Joe! Long tim no see!
Actually, the NJ Supreme Court decision DID NOT even remotely declare that homosexuals have the right to marry. The decision merely stated that homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals in the sense that they are not denied any rights that heterosexuals have (that is gay people have the right to marry as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex and that no descrimination against gays exists in this department - heteorsexuals also have the same right to marry as long as it is with a member of the opposite sex).
What the decision does is declare that the legislature must enact laws or a constitutional amendment that decides the issue either way, but specifically charges the legislature with creating laws that specifically allow for civil unions that permit inheritance, etc., in the event there is no will (will and last testament) and someone's estate goes
per sterpes.
There's a silly court case going on right now in North Carolina (where marriage is defined in the state constitution as specifically between one man and one woman) brought by a gay couple who was 'married' in Massechussets. Their argument is based upon the 'full faith and credit clause' in the US Constitution. The case is about to be dismissed because 'full faith and credity' only applies to specific issues mentioned in the Constitution and nothing more, mainly interstate trade and monetary issues. The gay couple's claim that 'because Massechussets says gay marriage is legal, every other state must recognize gay marriage because of 'full faith in credit' of laws and documents of other states. This argument is totally and utterly flawed under principles of common law and I will explain why.
In North Carolina, it is legal for me to carry a sidearm or firearm without that firearm being registered and without a permit to carry in the open. Also, in North Carolina there are concieled carry permits for handguns. OK, think about this: if I can carry my handgun concieled in North Carolina with my permit to carry concieled, or out in the open if I don't have a CC permit, then, by the 'full faith in credit' argument I should be able to carry in Massechusettes (and any other state) regardless of what their laws state or their state constitution says. See where this is leading?
On the obverse, if Montana illegalizes abortion, under the full faith and credit argument put forth by the gay couple, that would make abortion illegal in every other state regardless of the laws of those states. But this conundrum is settled totally by the US Constitution. The US Constitution has the 9th and 10th amendments which define 'states rights', and this is why we have different states, and thanksfully so.
Let's stretch this to a very real possibility - if Oregon, it is legal to have sex with animals, so can it be argued that every other state has to recognize and permit an Oregonians 'right' to fornicate with livestock within the borders of any other state? Or how about polygamy? If a state were to permit polygamy, can every other state be forced to recognize it despite their constitutions? Obviously not, and certainly not without a US Constitutional amendment that overrides the 9th and 10th amendments.
Now, if gay couples were to approach the argument from a really logical point of view, they would, with ease, obtain a 'civil union' ruling that affords exactly the very same rights as heterosexual couples. And the argument is so obvious that I can't fathom why gays haven't tried it.
The approach that gay couples should be using falls under the heading of 'property rights' and 'freedom of association'. Very simple. If someone who is gay owns property, their 'gayness' has no bearing on their right to dispose of their property in any way they see fit. Since gay people generally do not have any offspring, any other relatives (siblings, cousins, parents) would have a very weak argument to contest a gay person's will leaving everything to their 'partner'. The problem is when there is no will whatsoever. If said gay person has biological offspring or adopted children, then it wouldn't matter, but for their 'partner'. So, in the event that there is no contractual obligation arrived at on paper ahead of time, the way to solve the issues involved is to afford a 'civil union' arrangement that extends those rights afforded to married couples as per property rights. This already exists per se under contract law in any given state.
The issue of hospitals not permitting gays to be visited by their 'partners' is only because the patient didn't list their 'partner' on their visitor list. That's a matter of issue with the policy of the hospital and not the law, etc. A hospital that is a private corporation has a right to set its policies in accordance with their stockholders' wishes. There are always other hospitals to extend you their custom if you don't like the policies of that particular hospital. Legally, a hospital, private or public, can refuse you treatment if you don't have insurance or the money to pay for treatment. Hospitals are equal opportunity descriminators - they descriminate against everyone equally.
The other thing that royally pisses me off is when I hear anyone equating the 'gay rights movement' with the 'civil rights movement' as endured by blacks in the US. It's a major insult to blacks and the whole civil rights movement. I don't recall gays being enslaved because they were gay. I don't recall gays being forced to walk on a different side of the street than heterosexuals. I don't ever recall gays being denied any rights by law or constitution that didn't also apply to heterosexuals. It's equally illegal in East Bejeezus for people to engage in sodomy regardless of whether or not they are gay or not. And gays and heterosexuals have the same equal right to marry anyone they please as long as their choice is a member of the opposite sex. Ergo, no descrimination.
Now, if you refuse someone service at your business because they are gay, or refuse them employment because they are gay, that's another story altogether.
I personally don't care what people do in private. hell, I don't even want to see straight couples smooching in public let alone gays, but damn it, don't try to legislate laws from the bench calling a cow a tree and expect everyone to call a cow a tree. You can't legislate morality or acceptance. I franlky don't believe what polls say because I can design a poll to arrive at any conclusion I want and have it be statistically correct.
Oh, and New Jersey is a walking freak show and it has nothing to do with gay marriage or cows.
well done NJ
