts ASAP.

Also, those "civil partnership things" are complete bullshit. Seperate is not equal.

I completely agree PJ & Toast!

Vedderlution_Baby

I keep hearing that if you allow homosexuals to marry it will tarnish how "sacred" marrige is. Are you fucking serious? You're telling me, that with a divorce rate of 50% (as already stated) you're going to call marriage sacred? You're telling me that when you are able to be married through a fucking drive through by motherfucking elvis, that marriage is sacred? Yea fucking right.

know1

They already had the same rights. They could marry someone from the opposite sex if they chose to....or not. Just like everyone else.

know1

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

I keep hearing that if you allow homosexuals to marry it will tarnish how "sacred" marrige is. Are you fucking serious? You're telling me, that with a divorce rate of 50% (as already stated) you're going to call marriage sacred? You're telling me that when you are able to be married through a fucking drive through by motherfucking elvis, that marriage is sacred? Yea fucking right.

You're absolutely correct (without all that cursing). Marriage was ruined a long time ago and that argument is very weak.

Abuskedti

know1 wrote:

They already had the same rights. They could marry someone from the opposite sex if they chose to....or not. Just like everyone else.

Hooray New Jersey... Know1 is proud of the fact that everyone has the right to live like he wants them to.

robbie

nice try new jersey, but not really...... this legislation goves gay couples seperate but equal rights........ where have i heard that before????????

hippiemom

know1 wrote:

They already had the same rights. They could marry someone from the opposite sex if they chose to....or not. Just like everyone else.

But they could not marry the person they were in love with, like everyone else.

Pearl Jam and toast

know1 wrote:

They already had the same rights. They could marry someone from the opposite sex if they chose to....or not. Just like everyone else.

their right to marry their partner is being challenged and taken away.

Abuskedti

robbie wrote:

nice try new jersey, but not really...... this legislation goves gay couples seperate but equal rights........ where have i heard that before????????

its progress.. be happy.. a small victory for understanding and acceptance of all people.

know1

Abuskedti wrote:

Hooray New Jersey... Know1 is proud of the fact that everyone has the right to live like he wants them to.

You're totally missing the point. I'm saying the stupid, childish arguments on BOTH sides of this issue don't make any logical sense.

I don't care what other people do with regard to this issue or how they live.

know1

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

their right to marry their partner is being challenged and taken away.

It's flawed on so many levels. For one thing, marriage is not a "right".