New Jersey's Supreme Court, a la Massachusetts and Vermont, has legislated--oh, wait, courts aren't supposed to make law, are they?--that the Garden State grant homosexuals marriage benefits. Instead of abiding by the decision of the state's voters and the voters' representatives, a handful of judges has usurped that right from the people. "Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state Constitution," opines Justice Barry T. Albin, who authored the court's 4-3 decision. If the state's Constitution offers no such right, on what ground--other than the whim of four unelected judges--does the court base its decision? Don't take heart. The justices who dissent argue that the court's ruling does not go far enough.

No joke, one of the legal arguments furthered by the court: "Times and attitudes have changed." Indeed they have, just not in the way the court implies. Ten, twenty, one-hundred years ago, just like today, not a single state could produce a majority willing to compel taxpayers to grant benefits and subsidies to homosexual couples in the form of recognition of gay marriage. With regard to gay marriage, times haven't changed all that much. The American people oppose it. From North Dakota to Texas, from Hawaii to Georgia, the American people have spoken. The judges have spoken in Vermont, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. Have times changed? Judges dictating legislation, according to their political leanings and not the letter of the law, proves that they have.

In a republic, the people, through their elected representatives, decide on all political questions. This even applies to rights. There is no right contained in the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution of New Jersey, that got inscribed there without the mandate of the people. Should the people of New Jersey, without a gang of judges forcing them into a shotgun wedding with gay marriage, choose to recognize same-sex unions, then let them. Should they opt against doing so? Homosexual fascists, and liberals who act illiberally when majorities disagree with them, say don't let them.

The american people also opposed womens sufferage, and freeing slaves, for a time. If you left things up to the American public a lot of stupid decisions would be made/are made. I don't really know where I'm going with that line of thinking, but the the way I see it is that if it were up to the american people to interpret the constitution about who had what rights, than there's a good chance there would still be slavery and women wouldn't be voting.

Besides, why do you care if about what benefits two other adults get?

r.c.

I agree with the dissent in way. The reasoning for civil unions isn't at all consistent. The case of interracial marriage is being appealed to for the support of gay marriage. Since civil unions wouldn't have been an acceptable decision in the case of interracial marriage how can they be acceptable in the case of gay marriage? It's separate but equal. Either call it marriage and grant all marriage rights or deny that it is marriage and deny all marriage rights. The argument for gay marriage as a right doesn't allow for a "middle ground" like civil unions.

RC, what bothers me is that the amendment process as a means to change the constitution has been dropped in favor of justices unbound by any coherent legal philosophy.

"The american people also opposed womens sufferage, and freeing slaves, for a time. If you left things up to the American public a lot of stupid decisions would be made/are made. I don't really know where I'm going with that line of thinking, but the the way I see it is that if it were up to the american people to interpret the constitution about who had what rights, than there's a good chance there would still be slavery and women wouldn't be voting.

Besides, why do you care if about what benefits two other adults get?

r.c." -R.C

The fundamental flaw in this argument is that in these situations, women and blacks could not vote, thus the Republican system had an inherent flaw.

Curently, gays are allowed to vote on the issue. As such, there is no flaw inherent to the republican system.

Sorry to double post, but I thought of this a second too late;

The other thing is that the act of marrying is not up for grabs. Gays are allowed to get married. If two men go to a Church to get married, the police will not break down the doors and arrest them.

What is up for grabs is not gays performing the ritual of marriage, and living as married men, but rather whether or not the benefits society provides to married men and women should be extended to them. For this reason, the debate is not "Should gays be allowed to marry?" but rather, "Should society officially recognize and promote gay marriage?".

Ben-T,

You make an interesting point, but do you really think a minority groups rights should be defined by the will of the majority? No group of peoples rights should be defined by a majority vote--that's my point

I think the issue is the benefits that come with marriage, and here are my two questions for anyone:
Is there a reason a unified heterosexual couple should get benefits?
If so, what is different about homosexual couples that makes them exempt to these benefits?

"You make an interesting point, but do you really think a minority groups rights should be defined by the will of the majority? No group of peoples rights should be defined by a majority vote--that's my point" -R.C.

Ideally, nobody would decide the rights of anybody else.

But in the real world, when only humans are available for government, no matter what sort of government you have, somebody decides what rights we have and don't.

I think that Republican government, where elected representatives decide the rights-is the best system available.

"Is there a reason a unified heterosexual couple should get benefits?: -R.C.

In my view, no, there is not. This answers the second question.

