NJ Allows Gay Something
 

The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled[pdf] that gays deserve equal rights under the law, but you don't have to call it "marriage".

If it satisfies some fundies that a different word is used, I suppose that's fine. Everyone will use the word "marriage" colloquially anyway.

yippee. So now 50% of GAY couples can get divorced; just like straight ones.
I say ban ALL marriage! :D

Oh lord, now more soldiers will die and children will be having sex with their pets and probably the clocks will run backwards for an half hour this weekend.
Woe is me. :right:

Benito Martinez Abrogan died earlier in October. At the age of 119 (19 Jun 2005), god forced him to "tripping the light fantastic with any young nurse he could grab". Clearly god was punishing Benito because he attributed his long life to "He never married". As others have noted, the purpose of a penis is to procreate kids. He did not do that. Therefore he was punished.

God also hates gays. Therefore let them marry. Then they too will die from a torture called marriage. Sooner we kill off more gays by using marriage, then the fewer problems we will have from those evil people. Clearly there are too many gays living only because they cannot marry. Deny them marriage and they too might live to 120.

I just graduated from the Karl Rove School of Logic. Now I need a spokesman to say these things for me. Does George Jr have a brother?

Colorado actually has a proposal on its ballot to allow same sex couples to make legally binding contracts with one another. Such a contract would confer most of the things that a regular marriage would confer, but it would be called a civil union or something - NOT marriage.

Right after that is a proposal that would make "marriage" a union between a male and a female, only.

Poor Colorado! So far from God, so close to Focus on the Family!

I keep hearing this argument against gay marriage and everytime I want to hear the debate continued.

If the reason for denying gay couples to marry is that marriage is for procreation and same-sex couples cannot possibly procreate ... does that mean you would deny an infertile heterosexual couple the right to marry?

Can anyone tell me what the standard response to that would be?

(cue angry mob with burning torches)

Well, Bush has already popped out a few quotes. This might actually mean a few points for Republicans on election day.:mad:

If you get married and don't have kids, then you should be jailed. After all, marriage is from the procreation of kids. We must enforce morality on infidels.

Is anything government controlled actually refered to as 'marriage'? I was under the impression that the government issued certificates for what constitues civil union but that the word marriage was just used colloquially to avoid confusion.
Also, who is really specifying the difference in terms here? Is the government going to make sure they have a record of all homosexual couples so that no worker accidently calls them 'married' vs 'civil unioned' (or whatever)?

Perfect. No objections here.

I'm not sure what's on the certificate, but there are a lot of government forms that offer a choice of married/single/divorced/widowed.
The only thing not calling it "marriage" will do, besides placating some of the fundies, is add a few otherwise unnecessary words to government forms.

Unless they take a snapshot of all marriage rights, and write a parallel law for gays, and then let that lag behind if there are any changes. That could be a pain.

The only problem I have with that arrangement is that it reeks of 'seperate but equal' to me.

If they do it as a parallel law, then it is.

Before I got married, I had to get a "marriage license". After I got married, the only proof I had that I was, in fact, married was a "marriage certificate". I was married in a church, but I don't have something from the government saying that I am in a civil union, and a seperate something from the church saying I am married.

I think it's the religious folks who don't want the word "marriage" used. Seems it somehow dilutes the definition of marriage, although the old-time Judeo-Christian definition of marriage certainly didn't exclude multiple wives. ;)

Seems to me that *everyone* should have to get a civil union. If you want to take the additional step of getting married (presumabley in a church), that should be at one's (and one's church's) option.