NJ Senate Approves Legal Recognition to Gay Couples
 

http://www.njo.com/news/jjournal/ind...6722244221.xml


State Senate votes legal recognition for same-sex couples

Domestic partners bill sent to McGreevey


Friday, January 09, 203


By John P. McAlpin
Associated Press writer

TRENTON - Gay and lesbian advocates cheered, hugged and some openly wept as the state Senate voted yesterday to give them many of the same rights as legally married couples.

Without a word of opposition, the Senate voted 23-9 to approve a bill granting those rights. Gov. James E. McGreevey is likely to sign the measure into law shortly.

Gay and lesbian advocates campaigned to make New Jersey the fifth state to recognize domestic partners. Conservative and religious groups opposed the measure, saying it threatened traditional marriage values.

When the vote was tallied, many of the several hundred supporters who crammed into the Senate gallery cheered.

"I absolutely kissed the floor," said Lambda Legal campaign manager Steven Goldstein, who then boasted that he and his partner will quickly move to the state and register.

"It's the coming of age of the power of the gay and lesbian community in New Jersey," Goldstein said. "The debate was free of any rancor. There wasn't a single member of the state Senate speaking out against gay rights."

Under the legislation, domestic partners would get access to medical benefits, insurance and other legal rights. New Jersey would also recognize such partnerships granted in other states. The bill does not authorize gay marriage, which is against the law in New Jersey.

Among the three Democratic senators from Hudson County, Bernard Kenny and Nicholas Sacco voted to approve the bill and L. Harvey Smith did not vote.

To obtain domestic-partner status, a couple would have to share a residence and show proof of joint financial status or property ownership or designation of the partner as the beneficiary in a retirement plan or will. Details on registration have yet to be worked out.

The bill would not force businesses to offer health coverage to same-sex partners of employees but would require insurance companies to make it available. It would also allow a surviving partner to gain property rights and other survivors' benefits.

The measure also includes some benefits for domestic unions between unmarried heterosexual couples age 62 and over.

"These couples are our friends. These couples are our neighbors," said Sen. Barbara Buono, D-Middlesex. "They deserve our respect, our support and our vote on this bill today."

Sen. Raymond J. Lezniak, D-Union, said he loves his church, but rejected the stance Catholic leaders have taken on rights for same-sex couples.

"On secular matters, on legal matters on relationships between two people, it is not infallible," Lezniak said.

Gay and Lesbian organizations celebrated the vote, saying it would finally provide same sex couples with rights such as being able to get medical information about a partner who is hospitalized.

"It creates a legal relationship between same sex couples who until now were legal strangers," said Laura Popel, president New Jersey Lesbian and Gay Coalition.

Michael Blake of the Stonewall Democrats said the legislation will give same sex couple legal recognition that their relationships are valid.

Conservative groups were outraged by the vote and threatened to fight any law in court. John Tomicki, executive director of the League of American Families, said the bill discriminates against unmarried heterosexual couples who are domestic partners under age 62.

"Opposite gender people do not have these rights," Tomicki said.

"I am outraged that the state Senate would approve such a bill because of the number of problems with it in terms of discrimination in regards to both sex and age," said Bishop Austin L. Harrold of the Interdenominational Christian Community Church in Jersey City.

Harrold rejected the argument that heterosexual couples under 62 may simply get married if they seek similar benefits.

"Maybe they don't want to get married," he said, "because it's been a long tradition, especially in the black community, that people live together without getting married, which used to be called shacking together."

And yet another blow to moral decency...

Re: NJ Senate Approves Legal Recognition to Gay Couples
 

Ummm, excuse me ?:mad: :confused: :eek: :mad:

The Oklahoma Senate is now considering two measures. One that would make it illegal to recognize gay marriages in Oklahoma and another to forbid them. That's the Bible Belt for ya.

I'm not sure how I feel about this personally. On one hand, I think folks should be able to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes. On the other, I see that this is as much a financial matter as it is a moral one. You'll be paying for gay spouses on your insurance, gay couples will pay less taxes, etc.

