PDA

View Full Version : Benefits for gay couples start in N.J.



LiberalNation
02-19-2007, 06:03 PM
Good for N.J.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070219/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_partners;_ylt=AhNKBcFTGaM6MneGRKaIg_5 vzwcF

TEANECK, N.J. - Hundreds of gay couples received the same legal protections as married couples early Monday when a law making New Jersey the third state in the nation to offer civil unions took effect.

The civil unions — which offer the legal benefits but not the title of marriage — were granted automatically to the hundreds of gay New Jersey couples who have been joined in civil unions or married in other states or nations.

At least one couple held a ceremony at the first possible moment. Steven Goldstein and Daniel Gross reaffirmed their Vermont civil union shortly after midnight. They would have had the rights in New Jersey even without holding a midnight ceremony here.

State Sen. Loretta Weinberg, a prime sponsor of the civil unions law who hosted ceremonies for couples including Goldstein and Gross in her office, called the day "a big giant step forward."

A handful of town halls across the state also opened at 12:01 a.m. to accept civil union license applications from couples who had not been so joined previously. They must wait 72 hours before they can hold civil union ceremonies, and several plan to exchange vows early Thursday.

Among those couples were Marty Finkle and Michael Plake of South Orange. A few dozen friends, Finkle's 17-year-old daughter and several local officials showed up to cheer the couple as they filled out paperwork in their town hall.

The couple also was one of the first in the state to register in a domestic partnership in 2004. Domestic partnerships offered a handful of the benefits and obligations of civil unions.

New Jersey lawmakers hastily created civil unions last December, less than two months after a state Supreme Court decision held that gay couples had a right to the same benefits as married couples.

Gay rights activists in the state say they'll continue to press for full marriage rights through both political channels and lawsuits. Some social conservative groups, meanwhile, are pledging to block same-sex marriage by pressing for an amendment to the state constitution that prohibits such unions.

Forty-five states have legal or constitutional bans on same-sex marriages. Only Massachusetts allows gay couples to marry, while California offers domestic partnerships.

Goldstein, the chairman of the gay rights group Garden State Equality, and Gross, a vice president at Goldman Sachs, held their ceremony behind a desk in a cramped office instead of a more idyllic or religious spot.

There were several kisses, a prayer reading, friends and journalists, but no music, no dancing and none of the breaking-of-the-glass that is traditional in Jewish weddings.

The couple did that in a Jewish wedding service in Canada in 2002 — the first same-sex union featured in the wedding pages of The New York Times — and promised even grander festivities if they can gain the right to marry in New Jersey.

As part of their ceremony, their rabbi, Elliott Tepperman, asked the people gathered: "Do you vow to continue your support for true marriage equality?"

"This was really all about receiving a piece of paper that had some recognition of our status," Gross said.

Teaneck registrar Laura Turnbull finished processing their civil union license — No. 1 — at 12:09 a.m.

Meanwhile, in Asbury Park — a community revived largely by a growing gay population and one where two men were married, though it wasn't recognized in 2004 — five gay couples completed civil union licenses in the first hour of the day.

Yurt
02-19-2007, 07:25 PM
Herein lies the question that I have struggled with immensly:

Where do we stop?

Don't bitch liberals, cause I actually at this point, am more on your side. The question though, still stands.

Consenting adults?

Is this a good starting point?

jillian
02-19-2007, 07:34 PM
Herein lies the question that I have struggled with immensly:

Where do we stop?

Don't bitch liberals, cause I actually at this point, am more on your side. The question though, still stands.

Consenting adults?

Is this a good starting point?

Consenting adults seems to be a good starting and ending point. Is there another point at which you think it should begin and end?

FWIW, I'm not bitching about your question and gave you my answer. Just wondering where you see the line?

stephanie
02-19-2007, 07:38 PM
Shoot....I'm going to go grab some stranger on the street, so we can go and claim some of them benefits....:cheers2:

manu1959
02-19-2007, 07:38 PM
consenting adults is pretty broad...

bother brother

sister sister

brother sister

mother son

mother daughter

father son

father daughter

Yurt
02-19-2007, 07:39 PM
Consenting adults seems to be a good starting and ending point. Is there another point at which you think it should begin and end?

FWIW, I'm not bitching about your question and gave you my answer. Just wondering where you see the line?

Not familiar with FWIW, but no worries. I would let you know.


You gave a starting point, and then you gave an ending point. Thus, this should be easy. As you will see it is not. Because your premise is:


Consenting adults



Are you telling me, there are no limits to this? I await.

manu1959
02-19-2007, 07:39 PM
Shoot....I'm going to go grab some stranger on the street, so we can go and claim some of them benefits....:cheers2:

you act like that is not how you girls in alaska get a man :scared:

LiberalNation
02-19-2007, 07:40 PM
Shoot....I'm going to go grab some stranger on the street, so we can go and claim some of them benefits....:cheers2:
Hey you could also just grab someone up and marry him anywhere to get some benifits.

