--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you consider maneuvering outside of the democratic process to get > > what you want to be a "good-sized" win..... > > Yeah ... why, it's almost as outrageous as gerrymandering, isn't it? > > > The people of New Jersey never voted for this law, nor did they ever > > vote for representatives in favor of this law, but they have this law > > anyways. > > Huh? What law do you think you're referring to? The NJ courts ruled > only that same-sex couples are entitled, under the state constitution, > to the same benefits as other-gender couples.
Which, of course, is just how the people of New Jersey drew it up, right? >Furthermore the court held that same-gender couples cannot be called >married -- yet I don't imagine you're outraged about that. I will say that slightly changes my opinion of this ruling - it was not clear to me from the initial reports I saw. > But I guess I can understand how upset you must be to have to consider > the possibility that gays and lesbians are *almost* as good as you. Yeah, that must be it. Thanks for the absolutely gratuitous personal insult...... Its just want I wanted in the morning.... > If you're against gay marriage, don't have one. What doesn't the same logic apply? "If you don't want a *marriage* in New Jersey, don't have one?" > But keep the hell off of others' rights, Which rights are those? As opposed to privileges? If the NJ Supreme Court rules that same-sex couples in New Jersey are entitled to the same benefits as marriage in New Jersey, but may not marry, then why isn't this ruling a question of privileges and not rights? Why doesn't the logic of this ruling also imply that a progressive income tax is similiarly unconstitutional? JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