You could make the argument that, the healthy raising of children being a great benefit to society, benefits should be granted those doing that work. Of course this may apply only to unified whomevers who have children.

Question : should the people of Massachusetts or New Jersy have a say on gay marriage? R.C. and others Yes or No.

"You could make the argument that, the healthy raising of children being a great benefit to society, benefits should be granted those doing that work. Of course this may apply only to unified whomevers who have children." -Webster

Any time the government gives out money to any group, it gets that money, either now or in the future, from taxes.

Whenever government raises taxes, it forces consumers to save less, thus leading to less loans being taken out from banks, and less investment over all.

Seems to be to be more efficient to let married couples save, and invest in their future, then to just tax them and then throw money at them.

Ben-T: "Gays are allowed to get married. If two men go to a Church to get married...."

Participating in a ritual does not, by itself, constitute marriage. Here's an extreme counter-example to illustrate the point -- suppose a priest performs a ritual mimicking that of marriage for a hamster and a bicycle. Are the hamster and bicycle now married? Of course not. They are not the kinds of things that can be married. The same is true of two men or two women. They are not the kinds of things that can be married.

R.C.,

Your objection seems to be to democratic government as such.

"Is there a reason a unified heterosexual couple should get benefits? If so, what is different about homosexual couples that makes them exempt to these benefits?"

A better formulation: "Is there a reason to deny homosexual couples the rights/benefits of married couples?"

Consider a similar question: "Is there any reason to deny people the rights/benefits of condors?" The American people certainly could grant people the rights of condors. But why would they? Presumably condors have been granted the rights/benefits they have in virtue of what they are, e.g., endangered. If people are not the same as condors, e.g., if they are not endangered, what basis is there for granting the same rights/benefits to both? I would argue that there is none.

Now, some people might claim that they deserve the rights/benefits of condors in the interests of equality. I would reply that people are not equal to condors, they are in fact quite different. And therefore, the appeal to equality is spurious.

"Participating in a ritual does not, by itself, constitute marriage. Here's an extreme counter-example to illustrate the point -- suppose a priest performs a ritual mimicking that of marriage for a hamster and a bicycle. Are the hamster and bicycle now married? Of course not. They are not the kinds of things that can be married. The same is true of two men or two women. They are not the kinds of things that can be married." -Ralph

So don't recognize their marriage. I certainly don't think government should force you to. Nor should it force anybody to recognize any marriage whatsoever.

There is no argument whatsoever for married couples being given government benefits, simply for being married. However, if you are going to accept this spurious argument, there is certainly no argument that they should be divided along the lines of your personal approval.

The definition argument is incredibly weak. There was a time when marriage referred to a man and a woman of the same race. There was a time when it didn't refer to a consensual agreement at all, rather being arranged. There was a time when it was only marriage between two people of the same caste. There was a time when it meant one man and many women.

It is a highly subjective term that changes frequently.

"So don't recognize their marriage."

There is no marriage to recognize. Calling it a marriage is simply a misuse of the word. It's liks saying "So don't recognize that I'm a condor." The implication is that you are a condor whether I recognize it or not, which is ridiculous. You're not a condor regardless of recognition, and two men are not married regardless of recognition.

"There is no argument whatsoever for married couples being given government benefits, simply for being married."

Of course there is. As Aristotle points out in the Politics marriage is a necessary communion of male and female for the sake of producing and raising children. As such, marriage is the most basic form of community. It is the foundation for political community, and political community is its end.

"The definition argument is incredibly weak. There was a time when marriage referred to a man and a woman of the same race. There was a time when it didn't refer to a consensual agreement at all, rather being arranged. There was a time when it was only marriage between two people of the same caste. There was a time when it meant one man and many women. It is a highly subjective term that changes frequently."

The "definition argument" is actually quite strong. Notice that all the "changes" you mention involve the joining of a man and a woman. That marriage is necessarily between a man and woman has been understood for all of human history by every culture. That's not exactly indicative of a "subjective term that changes frequently."

Ben-T,

by government benefits I sloppily refer to tax breaks retaining income rather than having others' money thrown at child-raisers.

Would it be impractical to restrict tax breaks only for those who raise children, gay or straight?

"There is no marriage to recognize. Calling it a marriage is simply a misuse of the word. It's liks saying "So don't recognize that I'm a condor." The implication is that you are a condor whether I recognize it or not, which is ridiculous. You're not a condor regardless of recognition, and two men are not married regardless of recognition." -Ralph

I agree with you, but this is a semantics issue. Don't recognize their union.

