Alphecca

One annoying thing about the MA ruling was that the SJC deliberately issued their ruling in such a way as to impose gay marriage; in essence saying the Legislature must allow it unless a constitutional amendment were to be passed, oh, and by the way, you only have 180 days to do so, knowing full well that the structure of the state amendment process makes it impossible, which is a pretty rotten trick.

If it is such a good idea why can't they sell it to the voters instead of again going through judicial fiat?

Patrick,

Are you saying that you would be opposed to the Supreme Court ruling that people have the right to carry unlicensed anywhere in the country? Because the case is about "fundamental rights" and "equality" as much as the Second Amendment is, it's just that some people don't agree with it, just like some people don't believe the Second Amendment secures an individual right. All the court said was that rights and privileges under the New Jersey State Constitution must be applied equally to any couple, not just heterosexual couples.

- Brandon

We are talking apples and oranges here folks. The fix is simple--get the government out of the "marriage" business and let people enter civil contracts for partnership whether they are gay or straight. If someone wants to get "married" they can in their church or synagogue, but they would also have to enter a civil partnership in order for the state to recognize the union in order to secure the burdens and benfits if the law. Problem solved. What is objectionable to most, me included, is the hijacking of and effort to redefine "marriage" That is the problem with the activists, always trying to force others not just to tolerate their cause, but rather force them to embrace and accept it as well.

i disagree with your characterization of state sponsored marriage as a right. As I see it, (and this is only my opinion) that the state has the right to confer benefits on some groups and not others based on real or perceived benefits to society. the relationship between people and government is a contract, nothing more, and in any contract both sides must gain something of value (again, be it real or perceived).

You can currently marry anyone and anything you want. This it not in dispute. However, the state only confers benefits on those marriages it considers a value to society. Currently, you cannot get state recognition if you marry someone underage, too closely related, if you marry an animal, or for polygamy or polyandry. all these things are still marriages, but they do not recieve state sanction. ( As far as those examples, they are all done under the auspices of various religions, and I make no judgement here as far as their moral value. i also make no judgement here as far as homosexual moral value.)

IMHO, adding homosexuals to the list of who gets state benefits for being married requires the supporters of expanding this privilege to state clearly what benefit society gets from it, and also what benefits they hope to obtain that they cannot get through other legal means.

Btw, being married, the only benefit that I gain from marriage is that, in the event of my wife being in a coma, i can make medical decisions for her without requiring another legal document. and that would only happen as long as no other adult with an interest in her health (i.e parent, adult child, sibling) challenges my decision. (i.e. Schiavo) There are no tax benefits, there are no property benefits, and with the tightening of the HIPPA regs, I dont even get informed of any medical matters unless my wife specifically allows it.

In a semi-related aside, I reside (at the moment) in TN. We had a constitutional amendment on the ballot effectively banning same sex marriage. I voted against the amendment, but it's because I don't feel that the state constitution is the correct place for this. I feel it is a legislative matter only. (and yes, we have early voting here)

Anyway, I really don't think that this will get the 'base' more energized, their 'apathy' is pretty much a construction of the media. This will probably get blamed for the abmormally high turnout and the inability of the democratic party to gain control of either house. and then, we will be tormented by 2 more years of the hard left calling everyone who disagrees with them homophobes. Yay...

Peace, and good shooting...

"I can't think of anything better to ignite the conservative base and get them to come out and vote for Republicans."

Well, if the NJ court had ordered all-out marriage, that would do the trick. By going the Civil Union route, they probably blunted widespread outrage.

Because the case is about "fundamental rights" and "equality"

Nonsense. Jeff, for example, has the EXACT SAME right as I do--the right to get married to a woman.

The fact that's not what he wants is, well, kind of irrelevant. What advocates of gay marriage are asking is actually something different.

And if two men or two women can get married, how can you differentiate that so that a brother and sister can't?

Jeff, why do so many "libertarian" commenters pooh-pooh the religious right on their bullshit side-show issues, like opposition to gay marriage. Your comment that gay marriage is "not a high priority for [you]" is merely a cop-out to extemeists who continue to drive true "libertarians" and "republicans" away from the party and the voting booth. The right to bear arms does not derive from the Constitution, but from the Declaration of Independence, which declares that every human being on [god of your choice]'s green earth is endowed with inalienable rights. Accordingly, those who deny the right of two consenting adults to obtain a marriage "license" from the government are no better than those who try to take away our right to self defense. After all, no law or granting of a license by the government will ever force any church or religious organization to acknowledge gay marriage before the eyes of [god of your choice]. So, in closing, please dispense with the bullshit pandering to the religious right. Besides, I read your blog for gun issues (and, apparently of late, cooking tips for bachelors).

Gordon,
Ummmm.... the right to keep and bear arms IS enshrined in the constitution. I fail to see any mention of marriage in it. In my opinion, the court erred in conflating privileges with rights. the right to marry anyone of your choosing was not at all affected by the applicable law. As long as you could find someone to perform it, you were married. What the plaintifs wanted here was state recognition fo their intent to marry, and thats a privilege not a right.

Peace

I'm going to have to write up a decent paper about this subject. There are many decent, agnostic reasons to oppose gay marriage.