Re: NJ Senate Approves Legal Recognition to Gay Couples
 

Since when has this been a "long tradition" in the black community? My mommy's head nearly spun when I told her that I was planning on moving in with Mr Munch--and my parents are hardly conservative. :confused:

I'm excited about this, myself. Legal recognition is a good thing to have in case of death or illness, as well as other times.

What some one else whiches to do in there private life should not lower your standard or morality, nor should it infringe on you being able to educate others of your ethics (like children)


Christia

Granting recognition of these aberations lends false legitimacy to gay marriage making it seem acceptable and natural. Of which it is neither.

That is in your opinion. Not every one beleives like you.

Its not a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact. Be one a christian, a jew, or even an atheist darwinist all must recognize that this is completely unnatural and for the religious sects it is clearly immoral.

It is not a fact. There is very strong biological evidence that in many, if not most cases, homosexuality is manifested in brains that have slightly different development than that of those in heterosexual people. Homosexuality may not be normative, but evidence suggests that it is quite natural.

Natural? It serves no purpose, mankind was not made for this biologically. I personally believe homosexuality is a choice but even those who believe that it is in their brain innately so to speak, they cannot argue that it serves any purpose nor can one argue that mankind was made for this in any way shape or form.

This plus homosexuality have been occuring since ancient times, there is evidence of this in practially all cultures, and most of the cultures not tolerated it if not embraced homosexuality. There were many laws governing how and when then can expess them self with some one of the same gender.

Christia

eta:
Maybe the purpose is to make people happy and feel comfortable. To me that is enough.

Yes, if that's the way that people are born, then it is natural. I agree that the existence of homosexuality seems to serve no purpose. In the grand scheme of things, there may be a biological purpose to homosexuality that we are just not aware of.

Some people are born left-handed, and some people are born homosexual. I can't explain why, but that doesn't mean that these biological realities don't exist.

Of course homosexuality has a purpose. It prevents over population. There was a study on homosexuality in, I think it was hamsters, or someother small mammal. When the population grew out of proportion with the available resources needed, there was a greater number of homosexual animals born.

Oh ye high and mighty "christians," it really doesn't matter what you think about the issue, the whole premise behind human life is free will. Whether you understand that being gay is natural or are still in denial, it's up to those people to decide how they want to live. Try paying more attention to your own choices instead of worrying about everyone else's.

I slightly resent that, considering I am raised by devoted (but open and not JUDGEMENTAL) catholics. I love my faith and I would neve change it, it is just thoses creepy people who whatever they personaly do not beleive in blame it on God or whatnot. I have a friend that says that God hates people with piercings yet I can show it in the Bible (old test.) where a women was given a nose ring to show people that she chosen..... To each and their own and long as I am not seeing it (gay or straight) in broad day light I don't care. Strangly enough I see more "breeders" get it on in the public then gay people. Talk about lack of morales.

Um, save the soapbox. the fact that I put christians in quotations illustrates that I don't think that people who want to control the private actions of others are truly following the teachings of christianity. I'm catholic too, albeit not really practicing right now...but it doesn't really matter what religion I am. I have an understanding of what the teachings of christianity are, and I believe that people who want to control the love interests of other people are abusing those beliefs to further the agenda of their own personal prejudices and fears.

Oh, sorry about that, its just I live in the south were they like to talk about catholics alot and I get testy... just becuase I do not go their paticular church I am the devil's daughter.

Genius ever heard of Leviticus, it teaches that homosexuality is wrong, but you knowing the teachings of christianity should know this. Also the catholic church has explicity come out and said that homosexuality in practice is immoral and unnatural.

Well yes it did.... but historically it also proclaimed women to be flawed temptresses bent on corrupting a man's soul; it has also proclaimed a little thing called the crusades; what about the inquisition.

