Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
????? to paraphrase you....what's the difference if they are married -vs- having a civil union as it pertains to "getting it on the down low"?
it depends. if being married becomes the popular thing to do compared to civil unions, then maybe more gays will get married than civil unionized. it seems like civil unions weren't too popular.
Once again, the New Jersey Supreme Court has proven that they would rather be in the legislature than on the court bench. Marriage is an issue which should be resolved by religious institutions, but given the fact that it isn't - it would be best if the state's made their own decisions in this regard. The decision by an activist judge in Mercer was based on federal law. Furthermore, the people of New Jersey should be the ones to decide this issue, not a court.
The Supreme Court of the United States decided that Prop 8 denied the rights of gay Californians under the equal protection clause for a whole host of reasons including the inability to file tax returns together, making life and death decisions and many more. It makes perfect sense that the Supreme Court of New Jersey would find the same thing based on that ruling. Did you see the decision was 7-0? It is not a red and blue state issue, it is an equal protection issue and it will not be long before same sex marriage is legal in all 50 states.
Religious institutions can of course do what they like, and that is the way it should be but marriage is unfortunately tied up with the state. Get rid of marriage in the state, give civil unions to everyone sanctioned by the state, and let churches define marriage. That is an acceptable solution that does not violate the equal protection clause but would never happen.
I am glad that things like segregated lunch counters in the 1950s were not put to a vote at the time no matter how much that might change "society".
Yeah, we should totally let civil rights issues be decided by popular votes.
Can you imagine? Segregation would still be legal today in most Southern states!
This board always tends to lean towards the older, more conservative side but I have to admit - it is fun to watch some of you throw a fit as it becomes more and more obvious that you're a dying breed on the wrong side of history - not unlike those Southerners in the 60's.
Yeah, we should totally let civil rights issues be decided by popular votes.
Can you imagine? Segregation would still be legal today in most Southern states!
This board always tends to lean towards the older, more conservative side but I have to admit - it is fun to watch some of you throw a fit as it becomes more and more obvious that you're a dying breed on the wrong side of history - not unlike those Southerners in the 60's.
Yeah. This.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