The most obvious would be to avoid redefining the English language. Marriage is a male-female thing right now, and has been for several thousand years (certainly longer in a less-formal method). Even in societies where male-male and female-female couplings were considered acceptable or even normal, the weren't covered under civil marriages.
Redefining the language of an argument is a powerful tool. It's how gun owners can go from wanting everyone to have a weapon of war to just wanting to protect to defend oneself. It's also how Marx proved to billions of soft-headed weak-willed fools that corporations "exploit" the workers, rather than simply get a "profit".
The most direct and painful example would be simple church marriages. Everyone can be against forcing a Christian Church to marry two men or two women. On the other hand, forcing the Church to accept a married couple is a hell of a lot harder

Another libertarian argument is simply that legal marriage is not a right - for the last two hundred years, it's been reliant on the government's acceptance. In fact, this was specifically outlined in Meister v. Moore close to a hundred and forty years ago, which stated that the government can define exactly how you marry, and what is required, or even who. It is, after all, a service provided by the government, so it's certainly understandable that the government can limit it.

Remember, Republicans aren't interested or able to limit what two consenting adults do in their private quarters. Hell, since there's no such thing as gay sex (see Blanchflower v. Blanchflower), it's impossible to. This isn't about equal rights, as the massive complaints about the straight men 'marrying' in Canada for tax purposes.

Don't have a dog in this hunt except for peripheral concerns. Settle this debate in an open session of whatever Legislature is involved, not in an activist court on either side! Like I care what someone does in a private bedroom or in their will!

From what I have heard, (I have not read the decision), the court said that under the STATE constitution, all must be treated equally. THey did not say marriage was a right for anyone.

So the legislature now needs to figure out a way to treat everyone equally. THe only way I see them being able to do this is to turn every marriage into a civil partneship and remove the words marriage and matrimony from the law.

But this is NJ, they will figure out a way to screw it up in some unconstitutional manner, and probably add male genitalia to the list of banned assault weapons at the same time.

Matts ponts are well taken, but he is wrong on one point. He does get property benefits from being married. The right to inherit from your spouse without taxation. That is a big one, especially for the less wealthy that could be taxed out of their home on the death of a co-owing gay partner.

More comments. While the right to arms may be enshrined in the Constitution, it is not granted by it. Rights, under the philosophy of liberty espoused by the founders and the enlightenment, are inherrant in people.

The right to arms was most certainly not in the Declaration. The Declaration was a divorce document that stated the reasons and supporting basis for a separation of two parties, in this case the British crown and the American subjects of that crown. Some of those reasons included violations of the rights of Englismen as understood from history.

I'm quite heterosexual and already married for 6 years, so you would think I couldn't care less about this issue. But I do. Even though I classify myself as a moderate "Republican," I think it's utterly ridiculous that "the state" ever gets to say who can marry whom. I'm another in favor of a simple contract between any two consenting adults. Religious services at your discretion. Divorce doesn't benefit society either, but we allow it. You can try to put an agnostic trapping on marriage, but it's really a religious issue - and one that I just don't see why it should even exist.

please dispense with the bullshit pandering to the religious rightYou think a majority of the people in this country are the "religious right"? More than 60% of Californians voted a few years back to refuse to recognize gay marriages from other states, and CA is not noted for being very "religious" or "right". Btw, being married, the only benefit that I gain from marriage is that... No, there are other legal benefits, inheritance rights being a major one. The lawyers could give a complete list, and it isn't short.

But it's important to recognize that marriage is not a "right". As noted above, legally it's a state construct and the benefits (and obligations) are conferred by the state as, effectively, a state-recognized contract.

There are two big problems I see with having it come by judicial decision. The first is that because a majority of people (even in California) oppose it, it may well result in the state constitution being amended to make it even more difficult to legalize it in the future - it only takes a simple majority in California, for example, to amend the state constitution by initiative.

The second is that it becomes more difficult, as Rick noted, to justify keeping other "variations" unrecognized (sibling inc*st, polygamy, b*sti*lity - I've already seen arguments to legalize all of these, based exactly on this kind of justification).

I'm very much in favor of legalizing gay marriage but I recognize that I'm in the minority in this country. I'm sure that will change but until it does, judges imposing it from the bench only cause trouble and make it more difficult.

[BTW, sorry for the asterisks but my comment keeps getting bounced and I suspect it's because of "those words"]

Gordo misses an important point: The whole thing is incrementalism at its finest. The government will eventually tell the churches that they must marry whomever the law allows to be married. That my friends is where this is heading and that is why I am for getting the government out of the marriage business and permitting civil union contracts.

You can argue this gay issue forever. Meanwhile the BOLO's are attacking our Bill of Rights. Okay, you stop gay marriage, but take away your guns! What have you won and lost? Gay people will aways be with us, live with that and give them due process. The commies are beating at your door, and you can't hear them because of side issues. A POX on new jersey to boot!

The push for gay marriage is more about economic advantage ensured by the state.

People got married a long time before they needed state permission. Marriage is a different animal than the state approved union pertinent to your license. Marriage was the word kept since it was the traditional name for a union between a man and a woman.

Leave the name "marriage" alone and I think the gay community will find damn near no resistance to their having legalized unions. But, of course, that isn't what they want. Without the fight, there can be no charges of homophobia and profit to be made from the assigned guilt.

This is more about economics than it is the right to love whom you love. And a level playing field is not acceptable to the gay movement apparently.