Point is that the Catholic church has made mistakes, and it is still paying for them. While I may personally disagree with using the term marriage (maybe civil union or something) or homosexual practices, that does not mean I condemn homosexuals. Condemning someone for being homosexual is as morally repugnant to me as they people that condemn people based on the colour of their skin.

Genius, ever heard of Jesus, yeah, he spends alot of time talking about NOT JUDGING PEOPLE. So the church says it's a sin. Ok, so if you believe in that teaching, then it's on YOU as an INDIVIDUAL to decide whether or not to follow it. But YOU Colonist, are not God or Jesus, so keep your fire and brimstone for yourself, and worry about your own actions.

WHOA! Misinformation is abound. Jesus DID tell us what was a sin. I could go on, but I won't.

Colonist, just write your state's elected leaders and let them know how you feel.

Yes, he did say what is and is not a sin. But he did that for our knowledge to judge ourself, no our others.
Chris

Jesus came so that we would judge only ourselves and not for us to judge others by establishing a difference between right and wrong? :confused:

I'm leaving this thread before I get a headache because the misinformation is rampant.

Check out this thread for more information. Sorry, I'm being lazy, but it does contain post that apply to this discussion.

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...5&pagenumber=1

Your authorities also say...
 

What teaches you that you can pick and choose from the teachings in the books you cite as if they're some a la carté menu? Perhaps you have some autocractic touched by the Lord himself responsibility to pass judgment on what's valid?
Perhaps you can answer the questions in this (not written by myself) letter? :)

Dear ...,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can.

When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I just simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination.
End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord Leviticus 1:19. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7.
In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness Leviticus 15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Leviticus 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that though eating shellfish is an abomination Leviticus 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Leviticus 11:68 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Leviticus 24:10-16 Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? Leviticus 20:14

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan,

etc.

HAHAHAHAHA

ROFL :)

Excellent post.......

Wha? We can't pick and choose which parts of the Bible to uphold?

My stance is still that morally, I don't really object. I'm just kind of fearful of the financial aspects of it. Insurance prices will definitely be effected as they cover the spouses in homosexual couples. They do still have a fairly high degree of HIV positive compared to heterosexuals, right? I really don't know what else might happen.

Well . . . I don't think lesbians do. ;)

But gay men, yes.

Let me start off by saying I DO NOT SUPPORT the homosexual lifestyle. That being said in a society called a "democracy" that historically have found a minority to oppress it is not up to the Federal GVT to decide what marriages are and are not legal. That is a STATE issue. Remeber that states issue marriage certificates. Please be aware the moment we oppress others it is wrong. Jesus came into the world to be the voice of the oppressed and downtrodden. I am not saying he would support the gay lifestyle. Most likely he would be against it! But the reality is that he would see no group oppressed in the name of God!

Sphinxpoet

Why doesn't that surprise me one bit...?

<-- exiled from Oklahoma :)

Chuck you're gay?

-Rudey
--That's cool! Me too!

How are they being oppressed?:confused:

They were denied 40 acres and Bentley.

Oh ok...I thought so :D :p ;)

This is one of the best things I've seen on GC in a long long time.

If you happen to be interested in any academic historical written matter about homosexuality in early Europe, and the Christian west, your local University library would likely have a copy of John Boswell's "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality". It is published by the University of Chicago Press, in 1980. This book is 24 years old, and Boswell has many interesting points. Boswell was a hsitory professor at Yale, and was a scholar of Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and read original texts and translated himself.

The part I have found most interesting, was the biblical translation in relation to language. In my "History of Sexuality" class we brought in varying versions of the texts (Hebrew Bible, King James, NRSV, NIV, ASB etc), and compared the language of the same verses. For those of us with a knowledge of these languages and root words, it was obvious that many times the word in text may not be the most accurate. One student commented "depending on the translation, people can use the bible to further their agendas".

Just something to read if you're interested...

I am not saying they are oppressed right now I am saying in general any kind of oppression is wrong.

Good for Jersey.