Today’s NJ Gay Marriage Vote Hurts Real People

Comments

13 responses to “Today’s NJ Gay Marriage Vote Hurts Real People”

1. 

   Lori

   January 8, 2010

   It's a heartbreaking step backward, Kirk. But I applaud you for keeping up the fight. It's ludicrous that we live in a society that doesn't allow people to make choices that fit their lives.

   Reply
2. 

   Elaine

   January 8, 2010

   thanks, friend. I'm too angry right now to say anything more…

   Reply
3. 

   trlrtrash13

   January 10, 2010

   You are currently seeing full marriage equality. In order to discriminate against someone, you have to know the characteristic that causes the discrimination is there. In other words, if I wish to discriminate against you based on your race, religion, or gender, I have to know what your race, religion, or gender is.

   At no point in a marriage application process does one need to determine the sexual preference of the given couple. The law allows marriages under certain conditions. It does not allow (without regard to your sexual preference) marriage to minors, immediate relatives, people who are already married, or people of the same gender.

   This is the definition of equal treatment under the law. If I am straight and my twin brother is gay, the law allows us to marry all of the same people, and at the same time forbids us from marrying all of the same people. That is, by it's very definition, marriage equality. To spin this issue as some type of discrimination is incorrect, no matter where you stand on the issue.

   Reply
4. 

   kirkpete

   January 11, 2010

   Thanks for commenting, trlrtrash13, but I think your legalistic argument ignores the fact that any successful marriage must involve suitable partners. For a gay man or lesbian, a person of the opposite sex is not a suitable choice for a lifetime partnership.

   Reply
   1. 

      trlrtrash13

      January 11, 2010

      True, but based on that logic a suitable partner for a pedophile would be a child. For one who practices bestiality, it would be an animal. For a polygamist it would be multiple partners. Hence, we make laws to protect those who cannot consent and leave the rest to get in where they fit in. Nobody says one can't have multiple partners, we just say you can't marry all of them. Should we allow a brother and sister of consenting age to marry? How about mother and son? Most of us wish the best to gay couples, and I frankly could care less if they do marry. It is not right however, IMO, to call it inequality or discrimination, when all are treated equally under the law.

      Reply
5. 

   David W-H

   January 11, 2010

   trltrash13, in your strawman arguement, two of the three examples contain members who cannot consent, which, as you state, we have laws to protect. No one is saying the law needs to be changed to allow marriage between non-consenting people.

   Your first example contains another logical fallacy: you state that if you had a twin, you would be allowed to "marry the same people". That's not true. You, as the straight twin, can marry someone you love. Your twin cannot marry someone he loves.

   Reply
   1. 

      trlrtrash13

      January 12, 2010

      Nice try, David. But not true. If the straight twin loves his sister, mother, or some other immediate blood relative he cannot marry her. That is the point. This is the argument, and it is unbreakable because it is a fact. The law treats both sides as equals because it is an equal law. You may not like the law, and that is fine. But to call it "unequal" or discrimination is absolutely ridiculous.

      Reply
6. 

   kirkpete

   January 11, 2010

   thanks, David.

   trltrash13, by all means enjoy yourself with fanciful imaginings about a hypothetical bestiality-rights movement. I'm more concerned about the above-named real people in my life, none of whom asked to be born gay.

   Reply
   1. 

      trlrtrash13

      January 16, 2010

      "by all means enjoy yourself with fanciful imaginings about a hypothetical bestiality-rights movement."

      Lol. Does that mean you have fanciful imaginings about gay sex, or was that just your way of saying you realize you're wrong, but prefer to remain that way, so you will attack me since my point is bullet proof?

      Reply
7. 

   Sharon

   January 11, 2010

   Kirk,
   Thanks for your post. It really is sad that in this day and age we still are so primitive in our ability to accept people – just People. Not, gay people, or straight people, or black people, just people. It was indeed a heart-felt post.

   Reply
8. New Jersey Is “A Failed Experiment” | All That Is Necessary…

   April 17, 2010

   […] amendment banning same-sex marriage.  Then the cause of same-sex marriage in New Jersey suffered a serious setback when the Senate refused to pass a bill in the waning days of the Corzine administration.   That […]

   Reply
9. DADT: Some Days It’s Not Easy Being a Socially Liberal Republican | All That Is Necessary…

   December 19, 2010

   […] I generally vote Republican, but I’m quite liberal on social issues.  For example, my support for same-sex marriage equality puts me to the left of Barack “marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman” […]

   Reply
10. On Gay Marriage, NY vs. NJ, and the Maplewood Bubble | All That Is Necessary…

    June 25, 2011

    […] On that basis alone, I voted for the Democratic incumbent.  Since the New Jersey legislature was unable to pass a marriage equality law in the waning days of the Corzine administration, there is no realistic chance of same-sex marriage […]

    Reply