Author	Message
Guest	Posted: Tue, May 19 2009, 8:18 am EDT    Post subject: Re: N.J. gay rights advocates: Marriage near If you strip away all of the assumptions you've made about my beliefs, I think you'll see that your final paragraph echoes my original post.
Guest	Posted: Mon, May 18 2009, 10:35 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: N.J. gay rights advocates: Marriage near Guest wrote: Perhaps you should reserve your comments for August 15th- day of the assumption. It is clear you have no idea what I am saying. Actually, I think you don't understand what you're saying. Some people have been fed the idea that marriage is an institution owned by the church and the idea that "the church" is unified on the issue of what constitutes marriage. Neither is true. There is absolutely nothing wrong with churches making marriage sacred to their tenants and beliefs and having a standard of behavior expected of their membership as it relates to marriage. Churches stand as institutions separate of the State, and vice versa. So a church can refuse to recognize a state-sanctioned marriage, just as the state can decline to acknowledge a church marriage under certain circumstances. But it is the State-sanctioned marriage that is subject to all the legal protections and obligations of marriage in this country. Which is why the State can grant a divorce even if it is not recognized in some cases by a church. A couple is legally divorced, regardless of their church’s position, because the legality of the marriage derived from the State and can be severed by the State. And there is no unified position on what constitutes marriage or separation between churches. Many churches recognize, welcome and perform gay marriages and are much more liberal about granting separations than others. So to say that the matter is best left to God is ambiguous as it implies a certain mortal knowledge of God’s position on marriage that doesn’t exist. You may be crystal clear on what you and your church believe God’s position to be on marriage but I can guarantee you that regardless of your position it is not universally accepted even among all Christian churches, let alone those of other faiths that also believe in God. Which is one of the reasons it is appropriate that the State have a parallel and separate role in the sanctioning of what constitutes a legal marriage. Ultimately I completely agree with you – it is best left to God, who will stand in final judgment. But that is not for any of us to know, understand or dare to do on God’s behalf by proxy. That would be the true sin, to presume for ourselves God’s role.
Guest	Posted: Mon, May 18 2009, 10:02 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: N.J. gay rights advocates: Marriage near Perhaps you should reserve your comments for August 15th- day of the assumption. It is clear you have no idea what I am saying.
Guest	Posted: Mon, May 18 2009, 4:05 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: N.J. gay rights advocates: Marriage near Guest wrote: Since when is marriage the province of government? Shouldn't God decide? Since when have we ever left it to God? Or if you really mean religious institutions, who ever said they spoke for God and if they do, there certainly are a lot of them contradicting each other. In fact, there are some that specifically condone and perform gay marriage (purportedly on God's behalf), so even on that basis it can be justified. Or do you believe only certain subsets of certain denominations of certain religions that believe in God get this right and if so on what basis do you get to decide which ones? Who made you God? And actually it’s a province of the government not religion anyway. The government allows religious institutions to have the right to perform ceremonies, just as it let’s judges and boat captains and businessmen that run cheesy Las Vegas chapels, etc. It’s that certificate you get from the government that makes it legal and makes the couple subject to all the legal burdens and benefits of marriage (taxes, medical benefits, etc.).
publius	Posted: Mon, May 18 2009, 3:32 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: N.J. gay rights advocates: Marriage near God is much too busy running the Universe. He/She/It has no time to poke His/Her/It's nose into what people do in their bedrooms. Anyway, God, may just be a figment of our fevered imaginations............so don't worry about it.
Guest	Posted: Thu, May 7 2009, 10:31 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: N.J. gay rights advocates: Marriage near Since when is marriage the province of government? Shouldn't God decide?
Star Ledger	Posted: Thu, May 7 2009, 10:55 am EDT    Post subject: N.J. gay rights advocates: Marriage near N.J. gay rights advocates: Marriage near They say state will follow Maine's lead, but opponents vow to fight Thursday, May 07, 2009 BY MARY FUCHS STATEHOUSE BUREAU As Maine became the fifth state to allow gay marriage, gay rights advocates in New Jersey yesterday said they believe the state is poised to pass such a law this year. But gay marriage opponents are not giving up the fight -- they're still pushing for the issue to go to the ballot box as a constitutional amendment, so that voters decide who can use the term "marriage." The state already recognizes civil unions for same-sex couples after a Supreme Court decision in 2006 left it up to the Legislature. The decision to reverse that law -- or take it further -- is still in the hands of Legislature, where lawmakers have introduced a bill that would allow gay couples to marry (S2898), and a measure (SCR-30) that would ask voters to amend the constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and woman. In a Statehouse news conference, gay marriage opponents said lawmakers have not been responsive to putting the marriage constitutional amendment on the ballot this year. "There hasn't been any inroads or any further movement of the bill that we could see, based on the conversations we've had with legislators," said Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council. John Tomicki of the New Jersey Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage said there was no reason to change civil union laws to gay marriage other than to change the "traditional" meaning of the term. "If they have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities of marriage, why do we want to redefine marriage? he said. Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality, said it's highly unlikely that lawmakers would ban gay marriage in this year's election. "There's no chance of a constitutional amendment. New Jersey is moving in the complete other direction," said Goldstein. Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen), who sponsors the gay marriage bill, said the Supreme Court has "already said that same-sex partners are entitled to all the rights and responsibilities of marriage" -- and most lawmakers agree with it. "I don't think the majority of the Legislature believes we should have a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. They already voted for domestic partnerships and civil unions, and gay marriage is the next logical step. We don't have to expand rights; we're almost just changing the name," said Weinberg. Weinberg predicted her bill would pass "by the end of this year." http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-13/124170571163320.xml&coll=1