"Gay Marriage" Ruling in NJ  

Thursday, October 26, 2006

The NJ Supreme Court ruled on the issue yesterday.

Summary Box: Gay Marriage Ruling In New Jersey

(AP) TRENTON, N.J. WHAT HAPPENED: The New Jersey Supreme Court, in a 4-3 ruling Wednesday, determined that same-sex couples have the same rights as heterosexuals, and charged the Legislature with deciding how the state will honor same-sex unions.

WHAT IT MEANS: Lawmakers have 180 days to rewrite current marriage laws to include same-sex couples or create some form of civil union. After a similar decision by Vermont's high court in 1999, that state created civil unions.

REACTION: Gay rights advocates say lawmakers will introduce a bill for "marriage equality." Conservatives will seek to amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The ruling could also rally the political forces in the eight states where amendments to bar gay marriage are on the ballot next month.

WHAT'S NEXT: The battle heads to the Democratic-controlled Legislature. Any bill that emerges would go to Democratic Gov. Jon S. Corzine, who said he supports domestic partnerships, but not gay marriage.
Look. Gays have and should have all the same basic rights as heterosexuals. If they want to leave their estate to a butt-buddy, they should be able to do that. If they want hospital visits, they should be able to have that. Homosexuals' lives should be free of violence and discrimination, just like everyone else's.

Heterosexuals don't (and shouldn't) have the right to marry members of the same gender. Therefore, neither should homosexuals. Don't forget the purpose of marriage - to go forth and multiply. Homosexuals cannot do this. Nor can they effectively fulfill the roles of both mother and father. A man is a man and a woman is a woman, regardless of his/her choice of partner.

Should homosexuals be able to file joint tax returns? Absolutely, as long as that practice continues. Should they be able to visit each other in the hospital or leave their estates to one another? Absolutely - no one will be able to convince me of any harm in that.

Homosexuals cannot procreate, which happens to be the purpose of marriage. Therefore, I am opposed to "gay marriage". If New Jersey's legislators want to confer special status upon these people, so be it, as long as there's a clear distinction between their status and that of married people.

I say this as a resident of New Jersey. Each state must handle this issue in its own way. I do not agree with the Massachusetts law allowing this practice, but support the people of that state's right to make that decision for themselves. Which brings me to another point ...

If New Jersey gays don't like the ultimate outcome of this case, they do have the right to move to a state that has a climate more favorable to their wishes. It's therefore not the end of the world for them. Of course they should try for some kind of resolution at home, but they do have that option.

That's the beauty of living in a constitutional republic.