"Of course there is. As Aristotle points out in the Politics marriage is a necessary communion of male and female for the sake of producing and raising children. As such, marriage is the most basic form of community. It is the foundation for political community, and political community is its end." -Ralph

Which necessitates government benefits for being married why? People will marry regardless of government benefits.

"The "definition argument" is actually quite strong. Notice that all the "changes" you mention involve the joining of a man and a woman. That marriage is necessarily between a man and woman has been understood for all of human history by every culture. That's not exactly indicative of a "subjective term that changes frequently." -Ralph

Would you support government handouts for a man marrying five women?

I wouldn't. I think the only valid marriage is a marriage between a consenting man and a consenting woman. I would prefer that the government not force me to give tax dollars to a man and five women for their marriage.

What if a gay man doesn't recognize marriages between a man and a woman? Why should he be forced to pay money to support it?]

"by government benefits I sloppily refer to tax breaks retaining income rather than having others' money thrown at child-raisers.

Would it be impractical to restrict tax breaks only for those who raise children, gay or straight?" -Webster

I support nearly any tax relief, at any time, to anybody, and for any reason. So I support this.

Ralph: "condors", "hamsters, and "bicycles"

Just to clarify: We are talking about humans here; the sovereignty of man.

Using animals to justify a position could be applied to many debates.

It's actually kinda humorous to use animals rather than reality, a la Gary Larson. I wonder how a pro-animal-debater would counter Jefferson by supporting a monarchy: "It's ridiculous, you could just say all hamsters are created equal. Governments are not instituted among Condors, to derive just powers from the consent of the governed. That is the domain of our King!"

Now, again I ask: how does a lifelong partner visiting a lifelong partner or lifelong child in a hospital cause the institution of heterosexual marriage significant harm? "Because Merriam-Webster said so"?

And... interesting discussion, BenT, Obi, and RC. I often wonder about the relationship between a 97% majority deciding privileges for a 3% minority, and the role of courts and constitutions. Although I wish the legislative process was used in all cases (particularly in the gay privileges arena such as in the NJ case), I struggle with the tyranny of the majority as well. It's a gray area for me and I have a lot to learn.

Anthony: "Because Merriam-Webster said so?"

Do you really suppose that's how the meanings of words are determined, i.e., that the meaning of a word is defined by its entry in the dictionary? If so, you need to reconsider.

A lexicographer is not a legislator but an empirical scientist. He investigates how words are used and records his findings. And the way word is used is the manner in which it is applied to the world.

Marriage is a relation between a man and a woman that is rooted in procreation. The word "marriage" is applied to that relation. Changing the meaning of the word to include a different relation between two men is to apply the word to a different fact in the world.

A similar example (buckle your seat-belts everyone, I'm going to use an ana-logy): The word "dog" is applied to a fact in the world, viz., dogs. If I arbitrarily change the meaning of the word "dog" so that the group of letters "d-o-g" refers to cats, I have not changed what it is to be a dog. I have merely replaced one sign with another.

Ralph,

In the recent posts on this topic, I have 5 times stated that I support the denotation/connotation of marriage as between man and woman (yes, even in the eyes of the State), yet you continue to defend this. I am thus bewildered.

I have 7 times tried to gain an understanding of why certain privileges should be prohibited, by the State, to lifelong, committed, monogamous partners and their children. Yet each time, you have deflected this inquiry by returning to your defense of the connotation of 'marriage' (see above). Understanding the rationale of prohibitions has been my focus since my first post several days ago (see 'Libertarian Position').

While I've been able to glean your method from the Monty Python quotes and comical, anthropomorphic animal ana+logies, I'm just not clear as to how you drew your conclusions (if any).

Now, again I ask: how does a lifelong partner visiting a lifelong partner or lifelong child in a hospital cause the institution of heterosexual marriage significant harm?

Anthony,

I have no problem allowing homosexuals to visit other homosexuals in hospitals.

Wow.

Thank you, Ralph.

I am, however, against extending to homosexuals or homosexual couples any right or benefit that is not granted to citizens generally. Thus, because I see no reason to exclude any visitors (excepting obvious exceptions, e.g., someone seeking to harm the patient), I see no reason to exclude homosexual visitors.

Anthony,

You keep coming back to that issue of visitation rights but it seems a red herring (if I knew how to hyperlink obnoxiously to the wiki entry for the phrase I would) when the subject is homo "marriage." Maybe you should explain to us why homosexuals are apparently incapable of putting together things like living wills specifying that if they are incapacitated in intensive care that their partner be admitted access to visit them by asking the hospitals to consider them "family" rather than friends.

