Browsing this Thread:
3 Anonymous Users
|
N.J. Senate approves bill legalizing gay marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
Joined:
2012/1/11 18:21 Last Login : 2019/12/26 15:30 From GV Bayside Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
5356
 |
Posted on: 2012/2/13 20:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Jersey & Gay Marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
 
|
borisp,
I have been respectful to you. I ask the same. Please read what I said again. [Quote]And celebrating tomorrow? You got it!!! As part of this I will celebrate that since we started in 1776 we gave not only gave blacks a vote (and did not count them as just 3/5\'s of a person without any vote), Women can vote (starting only 91 years ago in very limited unpopulated parts of the country), Gays will soon be able to serve in the Military openly, etc etc etc. I am so glad these things came about. Yes, it would have been better if they had all happened sooner/faster but they did happen and change came in a way that the citizens could (mostly LOL) adapt to. [ end quote] Where in God's Green Earth do I credit or cite the declaration of independence, the constitutional conventions, compromises made when writing the constitution, or any of the countless events that have happened since 1776 for any of the progress I cited above? BTW I feel the US of A has made progress, your opinion may be different and that is OK by me. And yes I knew when I wrote the above that women did not receive the vote all at once. You will note I said "in very limited unpopulated parts of the country". I did not look it up but I believe it was in 1920, hence my 91 years ago statement. I will leave it to you to point out if you can get me in a "gotcha" moment. Having said the above, I only know the first state that franchised women. Those not in the know will have to look it up, but I will give them another clue. It is the same state that awarded the Vice President that came before our current one 2 DUI's. borisp, Have good a fourth. And this applies whether you are celebrating or ruing what the country started EVEN BEFORE July 4 1776. I hope you are glad enough in spirit to wish others the same even if they do not have a commanding knowledge of our history. Best!
Posted on: 2011/7/4 15:49
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Jersey & Gay Marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Don't know much about history, huh? First, Declaration of Independence has nothing at all to do with laws about voting and slavery. It was a general Declaration of Principles on which the new State is founded. Second, the 3/5 rule in the Constitution, - do you know that this counting was at the insistence of the ANTI-slavery candidates? Slaves did not vote, and counting them meant that the slave-owners will be using those extra votes. Pro-slavery delegates wanted to count slaves 1 for 1. Anti-slavery delegates wanted to count free man only, - in order not to reward slavery with extra votes. BTW, states did not recognize voting rights for women at the same time. So, here is the trivia question: which states were the first? P.S. The people who signed the Declaration of Independence did not chose the "slow way that people can adapt to". They plunged into it, head first - Quote: And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Posted on: 2011/7/4 14:59
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Jersey & Gay Marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Basically, the exact same argument that Mr. Dickinson used 235 years ago against signing of the Declaration of Independence.
Posted on: 2011/7/4 14:45
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Jersey & Gay Marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Because I am looking at outcome. Extending marriage to gays is certainly better - from not only a technical benefit perspective but also from the tone of tolerance/cultural message it sends - than keeping it as it is today. I would also support banning it all together. However what politician is going to pi$$ off that many tax payers and religious voters. The reality is that it is not the right timing (via public support) for a change like that.
Posted on: 2011/7/4 12:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Jersey & Gay Marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Can't speak for Ms_Taggart. For myself if out of this great democracy and it's "making sausage" way of passing legislation, when new legislation/laws come out something like 60% or more "good" I am generally satisfied. Yea I wish legislation could be greater than 98% good but ain't gonna happen. If we were in that Soviet Russia type system (glad we are not) it would be much easier to have these changes decreed from above. But look where that got them  And celebrating tomorrow? You got it!!! As part of this I will celebrate that since we started in 1776 we gave not only gave blacks a vote (and did not count them as just 3/5's of a person without any vote), Women can vote (starting only 91 years ago in very limited unpopulated parts of the country), Gays will soon be able to serve in the Military openly, etc etc etc. I am so glad these things came about. Yes, it would have been better if they had all happened sooner/faster but they did happen and change came in a way that the citizens could (mostly LOL) adapt to.
Posted on: 2011/7/4 3:35
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Jersey & Gay Marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
This is what puzzles me immensely. If you already decided to fight for a change in the current laws, - why not fight for the RIGHT change? And, as someone who immigrated here from Soviet Russia, - boy, am I puzzled by the attitude "oh, it is light years away from happening". Look, if all people thought this way, - what would we be celebrating tomorrow?
