NJ's creation of civil unions instead of marriage is a disappointment, but

[cali]

it's still a step forward. Yes, I'd prefer to see marriage for all in NJ and here at home in VT, but both states have now extended rights to gays and lesbians that mirror marriage. If we can get 6 or 7 more states on board with either civil union laws or marriage for all statutes, we'll have enough of a critical mass to start pushing for federal rights for gays and lesbians in those unions.

So although I am disappointed in NJ's decision, I do see it as a move in the right direction. Now we need more states to either grant extensive rights through civil unions, or, preferably, grant the right of marriage to gays and lesbians.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Every step forward

advances the cause of equal rights. When enough states have some sort of legally recognized status for homosexual couples and everyone sees that marriage is not destroyed by it, we can move forward on a federal level.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. A positive development is the removal of discrimination

with regard to adoption, survivorship/inheritance/pension, and other benefits. It's not everything, but it's better than the other 49 states.

Now, if all couples could only AFFORD to live in New Jersey, that would be a great thing.

[rodeodance]

3. The word 'marriage' seems to scare people off when it comes to

trying to get these agreements.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

19. I agree -- there are three covenants of marriage

The first is the covenant the couple makes to themselves -- and that covenant happens regardless of any laws supporting or denying it.

The second is the covenant the couple makes with their community and their church -- again, this will happen regardless of laws.

The third is the covenant between the couple and the government, and it is here that the law has fallen behind reality. I once read a proposal that all goverment sanctioned unions be called "civil unions," whether straight or gay. Get away from the religious and traditional overtones of the word "marriage."

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. It is a step forward only in the sense...

That Jim Crow and "separate and inherently unequal" were steps forward from outright slavery.

Sure, it's an improvement, but most definitely NOT something to be happy about.

[cali]

9. Perhaps I didn't make my central

point well enough: It is, that if enough states join MA, NJ and VT, there will be a critical mass that will enable a push for federal rights.

[mondo joe]

23. I'll beg to differ. Although it is certainly unequal and indequate,

it is an IMPORTANT improvement for those it benefits.

Important enough, I think, to be happy about it.

[bryant69]

5. I think they should do away with civil marriage entirely

make everybody, straight or gay, have to live with civil unions.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. Do we have to go over this yet again?

Marriage is and always has been a civil institution in this state, religious idiots to the contrary.

[bryant69]

11. New Jersey has a right to do what ever it wants

and if you want to say Marriage is nothing more than a civil institution, that's your right too. To me it seems clear that people have endowed the civil marriage with religious signficance, regardless of what the law actually says.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[TechBear_Seattle]

15. It is not what I say, it is what the United States Constitution demands

Under the First Amendment, no religious ceremony may carry any kind of legal significance. No religious ritual, no matter how important to its practicioners, will ever create a legal marriage without the filing of the proper civil papers with the appropriate civil agency. The filing of such papers does not, and may not, require the enactment of a religious ritual.

You have been told this repeatedly.

[bryant69]

16. I'm really not trying to pick a fight

I apologize.

Bryant

[LynneSin]

6. Personally I think the GLBT community can do better than marriage

Heterosexuals have spent almost 2000 years making a mockery of marriage to the point that one in every 2 marriages usually end up the divorce court. I think GBLT deserve better.

The most important thing here is that GLBT can receive the same exact benefits that heteros receive. Plus I read somewhere where NJ gov could make a mint off of allowing out-of-state same-sex couples to 'marry' in NJ - it's a major influx of travel tax dollars to a state government in need of finding more money in their budget. If New Jerseyians are smart they should setup someplace like Atlantic City as a destination for same-sex couples across the country to get married. There is alot of money to be made here!

[JVS]

10. Just 2000 years? More like 7000 years

Making a mockery of marriage didn't begin with the birth of Christ.

[LynneSin]

13. Yeah you're absolutely right

:D

[blm]

8. I think ALL unions should be civil unions, and religious 'marriage' an ADDED option.

That would settle everything.

[sabbat hunter]

12. that is exactly my opinion

make everyone who wants to have "couples rights" under the law, get a civil union. if you want a religious marriage ceremony to go along with it, that is up to you and your church/temple/whatever.


anyone already holding a marriage license would of course be grandfathered.

[OregonBlue]

17. I agree. Tired of this debate. Make all unions civil unions and add

religious marriage if you really think you need it!!

[Bill McBlueState]

18. Technically, that would accomplish equality

But we have to look at what's on the table.

Is anyone anywhere actually working on or lobbying for legislation to strip married couples of their current status and rename it a civil union? No.

But a number of states are moving toward equal access to civil marriage for everyone, and Massachusetts is already there.

I think gaining civil marriage for all is a more realistic political goal than abolishing civil marriage for all.

[mondo joe]

20. And this would be different from the present system how?

[blm]

21. Taking the emphasis off the word 'marriage' and putting it on civil unions.

.

[mondo joe]

22. So it's just the word. Because legally, all marriages are civil unions

with an optional religious overlay.

[blm]

24. Exactly - and people need to accept that wording and deal with the FACT that

ALL civil unions are equal and religious marriages are the optional ceremonies that make no matter to federal status one way or another.

[mondo joe]

25. If people need to deal with it, why bother trying to change the word?

It doesn't change the legal status in the least.

[blm]

26. Same old reason - marriage is also a 'sacrament' in many religions that predate

our country's laws.

Let them have it.

[mondo joe]

27. If you think simply changing the name is either feasible or would be

accepted by the right, you are IMO quite naive.

People LIKE marriage recognized by the government. They will not want to change it to Civil Unions.

[blm]

28. Never said they'll LIKE IT...heheh. Just said it's the RIGHT thing to do.

.

[mondo joe]

29. Oh. Well if we're talking about the right thing to do, just let everyone marry.

Marriage as a state function has worked just fine for a long time. Just stop denying equal access to gays.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. I Don't Care Much What They Call It. I Only Find It Important That They Are Granted The Same

benefits as married heterosexuals. As long as there is law to give them those equal benefits, I'm ok with it.