| View unanswered posts | View active topics |
It is currently Sun May 20, 2012 5:26 pm |
|
All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
BajaGay.com | Promote Your Page Too
|
Page 1 of 1 |
[ 2 posts ] |
| Print view | Previous topic | Next topic |
A heterosexual's opinion from New Jersey
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
Site Admin  Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:30 am Posts: 656 Location: Rosarito, Baja California, MX 
|
 A heterosexual's opinion from New Jerseyhttp://centraljersey.com/articles/2009/12/11/the_princeton_packet/your_views/doc4b223d463893b385911302.txt
Same-sex marriage bill is civil, not religious Friday, December 11, 2009 7:50 AM EST Marion K. Littman of Princeton I am writing in support of New Jersey Senate Bill 1967, which would make civil marriage available to same-sex couples while protecting the rights of clergy and religious organizations to refuse to solemnize such marriages. I am a 59-year-old Jewish heterosexual and have been happily married for over 38 years. All my life, I have been a strong supporter of civil rights and religious liberty. Every fiber of my being tells me that civil marriage is a civil right that must be available to same-sex couples just as it is to heterosexual couples. The civil union law did not accomplish what the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered, which was full equality for same-sex couples. Permitting same-sex couples to enjoy the benefits of civil marriage will enhance the economic security of their families and protect their rights in a myriad of important ways. The arguments against permitting civil same-sex marriage are, to put it politely, hogwash. Opponents may say that permitting same-sex marriage will impair their religious liberty. However, the bill deals only with civil marriage, not religious marriage. It says, "No member of the clergy of any religion authorized to solemnize marriage and no religious society, institution or organization in this state shall be required to solemnize any marriage in violation of the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or by Article 1, paragraph 4 of the New Jersey Constitution." Opponents may say that civil same-sex marriage will threaten their community by sending the message to their children that it is acceptable for a homosexual person to be married to another homosexual person. If you follow this logic to its end point, then the laws of New Jersey also should be changed to bar the marriage of persons of different religious faiths, close all stores on the Sabbath (whose Sabbath - Christian, Jewish or Muslim?), require that only Kosher or Halal meats (which one?) be sold here, require that women keep their heads covered in public, etc. Otherwise, a religious community's children might be exposed to the fact that persons outside their community are legally permitted to engage in activities prohibited within their community. All of this demonstrates the absurdity of the opponents' view. They do not have the right to impose their interpretation of their religious obligations on the rest of society. To permit them to do so would be a true deprivation of the religious liberty of the rest of us. Opponents may say that same sex marriage should not be permitted because of tradition. But tradition once barred marriages between persons of different races and religions. Tradition is no argument against granting equal rights under the law. New Jersey has a long and proud tradition of being in the forefront in many areas of civil rights. This is a tradition worth honoring. Senate Bill 1967 deserves our full support, and must be passed now while we have a governor who will sign it. Marion K. Littman Princeton, New Jersey |
| Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:44 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Admin Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:30 am Posts: 656 Location: Rosarito, Baja California, MX
|
FOES OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE COME IN ALL POLITICAL STRIPES http://www.laindependent.com/news/local/west-hollywood/78928457.html
FOES OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE COME IN ALL POLITICAL STRIPES By ARIN MIKAILIAN, Staff Writer Story Published: Dec 10, 2009 Supporters of same-sex marriage are commonly found on the left of the political spectrum, but that does not necessarily mean it is a uniformly supported cause among Democrats. For some of the most determined proponents of marriage equality, that means a lot more work than traditional campaigning. Regina Clemente, project manager for Vote for Equality, canvasses neighborhoods with volunteers by going door-to-door, trying to persuade registered voters. "A majority of the people we're talking to are Democrats who are just not with us," she said. A history of voting Democratic hasn't helped much for this particular cause._Take New York, Maine and California, for example. On Dec. 2, New York became the most recent state to sanction a ban on same-sex marriage, when the state Senate defeated a measure that would have allowed LGBT couples to wed. In November, Maine did the same via a referendum. And last November, Californians approved the highly controversial Proposition 8, which remains contested to this day. Other than their stance on marriage equality, all three states share another thing in common: Democrats are the majority in both houses of their state legislatures and all have voted Democratically in recent presidential elections. But all took a conservative approach when it came to gays and lesbians seeking the right to marry. UCLA Law School Prof. Gary Gates, who co-authored an amicus brief in a 2008 California Supreme Court case that temporarily lifted the state ban on same-sex marriage, said that doesn't come as a surprise. "There's still some level of political fear, even though there's little evidence of this," he said in an interview. "There's a fear of backlash in support for marriage equality, fear of backlash at the voting booth." States that now recognize same-sex marriage - Vermont, Iowa, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire - have legislative barriers in place that make it difficult to revoke the bill, Gates said. "The threshold of a referendum requires legislative initiatives and other things that make it much more difficult to put it before a vote." For example, in the Massachusetts' state legislature, 50 votes are needed to move forward with a referendum; the only way that could change is through a constitutional amendment. Conversely, California stipulates a required number of signatures that petitioners need. Although overturning marriage equality laws may be more challenging in states such as Massachusetts, that does not rest well with Gates, who says a stronger majority among voters is what is needed, especially if the issue appears on ballots in other states in the years to come. "It still polls in upper 50s - that's not overwhelming support," he said. Clemente, of Vote for Equality, hopes her organization's efforts will play a key role in changing minds that would have otherwise maintained their position on same-sex marriage. She and her team have a lot of work to do, she said, because she is reaching out to Democrats, Republicans and voters of any other political affiliation that answers the door. Whether someone is a Democrat or a Republican, Clemente said, their beliefs on same-sex marriage are often rooted in more profound factors such as religion. That is why groups like hers need to continue and reach out to as many people as possible. "Homophobia goes pretty unchallenged," Clemente said. |
| Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:49 pm |
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1 |
[ 2 posts ] |
|
All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
Who is online |
Registered users: Google [Bot] |
| You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum |