Christ cast off the 1,000 rules like the ones where you could only walk so many steps on Sunday etc. etc. etc.

This is a fundamental understanding. You didn’t know this?

In other words, stop hating. I bet each and every one of you eat shrimp, catfish, mussels, and do not relegate your female relatives to isolation for seven days during their menstral cycle, either. Yert failure to comply with these requirements is an abomination, according to the Bible.

I think Medved has the best take. There is no rights problem with supporting traditional marriage. This is a matter of whether or not one relationship is equal or identical to another, and if all relationships are deserving of the same sanctioning by the state. The state recognizes the value of the unique nature of the blending of the sexes and the formation of a family which produces offspring. And ideally, that’s what a quality traditional marriage provides that is a benefit to society, and it’s that ideal that the state seeks to support for society’s sake. A gay relationship doesn’t provide that. It’s like American English. They are a great band that looks and sounds very much like the Beatles. But they aren’t the Beatles, and wouldn’t be given the time of day were the Beatles able to perform. They don’t produce like the Beatles or create like they do. The state acknowledges the value of the Beatles, but not their pale imitation, nor do they support any of the other imitations, such as brother/sister marriage or polygamy, etc.

Now regarding governments dictating who one can marry, or intrusion into personal affairs, it ain’t the government totally, but the people who have elected those who serve in our governments. In reality, it is one’s neighbor who is dictating these things, and it has that right. The people have the right to determine what they feel is acceptable behavior or acceptable relationships granted state sanctions or priveleges, and they do so through their elected reps, which is how it’s supposed to work. Just as in Massachusetts, the New Jersey Supremes are out of line.

Just keep it all in the bedroom where it belongs.

But Bang, don’t you understand; our liberal friends don’t want to keep homosexuality in the bedroom, because that means only tolerance. Rather, they want to shove it in our faces because they want, they demand not tolerance but acceptance.

This is really hugely important to them. Their interests are in having normal straight people accept their relationships as just as reasonable and right and valid as those among heterosexuals.

- Bang

Why should married couples alone be burdened with marriage taxes? I say let gay couples be equally screwed. Why are a subset of our citizens *not* given the same rights, privileges and yes, burden, as their fellow citizens? You’d think what with politicians wanting to repress .. err I mean represent the masses this one would be a no-brainer.

I find the whole idea that government, whether it be state or federal, can define what marriage is or is not rather abhorrent. It is yet one more way the state can control you as a private citizen. Maybe what we need is to do away with the term ‘marriage’. Don’t call it marriage (and avoid having to redefine) and come up with a new term (civil union works nice) that can encompass all our citizens equally. That way, those that want to call it a marriage can, those that think marriage is only man/woman won’t have their belief challenged.

- Bang

Now, OTOH, this might open a window of opportunity for the Kean campaign, if he can pitch it right. This is a blue state, yes, but there’s still an undercurrent of uneasiness when the libs push their agenda too far too fast.

The “hammer,” of course, is that if the legislature does not comply, the court will then revisit its decision and say, OK, since you didn’t create civil unions when we gave you the opportunity, we’ll just decide that the marriage statutes must include homosexual couples.

The only other alternative is for New Jersey to amend the state constitution to prohibit same sex “marriage.” Since the court gave the legislature only 180 days in which to act, the state does not have sufficient time to get a constitutional amendment through the process.

Basically, the New Jersey Supreme Court gave the legislature the option to either rewrite the state’s marriage statute to include gays or create a new statute which would allow civil unions and give gays the same rights afforded to straights….

- Bang