JDG wrote: >Warren Ockrassa wrote: >>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?
Well, to be fair, homosexuality was not exactly a household term 200 years ago. And NJ is a pretty liberal state, so there's not been much more than a shrug here from most people so far. I'll try and keep my ear to the ground and keep everyone posted on what people have to say as the story unfolds, if you're interested. >>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. My understanding is that the NJ SC kicked the matter of what to call same-gender couples back to the state legislature to decide. My gut feeling is that they will create some kind of "civil union," but we'll have to wait and see. >From my personal point of view, as a registered NJ voter, I don't really mind the idea of extending protections to committed gay couples similar to committed straight couples, in general. I'm still not a fan of calling it "marriage," but that's my cross to bear, not others'. And I do believe that if you are going to decide that gay couples should have the kinds of spousal protections married couples have, then there *must* be some kind of legal binding document required to extend them, particularly if straight couples living together but not married will not be eligible for such rights. Jim _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
