New Jersey court to legislature: No no, gays are actually people

“the state imposes no residency requirements for people seeking marriage”

First, New Jersey has to define what marriage is. As of right now, gays may still only be able to enter civil unions in NJ, not marry.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2605937

I have a hard time getting behind this ruling.

The presuppositions that underlie this ruling are so repugnant to free people that they’re don’t even merit much attention. It makes no sense for the state to confer special “benefits” or “rights” to people based on how they decide to regulate their sex lives.

True, but so long as they do, they should do so in a non-discriminatory manner.

Homosexuality, although a sin, shouldn’t have people looking down on you all. Everyone sins, why should one person judge someone stronger for being gay than someone who does drugs or is unfaithful or smokes? I have my beliefs and stand strong in them and oppose this decision, but I just want to let you know that unlike most conservatives I reconize my own sins are equal to any sin and I will keep you all in my prayers. Don’t look at this as a condecending post, but more of someone who voices their opinion without casting judgement.

Oh man, I’m sure all the homosexuals are just in tears over this.

It’s a concrete step for freedom, my apologies that we didn’t get to libertopia yesterday.

This is an interesting article with an opposing view:

by Thomas Brewton
American Ideals and Same-Sex Marriage

A New York Times editorial dated October 26, 2006, proclaims, “The New Jersey Supreme Court brought the United States a little closer to the ideal of equality yesterday when it ruled that the state’s Constitution requires that committed same-sex couples be accorded the same rights as married heterosexual couples.”

The Times editorial implicitly presumes that the “ideal of equality” means entitlement to actual equality in all respects. Same-sex marriage is just the latest in a long list of socialist intellectuals’ demands that judicial pronouncement, if not statute law, mandate equality of condition, rather than equality of …

http://theconservativevoice.com/article/19748.html

Anyone who talks about ‘proclivities’ and ‘special benefits’ doesn’t understand the most inherent, basic, underlying argument in favor of libertarianism:

At no time is a law which creates an underclass permissible. Period.

Marriage laws — that archaic beast of racism originally designed to prevent interracial marriage — are now being exerted to keep an entire class/subculture representing quite literally *MILLIONS* of people, ‘down’ or ‘subjugated.’

Niemoller would roll in his grave. For those of you whom consider homosexuality a sin, consider also the following: Freedom is not freedom unless it applies equally to those whom you hate or loath as well as to yourself.

Anything else is an ‘ideology’ of Freedom as espoused by our goodly president Bush Jr.

This would be like saying it’s OK to have laws against interracial marriage just because, eventually, we want the state completely out of the marriage business.

That would be an equally outrageous and absurd line of argument.

OK.

Your mama’s a statist.

Better?

I was watching the ACLU convention on CSPAN and they had a workshop on how to change people’s minds about same-sex marriage. They got all speech-police on people and said to call it “marriage equality.” Furthermore, they insisted that “civil unions” were a no-go because it was “separate but equal.”

I support the ACLU, but this line of thinking is endemic in the Rush Limbaugh defined “liberals” of today. It’s fucking stupid.

We all think that the government should be out of the marriage business. However, there are certain legal rights granted to married couples. Churches shold perform marriages, courts should perform civil unions – for all. But this isn’t going to happen. All of the religious idiots who need the state’s approval for their “marriage” would be up in arms at the notion that the state would discontinue its sponsorship of their union. The “homosexual agenda” would have won!

So in reality, we should have marriage for all. If that offends you, you’re an idiot. But…

u_a: Another trick people don’t realize; whenever domestic partnerships or civil unions are legalized, they are made equally available to heterosexual partners.

There are many valid reasons why a man and a woman might enter a domestic partnership rather than a marriage, despite the fact that the two grant equal treatment under the law. The greatest of them? One or the other partner is a widow/widower whom refused to either forget the deceased OR cease living their lives.

I think it more publicity was centered on protecting the elderly in this, it would help fight the Theocratic Right’s dictum of it being solely about “Gay marriage.”

If I had my druthers, domestic partnerships would be available to multiple parties (not just two) regardless of age or gender, and represent nothing more than a single household pooling income — a ‘partnership’ of the home. Simple enough.

(cont’d)

thats the best political solution for the LP to advance. But it binds the LP into a box. They cant stand for the state to have a hand in it, so they flounder on the issue and have nothing to advance these people. On the one hand, they would force churches to do something they dont want to do, on the other hand they accept a state role, and the LP doesnt even offically accept the state. What to do, What to do?

I have a lot of respect for Tim West. But if someone else said what he did in post #23, I would have called them every name in the book for “stupid.”

Inter-racial marriage is legal. However, no church is FORCED to perform inter-racial marriages. Come the fuck on! Churches are PRIVATE and free to discriminate. The Catholic Church doesn’t have to marry protestants, and the Church of Scientology doesn’t have to marry human beings. No gay marriage law would ever force churhces to perform same-sex marriages – it would just give legal standing to the thousands of churches that already do.

MikeT — Here’s your answer in short

1) Power of Attourney oftentimes only extends to state borders in the case of competant individuals.

2) PoA is either blanket (or in the case of Medical PoA) prevents the individual from making decisions for himself/herself.

3) PoA does not infer filial associations. Family members can override PoA with court injunctions.

4) MPoA, PoA, Living Wills, et al, often require multiple forms and the attendance of a retained attourney, increasing the cost severalfold.

5) One could make the same argument about the continuance of heterosexual marriage recognition in the eyes of the state.

6) PoA does not confer inheritance rights; separate will documents must be established for that; this is inclusive to point #4.

7) Liberty must confer a certain level of egalitarianism to its philosophy for freedom to be free; either everyone has the *opportunity* without judgments from 3rd parties, or… nothing; there is no ‘or’.

(cont’d)

Tim: I don’t see my personal solution as binding the LP in a box. It certainly flies in the face of anarchist ideology — as it recognizes a legitimate authority of the state (in its role as protector of private property), which family law & association are *SPECIFICALLY* inherent to — but as you know, I don’t consider it rightful or legitimate for the LP to solely endorse the ideology of one wing of the LP’s constituency.

U-A,

exactly what did I say that had ANYTHING to do with race?

As a gay LP member myself, I support an incremental approach:

1) Open marriage up to gays;

2) Then open up its rights to everyone (single, married, etc.)

3) Then get government out of the marriage business entirely.

Incidentally, I disagree that there isn’t a serious reason why marriage equality is preferable to civil unions. Besides the “separate but equal” thing (which is a legitimate moral point), you also have the situation of extra bureaucracy — when “civil unions” are done in various US states (or in Europe), an entirely different “civil union” bureaucracy is created with new employees, regulations, etc.

Britain’s Civil Partnership Act (which gave gays the rights of marriage in all but name) took over a year to implement so that they could “train and recruit” civil servants to understand all the differences between CPs and “real marriage.”

It’s much easier and less time-consuming to simply open up the institution to everyone, and that *is* the preferable option.

but thats not incremental.

1) Open marriage up to gays;

good luck with that. You’re done before you start. I would advance that state civil unions give gays more freedom than the church will ever give you. You wont get anything from them, and you will be dead from natural causes and old age and have achieved nothing. You just wanna fight your moral enemies to your death. Fuck if you actually get 90% of what you say you want in another way…… Becuase thats the Libertarian way.

What you want is Religious Approval of your sexuality. You wanna make them change to give you the (insert religion here )stamp of approval.

BTW, I’m not a Christian, or any form of mainstream good bookism person. Dont believe in em.

It’s no longer about stuff and legal protections. If that was the case, you’d jump at the chance. Get it voted on and approved, and then they consent to the deal. It’s no longer theft. I think you having equal protection under the law is more important.

But this is what the libertarian is ignoring with taxes. For the vast majority of people taxation is not taking place without consent. Sure you can get them to “Honk, if hate taxes.” but try a sign that says “Honk, if you believe all taxes are wrong.” You would be greeted by a deafening silence in most cases.

Most people believe that taxes are legitimate. They may whine about the kind of taxes or the level of taxes or the way the taxes are spent. But they simply do not believe that taxes are theft. And for them taxes are not theft. They consent!!! Get it! They think they ought to pay taxes.

The libertarian argument is circular. It argues that taxes are theft without consent but then assumes that no one consents. Most taxpayers believe that taxation is legitimate and that government has the right to tax. It doesn’t matter why they believe this. They could be brainwashed, have a divine epiphany justifying it, simply think it’s a good idea, or have never given it any thought at all. But at the core they believe the state has the right, if not the duty, to collect taxes.

Remember the difference between rape and seduction. The state often seduces. It promises the taxpayer nice things if they consent to being taxed. And most citizens, by far the overwhelming majority of them, like the promises enough to consent. They may try to reduce their taxes. They may even cheat on them the same way a husband may cheat on his wife -that is he still wants the marriage but he also wants a little cheating on the side. But most people simply do not think that taxes are a violation of their rights. They consent to them.