How does such an issue involve marriage or even the state? You keep referring to "prohibitions" unfairly imposed on homosexuals but have only mentioned a supposed prohibition against entering hospitals. (Wasn't that a scene in the movie Philadelphia?).

Ralph, I believe you agree to this:
A lifelong partner should be able to visit a lifelong partner in the hospital.

Now I add to the discussion:
Many hospitals will not permit visitation without a state-recognized relationship between the visitor and the patient.

Therefore....?

What do you think, Ralph? Should the State say, "Go on in to the emergency room to see your lifelong companion"? Do you see any possible way for the State to greenlight this? If not, what's at risk? How will society be harmed by this hospital visitation?

Anthony,

I think that a patient should be able to be visited by whomever they want to be visited by. If hospitals disagree, then patients should petition the relevant authorities (whether the hospitals or the legislatures).

Is "immediate family" a "state-recognized relationship"? That is the most stringent requirement I have faced when visiting dying relatives, and it is easy to get around. I am beginning to suspect that this constant refrain (and seemingly favored argument) for homo marriage of visitation rights and end of life situations really is a ruse.

I particularly find it strange that hospitals wouldn't willingly bend to public pressure applied by activist groups to relax their purportedly stringent policies for visitation.

In an era when Kodak and other companies run employee workshops on being sensitive to homosexuals why wouldn't some sort of Rainbow Coalition-Lambda Defense action get these hospitals to change their tune?

Anthony, can you back up your claims with any real evidence?

To the first poster:

You simply could not make a worse argument than to reference to Emancipation, on the issue of people vs. the courts. Justice Taney gave us "Substantive Due Process" (which gave us Griswold, which in turn powered Roe and a lot of liberal busywork) when he said that Illinois had denied Dred Scott's owners of their property by declaring him a citizen without a court procedure. (Despite that Illinois had gone though due process in electing legislators to decide their free/slave status and the attendant legal stance on the rights of people in other state that could be called "slaves".)

In fact in that decision, Taney said that he didn't know how a black man could in any way be considered a full citizen of the US, or that they could inherit these privileges therein. Thus you had a Supreme Justice stating IN AN OPINION that Black people are doubtful citizens.

It took the individual "busybody" actions of Abolitionists moving to states where they had no interest but that no more states become "Slave States" (The long-standing legal agreement of Missouri Compromise be damned!) Then it took an elected supreme executive to Invade another country (which it was by Articles of Confederation) in order to end their institution of slavery, when they seceded over the breaking of the Compromise. And then it took the 2/3 majority of 1) the popularly-elected President, 2) the popularly-elected Congress and 3) THE PEOPLE in referendum to enact the 14th amendment.

Both of these issues were cleaned up by the promise of true liberalism, which was the idea that if people were free to debate, learn and acquire facts, they would eventually come to the correct conclusion (or a good-enough one) which is contrary to the concept of Authoritarian fiat!!

Were courts to go on as they do today, continually pulling quotes from previous decisions to modify State laws, somebody would have eventually found the constitutional "principle" in Taney's decision that Blacks' were never meant to be full citizens. And erstwhile "liberals" of that day would be citing how it was that the Living, Breathing Constitution spoke in Taney's decision.

I'm not saying it is inevitable that Taney's statement would obtain the term "Constitutional law" but under the anything-goes method of jurisprudence today--without the intervention of the people and their agentsthere is a real possibility that the court sophists could have forever determined that some people are not created equal, and it says so in our "Constitution".

'Should the State say, "Go on in to the emergency room to see your lifelong companion"? Do you see any possible way for the State to greenlight this? If not, what's at risk? How will society be harmed by this hospital visitation?'

No, I don't think the state should act. But, supposedly we're changing societal institutions because "times have changed"? Are hospitals immune to those times? Are the possibilities for a "state-recognized relationship" exhausted?

You are presenting a false dichotomy. Gay "marriage" was chosen because of its leverage and the potential to use the Constitutional agreements to do the work. So it has nothing to do with that no damage is done by visitation. In general, I have even less sympathy for a family thinking they have a right to exclude gay lovers or "church family" from a patient's room, than I do for somebody thinking that the state needs to guarantee them that they'll never be challenged on that "right".

So "what harm does visitation do?" suggests that some of us hold a position that that action causes harm. Otherwise it's a straw man, or at least a non-sequitur.