Posted on: 2011/7/4 2:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Jersey & Gay Marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Was basically agreeing - in a tongue and cheek kind of way. I support legal gay marriage as much as I support legal straight marriage. Government shouldn't be regulating marriage at all. You are 100% correct that they should recognize contract law. But since that is like 45 million light years away from happening, I have to look at outcome versus theory - until marriage comes off the books all together I 100% support gay marriage.
Posted on: 2011/7/4 2:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Jersey & Gay Marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
That I noticed. The problem is, - you notice that reality sucks, but you chooses a very wrong way to right the wrong. Quote: Whether it is right or not, and whether you like it or not, neither a living will nor your notarized piece of paper will give your selected non spousal ... Look, if we are to adopt a notion "oh, this is the reality of the current law so this is how it shall stay", than we should stop talking about gay marriage altogether. I thought we discuss what should be changed in those "current laws". We are here because many people do want to change those current laws. And what I keep telling you, is that their approach to "what to change" is all wrong. If the current law creates a preferred class of citizens who are granted something that others are denied, - a correct solution is to do away with that law! To do away with the privileges! To kick the government out of people's private lives and decisions! What is being discussed on this board, and everywhere else, - is how to get some people included in that privileged class. And this is a very wrong goal in my opinion.
Posted on: 2011/7/4 2:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Jersey & Gay Marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Then don't sweat the rights of gays to marry and to have families. Let them be, and let them be legal.
Posted on: 2011/7/4 1:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Jersey & Gay Marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42 Last Login : 2022/2/28 7:31 From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
4192
|
Quote:
Goof-ball, a straight couple are so 'designed' that they are able to have children, but if there is a medical condition they can't, should be give help. A gay married couple are so 'designed' that they can never have children. It's an opinion mscottc, don't sweat it.
Posted on: 2011/7/3 22:49
|
|||
|
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: New Jersey & Gay Marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Sorry, you have lost me, I apologize for being so dense. Only thing I can figure is perhaps you are thinking I am arguing "for the way things ought to be". That is not the points I am trying to make. I thought I was only pointing out the reality of our present laws, which I totally agree with you, are messed up in many cases. Whether it is right or not, and whether you like it or not, neither a living will nor your notarized piece of paper will give your selected non spousal "life partner" or other party intimately trusted by you to you the ability to visit you and make decisions for you if it is challenged by a family member you do not trust to make decisions while you are incapacitated such as in a coma. Current law gives family more standing than the person you sanely elected before the tragedy that put you in the coma. Going back to the issue we started out with, this is one of the several ways (I listed others in my previous post) beyond taxes that government gives standing to marriage. Again, not saying this is right, just the way the present law is. Many times Gay people have family that they do not trust and they want nothing to do with. Perhaps that family has ostracized and criticized all parts of them and their lifestyles. At present their is nothing that can be done in many states by that gay person to give the person they most trust (perhaps love and spent 30 or more years with). The hospital is required by the government to honor the family more than the paper with your wishes.
Posted on: 2011/7/3 22:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Jersey & Gay Marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
You can't argue TWO sides at the same time.
Either you acknowledge that any person has a right to decide who makes medical decision for him, who visits him in a hospital or prison, and so on. In this case all the first part of your comment loses any meaning. Or you deny that, and pronounce that only The Government has the power to decide who to allow in each case. If this is the former than stop explaining the difference between "living will" and notarized piece of paper, - since THERE IS NONE. If it is the right of a person to make this decision, than it matters not how that person calls the piece of paper they are written on. As I said, - if you hear something like "only the baptized can buy houses", the right thing to do is to demolish that law. And not to demand that everyone was government-baptized.
Posted on: 2011/7/3 20:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Jersey & Gay Marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
First may I politely point out that you switched from quote "You can take a piece of paper, write "I trust so-and-so to make a decision on my behalf in a medical emergency", notarize your signature for $3 and DONE." end quote to "Living Wills". In all fairness if you were speaking of living wills you should of said so.