Now this poses a problem for the libertarian. If you are trying to get the public to abolish taxes you will go almost nowhere. They may be willing to abolish a specific tax but they would overwhelmingly reject any proposal you make to abolish all taxes.

The moral principles of libertarianism certainly do resonate with some people. But they only resonate enough to a small number of people to turn them into some sort of anarchist. Even most self-identified libertarians are not anarchists. They believe that some government is necessary.

I am saying he will never get his stamp of approval from the church – just like the USA will never be anarchist – and that demanding what is not possible is a sure way to lose and never get closer to your ideal.
after 40 years of civil unions, it would be 100X times easier to mount a successful campaign to have the church do what he wants. But he wants it all now.

You will never get an anarchist USA unless we first slow the rate of government growth, then get rid of ONE LAW. then get rid of several. Then elect a congressman. And you go on from there. In time, you might make a case for ditching government when government is 1/100th the size it is now. But when you demand the LP promote anarchism, you make it a lot harder for people to accept the steps in bewteen, and there have to be those steps. Getting back to the legit 4 reasons for a federal government is something possible in the political marketplace. Not right away, but it can be done.

I am saying he will never get his stamp of approval from the church – just like the USA will never be anarchist – and that demanding what is not possible is a sure way to lose and never get closer to your ideal.

How do you know what will “never” happen? I don’t think you do.

after 40 years of civil unions, it would be 100X times easier to mount a successful campaign to have the church do what he wants.

I didn’t see him say anything about wanting the church to do anything at all. Again, it seems you are confused by what is meant by marriage in this discussion?

You will never get an anarchist USA unless we first slow the rate of government growth, then get rid of ONE LAW. then get rid of several. Then elect a congressman.

I can see lots of other ways it could happen, such as the government collapsing in chaos, or gradual persuasion and more people withdrawing support/consent/acceptance, as well as other ways. And I’m not against incrementalism.

OK, I’m tired. Going away. Spot you laterz.

Brian: My layman’s definition of a civil union?

The state of affairs wherein two adult individuals have “adopted” each other into being considered family in all non-biological matters.

Domestic partnership’s a far, far better term; more accurate as well — wherein a group of individuals establish themselves in a legal sense to be of one household, with rights of kinship extended to all within.

Please note that I do not place arbitrary restrictions on polygamous/polyandrous relationships.

Brian: I get you with regards to civil unions being vague in nature. I remain convinced, however, that it is a practicably workable solution. In most all cases, civil unions are used to confer “all the rights associated with marriage.”

So long as the continual legal transferance from marriage benefits to civil union benefits continues, I suspect the whole issue might become moot.

And as far as ‘getting the gay vote’ as it were… I have witnessed this problem personally. (Obligatory disclaimer; I’m an incorrigably heterosexual man.) I would cite Barry Hess. as I am an Arizona resident, and his stance on the abolition of domestic partnerships in the state of Arizona. (Mind you, it’s not *the creation of*, but *the ABOLITION of.*) Prop 107. This problem is prolific in nature.

Of course, most gays are irredeemably affixed to the Blue Party. Regardless of what real benefit they get.

‘Nough said.

Why would civil unions create a new bueracracy? Just call it a “civil union” and let it be 100% the same as marriage. Fuckin’ A.

most gays are irredeemably affixed to the Blue Party. Regardless of what real benefit they get.

That’s only because more people in the LP aren’t helping those of us working to change that. With Hillary and Obama quoting Dick Cheney on gay rights, the LP has a huge opportunity. Bruce Guthrie and similar candidates have been a MASSIVE success in the gay community and are costing the Dems votes, big time.

The problem is that the National LP, in my view, seems more interested in courting social conservatives than any other constituency. The LP could do a lot by taking on the GOP and Dems on gay marriage and offering a libertarian solution to the problem which doesn’t have the sniff of diffidence towards queer folk that the party’s press releases have had in the past.

As for the civil union bureaucracy, please see Connecticut, Vermont and the UK and the separate organizations they’ve set up for civil unions. ;)

Brian — I very much so believe that homosexuals in particular (sad that that word has a ‘dirty’ tone to it), would be far better served by casting their lot with the true cause of the LP.

It’s just that so many *PEOPLE* have the “team” mentality, and when it comes to politics will politely allow themselves to be raped up the ass repeatedly and thank them afterwards.

Because many GLBT’s see the Republicans so viciously, and see the LP as “More Republican than Republican”, I see it as an uphill battle in places like here in AZ.

I wish it weren’t so — but that certainly isn’t the fault of the GLBT “community.”