Any state can legislate (preferably through the elected body) that people can make up admission lists either on being checked in or ahead of time (for unconscious patients). Thus if you are a homosexual in a family that does not want to admit it, and suspect that they will pull a power play, then it behooves you to file this form ahead of time.

Thus that state would confirm what most of us know and that is that allowing partner visitation does no harm.

Thank you, Ralph, for making your positions clear. My questions were genuine - I truly thought that your position was that you don't want homosexuals visiting homosexuals in hospitals - in all circumstances. But I was mistaken, and my questions on this specific matter are now clearly answered, thank you.

If you recall several posts ago (under 'Libertarian Position'), I provided a numerated list of my position, and described my confusion to the opposite point of view (to which Ralph and Sea King have since helped clarify). Well, since then, I've found a more tangible way to describe my position:

I am arguing the 'reciprocal beneficiaries' position, of which my greatest influences are James Dobson, Bill O'Reilly, Pres Bush/Karl Rove, and the National Review (see O'Reilly Factor 30 Aug 2006, Fox News Sunday 7 Nov 2006, and National Review 57.10). That is, state recognition of private partnerships which would permit privileges that seem more geared to human autonomy and dignity (for example, privileges in the domains of hospitals, doctor offices, family health insurance, bereavement, and cemeteries) while restricting privileges geared towards the promotion of procreation to married couples.

Hopefully, that helps to clarify where I'm coming from on this issue.

Bruce, I'd love to debate with you, but I have no idea which of the several points you'd like to start on. I've read your opinions about the mental health, crime rate, and paperwork incapabilities of gay people. I also have read your theories about activist groups and human resources at Kodak. I just don't know which you are interested in exploring (if you are interested?). I assume you want to debate the role of powers of attorney vs. the role of spouse vs. visitation authorizations? Just clarify for me a starting point and we can begin. Also let me know which State's statutes you'd like to use for reference, or I could choose.

And I really don't want to restate my position against gay marriage for a sixth time. It's exhausting. Please read back to earlier posts (the discussion between Ralph and I kicked off under 'Libertarian Position').

Anthony,

Here's the thing. While some of the rights possessed by Americans may be owed them according to nature, it is nonetheless the case that every right possessed by Americans as citizens is a positive right, i.e., they have the rights they do because their fellow citizens (past or present) saw fit to bestow just those rights on them.

The people have seen fit to bestow some rights on married couples that they have witheld from other associations, e.g., friends. So, for example, my friend and I cannot jointly file our taxes.

Now, it seems to me that the rationale that the people have used in bestowing particular rights on married couples as such, is that the married couple (or the family, which is the married couple and their children) is a sort of unity, whereas two friends, regardless of how close they are, are not.

I think there are many good arguments that can be given in favor of privileging such unities (communities). I do not, however, think there are any good arguments in favor of privileging homosexual associations. Therefore, if homosexuals possess rights, it must be the rights of single citizens, and not as homosexuals or homosexual couples.

So, for example, if homosexuals couples are allowed to obtain common insurance, etc., then any association of citizens (say, two friends) ought to be able to do so. Perhaps that would be a good policy, perhaps not. But that is the perspective from which these issues should be addressed.

Anthony,

I wasn't looking for a wide ranging debate. I was asking you why you believe that whatever problems homosexuals have had visiting their partners in hospitals requires a federal solution? And also, why this is tied to homosexual marriage as the supposed remedy? You claim to be opposed to homosexual marriage, okay, so then why are you engaging in debate here on several posts about court attempts to railroad homosexual marriage into existence? That is a rhetorical question as I believe the only reasonable answer is that you see the debate on such marriage as only arising because of more fundamental purported injustices faced by homosexuals that you are interested in remedying. I was also asking for evidence that these problems are somehow pandemic rather than just useful fictions upon which to agitate and to mislead the gullible.

You keep side-stepping any and all suggestions that these injustices you are concerned with, such as hospital visitation rights, do not require a federal solution, and do not require homosexual marriage to solve. That was what my reference to companies like Kodak and its homosexual friendly policies was meant to invoke, that resolving issues of hospital visitation rights has nothing whatsoever to do w/ whether homosexuals can be married. It has everything to do w/ specific political agitation to get offending hospitals to change their policies or to get state governments to allow some form of "patients rights" legislation to the effect that the wishes of the incapacitated as made clear in some prior document, like a living will, would determine whom is allowed to visit them.