A living will in many states will not give visitation rights. If a family (defined as persons parents, siblings etc) wants to prevent the hospitalized persons chosen non spousal partner from visiting the sick person in the hospital they are able to do so. A living will cannot prevent this. Further in your post on this thread of 7/1 8:08 you stated: Begin Quote "The Government's "contribution" in the whole thing are two things: (1) Tax breaks. The government decided to encourage some forms of private sex life financially. (2) Licensing. The government decided that it will decide who can and can't call their union a "marriage" (which is now, apparently, a government-owned trademark)." End Quote Marriage confers many benefits beyond the government tax codes. Not just hospital visitation but Jail or prison visitation rights and immigration policies are more benefits of marriage given beyond the tax code. Perhaps others can help me with more marriage benefits given by government? And I mean by government, not those given by industry/business like cheaper insurance rates. Also do not include the longer life spans, less family poverty to those children fortunate enough to be living with married parents than cohabiting parents. That said I think you and I probably agree on that government should get out of the marriage business. Let's have government agree that any two reasonable people (ie sane, competent, age of consent etc) can get a civil union. Let each Religion decide who Religion will marry. Marriage confers only the rights of a private organization, it does not confer any additional rights or privileges of government. I am not an optimist in the realities of getting our political system to "bend to our will". God bless you if you are that much of an optimist/idealist. With Respect
Posted on: 2011/7/3 16:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Jersey & Gay Marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
There is nothing to study, - let's say, for the sake of the argument, that you are right. Let's say that I am mistaken and there is no such thing as "Living Will". Let's assume that in some state there is a law that denies people a right to appoint a "health care proxy", and says that only a spouse can play this role. Now to me, that means we need to tell the State that this law violates people rights. How to explain it... Ok, here is a hypothetical: imagine that in some State there is a law that says "only baptized citizens are allowed to buy houses, everyone else must rent". Now, to me it is clear that we should fight against this law. And your argument in this analogy would go like this: "since the law prohibit to buy houses to those who are not baptized, we must demand that the government provided baptism to everyone!" No, really? You see that the problem was created by the Government getting involved, - and you conclude that the solution is in involving the Government some more. Instead of telling it to back off, and reverting the harm it is done? WHY?
Posted on: 2011/7/3 14:53
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Jersey & Gay Marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Since you quoted me, it must mean that you are responding to what I said. However, I can't make a connection. I am not sure what statement of mine you are responding to, and I am not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing. Sorry.
Posted on: 2011/7/3 14:38
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Jersey & Gay Marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
borisp, Please study this issue before you make claims like this. While a person can do the above, the hospital is not required to honor it. Further, another family member of the sick or injured person (Parent, Sibling even aunt or uncle and cousin) supersedes the desires of that person named on the piece of paper notarized no matter how much was paid for the notary stamp. If a spouse is hospitalized, the desires of the spouse take all preference. Many times both gay and straight individuals do not want their families to make medical decisions if they are incapacitated (ie coma). A marriage means the spouse has standing and gives the incapacitated person choice in who will make decisions. There are more issues beyond this and "taxes" that gives people benefit in marriage. I just felt it proper to point out what I hope is only a wrongful assumption on your part about the power of a $3 notary stamp. Peace!
Posted on: 2011/7/3 13:56
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Jersey & Gay Marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
By that logic, any straight couple who can't, for whatever reason, reproduce should also be denied the right to adopt. I have to say your comment is the most asinine thing I've heard on this topic yet... guess it fits, given your name.
Posted on: 2011/7/3 13:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Jersey & Gay Marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42 Last Login : 2022/2/28 7:31 From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
4192
|
I'm all for gay marriages, but they should be ban from adoption, access to the sperm or egg banks etc.
Obviously you can't reproduce if you are gay, therefore you should also be void of these services - Its not a medical issue but a physical / biological issue !
Posted on: 2011/7/3 12:59
|
|||
|
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: New Jersey & Gay Marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Borrowed quote... " The 14th Amendment says no state shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Which makes the gay marriage issue all the more perplexing. Why should gay people be the only ones to be protected against marriage? That is why I'm announcing that I will be filing a lawsuit against the state of New York to extend this protection to straight people and have all marriage banned."
Posted on: 2011/7/3 12:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Jersey & Gay Marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Well, if he wants to, he can lose weight. You, on the other hand...
Posted on: 2011/7/3 11:56
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Jersey & Gay Marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Was making a point. And is he not obese?
Posted on: 2011/7/3 1:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Jersey & Gay Marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I am not a Governor Christie supporter -- but the obese comment makes you sound kind of like an A-hole
Quote:
Posted on: 2011/7/2 23:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Jersey & Gay Marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Come on Governor Christie, I can't stand obese obnoxious Governors who favor policies that hurt most people but your base rich folk, but I don't want to take any rights away from you. You don't favor same sex marriage okay I get that, but that's YOUR opinion. I hate that the beliefs of some humans take rights away from others. Maybe they should outlaw divorce as well.
Congrats to those in NY State that have legislators and a Governor with courage and conscience. The sooner we get rid of this giant blowhard in NJ the better I say.
Posted on: 2011/7/2 19:34
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Jersey & Gay Marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
It depends on a perspective. I couldn't care less which party will guarantee my freedoms, declared 235 years ago tomorrow and even written in the Constitution. For me it is not a quest for political power and domination, - so the outcome is all I care about.
Posted on: 2011/7/2 17:28
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Jersey & Gay Marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Oh, COME ON! "The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency"? You can take a piece of paper, write "I trust so-and-so to make a decision on my behalf in a medical emergency", notarize your signature for $3 and DONE. The state merely recognizes marriage as a form of a contract that automatically includes medical trust, financial trust, will, and so on. But it does not means that you can't make a contract with a partner without marriage that will include ALL those things. You can't claim that married couple had more rights than un-married people just because the contracts they made have different names. The ONLY, - ONLY - benefit that Government offers to a married couple that nobody else can get, - is difference in taxes, - and tax-related things, - like disability benefits and so on. However, when the Government creates a privileged group endowed by special benefits, - one should fight against this very idea, - not for an inclusion in that privileged group. The government should not be giving special benefits to married people over un-married one. There is no justification in that, period.
Posted on: 2011/7/2 17:18
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Jersey & Gay Marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/10/19 1:18 Last Login : 2020/9/25 20:40 From somewhere else
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1609
|
Do you think that even if every gay person became Republican it would offset the stampede to the doors of the "values" voters? Yes, even in NJ. While there may be some modest long term gain for the party as a whole, it would be suicide for the actual politician who did it - particularly for one who may have aspirations beyond Trenton. And would the gain even be that great? Surely there are gay people who are poor or liberal gays who would never vote Republican for all the reasons a poor or liberal straight person wouldn't.
Posted on: 2011/7/1 14:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Jersey & Gay Marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
It kills me to say this, but strategically it could be better for a republican governor to pass legislation or have legislation passed extending marriage to gays and lesbians. This could likely expand the republican voting base. There are a lot of wealthy, high income earning gays who are only democrats for the marriage issue. Additionally, having those gays and lesbians would also increase the donation pool to the republican camp. While there's of course a concern that bringing the gays into the republican fold would alienate some of the existing base, that would probably not be the case in NJ nor would it have an impact when it comes to voting.
Posted on: 2011/7/1 13:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Jersey & Gay Marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2004/9/15 18:45 Last Login : 2023/5/12 21:59 From Harsuimus Cove
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
174
|
If it was as simple as "Tax Breaks", I'm not sure we'd be quite as interested in getting married in the first place. This goes way beyond taxes.
From the HRC website: Rights and Protections Denied Same-Sex Partners Because same-sex couples are denied the right to marry, same-sex couples and their families are denied access to the more than 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities automatically granted to married heterosexual couples. Among those are: The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency. Specifically, the states generally provide that spouses automatically assume this right in an emergency. If an individual is unmarried, the legal "next of kin" automatically assumes this right. This means, for example, that a gay man with a life partner of many years may be forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he may have a distant or even hostile relationship. The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents. The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate. The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. For example, in most states, there is no law providing a noncustodial, nonbiological or nonadoptive parent's right to visit a child - or responsibility to provide financial support for that child - in the event of a breakup. The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships. Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits. The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will. The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job. Such inequities impose added costs on these families, such as increased health insurance premiums, higher tax burdens and the absence of pension benefits or Social Security benefits in the event of a partner's death. Some same-sex and transgender families consult attorneys to draw up legal documents such as powers of attorney, co-parenting agreements and wills, that will at least permit them to declare who they wish to make health care and financial decisions for them if they become incapacitated; how they wish to share parenting responsibilities or, in the event of a breakup, custody of a child; and what they want to happen to their property when they die. However, these are not a substitute for legal protection under law and cannot provide the broad range of benefits and protections provided by law.
Posted on: 2011/7/1 13:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Jersey & Gay Marriage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I have yet to see something as utterly meaningless as this marriage hoopla.
So, in the beginning the marriage was something between two people, - a private contract. For those who had some religious beliefs, it also had certain religious meaning. And governments recognized that union, - as a special form of contract. So far so good. Then, all of a sudden, instead of recognizing that private contract, governments moved in, and decided to license and regulate it! Mind you, two people still can make a private-contract "marriage", - they can go to a lawyer and sign few papers: mutual power of attorney, exchange wills, contract how they will raise children and so on. So nothing changed there. The Government's "contribution" in the whole thing are two things: (1) Tax breaks. The government decided to encourage some forms of private sex life financially. (2) Licensing. The government decided that it will decide who can and can't call their union a "marriage" (which is now, apparently, a government-owned trademark). It is obvious that most people here agree that the government must do both things. The disagreement is about which unions should get that treasured holy approval from the government. My question is, - why do you think the government should do those two things at all? How do you justify it? Why not leave marriage to be a private contract, - that would resolve all the problems, no?
Posted on: 2011/7/1 12:08
|
|||
|
||||