Comments | m4ry73: (без темы)

m4ry73

(Untitled)

Oct 25, 2006 20:23

Comments 7

new jersey anonymous October 26 2006, 00:50:15 UTC

Kinda yay. Take a look at this analysis:
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/10/breaking-new-jersey-sup-ct-adopts.html

Also, I can't help but be suspicious that this is coming up as an issue again so close to the midterm elections. Hmm.

-Erin K.

Re: new jersey anonymous October 30 2006, 13:06:59 UTC

I see what you mean about suspicion near election time, but at least they are beginning to make some provisions. I read elsewhere (and now can't remember where) that a lot of people think they are going to push for legal marriages in NJ as a result of this ruling, which is awesome. Plus, even if this scares people into voting Republican, as Dan said below, that doesn't change the ruling; people will still be entitled to those benefits whether or not the NJ government is Republican.

Re: new jersey m4ry73 October 30 2006, 13:07:28 UTC

(apparently I wasn't logged in; that was me)

(The comment has been removed)

Re: in response... socialperv October 27 2006, 05:04:15 UTC

I agree, but I still wish this would have come *after* the election. This could rile up the anti-gay crowd and scare them into voting Republican.

Re: in response... anonymous October 31 2006, 05:40:38 UTC

Yeah, but the ruling itself didn't set that much of a precedent. It said that same sex couples should be provided with the same basic benefits (awesome), which kind of opens the door for civil unions, and it said that the legislature could decide on gay marriage. Well, they've always been able to.. . They didn't need a court to say that. The post I linked to above argues that the new jersey ruling essentially went along with bush's policy on same sex relationships (civil unions yes, marriage no), and the press isn't framing it that way. They're framing it as a huge victory for gay rights, which it wasn't, really. The ruling was vague and didn't call for any specific parameters in which civil unions would be executed or protected... So, a small step in the right direction is being seen as a huge victory, which can be dangerous on both sides ( ... )

Re: in response... faerykitty October 31 2006, 15:25:02 UTC

I very much agree with you; however, I also think that we can't forget about the small victories, otherwise (I) start to lose hope that there Can be a big victory. And Anything positive in the media about gay rights is a good thing. And actually, even if the wording IS vague, it just means that they get to go back to court and make more improvements, and hopefully snowball. And for having two cups of coffee I've fairly incoherent right now. Apologies.

Thread 5