Yurt
02-19-2007, 07:40 PM
consenting adults is pretty broad...

bother brother

sister sister

brother sister

mother son

mother daughter

father son

father daughter


Go steal someone else's punch





line

stephanie
02-19-2007, 07:47 PM
Hey you could also just grab someone up and marry him anywhere to get some benefits.

Don't have to...
I'm able to make my own way in life, and not force myself on other's to get what I want...;)

LiberalNation
02-19-2007, 07:48 PM
k then what was the point of your first comment.

Yurt
02-19-2007, 07:49 PM
Don't have to...
I'm able to make my own way in life, and not force myself on other's to get what I want...;)

Do married couples have a legal benefit over non married couples?

stephanie
02-19-2007, 07:49 PM
you act like that is not how you girls in Alaska get a man :scared:

My lasso is hanging in the closet...It's retired...:D

LiberalNation
02-19-2007, 07:50 PM
Do married couples have a legal benefit over non married couples?

Yes they do have benifits over non married couples.

manu1959
02-19-2007, 07:51 PM
Go steal someone else's punch





line

soory, but i am impatient.....too many video games don't cah know

Yurt
02-19-2007, 07:56 PM
Yes they do have benifits over non married couples.

You are right, and I wait for your "where do we draw the line answer."

It has troubled me for years. Trust me, not making it up. I have personal experience with family members that make me believe this "only married" couple access is bullshit. It is there. In hospitals, benefits, you name it. The line must be drawn, no?

If not...

jillian
02-19-2007, 07:58 PM
Not familiar with FWIW, but no worries. I would let you know.


You gave a starting point, and then you gave an ending point. Thus, this should be easy. As you will see it is not. Because your premise is:


Consenting adults



Are you telling me, there are no limits to this? I await.

FWIW is "for what it's worth". Sorry.

As for consenting adults, I think we know we aren't talking about incestuous relationships. At least I'm not.

manu1959
02-19-2007, 08:01 PM
FWIW is "for what it's worth". Sorry.

As for consenting adults, I think we know we aren't talking about incestuous relationships. At least I'm not.

why not? big deal if i want to marry my brother. we are consenting adults. who are we hurting? i mean i wouldn't choose to love my brother. i was born like this. you are so intollerant....:eek:

jillian
02-19-2007, 08:07 PM
why not? big deal if i want to marry my brother. we are consenting adults. who are we hurting? i mean i wouldn't choose to love my brother. i was born like this. you are so intollerant....:eek:

:bang3: :beer:

manu1959
02-19-2007, 08:11 PM
:bang3: :beer:

thank you....my dad and all his cronies tell me i would have made a good attorney...

trobinett
02-19-2007, 08:11 PM
:bang3: :beer:

come on jillian, thats a fair question, so.....................

stephanie
02-19-2007, 08:13 PM
k then what was the point of your first comment.

Think about it..:wink2:

Yurt
02-19-2007, 08:15 PM
FWIW is "for what it's worth". Sorry.

As for consenting adults, I think we know we aren't talking about incestuous relationships. At least I'm not.

Then you must take out consenting for you are labeling consenting adults.

*gasps*

Yurt
02-19-2007, 08:16 PM
thank you....my dad and all his cronies tell me i would have made a good attorney...

:beer:

jillian
02-19-2007, 08:17 PM
thank you....my dad and all his cronies tell me i would have made a good attorney...

LOL! I'm sure you would have. Kudos.

jillian
02-19-2007, 08:24 PM
come on jillian, thats a fair question, so.....................

I didn't say it wasn't a fair question. Frankly, I don't think anyone contemplates it applying to siblings/parents and the like. I also don't put much stock in the slippery slope thing.

We're talking about two unrelated adults. Shouldn't the same rules with regard to consanguinity apply?

trobinett
02-19-2007, 08:26 PM
I didn't say it wasn't a fair question. Frankly, I don't think anyone contemplates it applying to siblings/parents and the like. I also don't put much stock in the slippery slope thing.

We're talking about two unrelated adults. Shouldn't the same rules with regard to consanguinity apply?

Well, really, YOUR RIGHT.

But, the "talking points" was just about such a eventuality, yes?

jillian
02-19-2007, 08:30 PM
Well, really, YOUR RIGHT.

But, the "talking points" was just about such a eventuality, yes?

Did I miss some "talking points"? Didn't see that. I really think that kind of thing or even saying it's a possibility is extreme.

Yurt
02-19-2007, 08:36 PM
I didn't say it wasn't a fair question. Frankly, I don't think anyone contemplates it applying to siblings/parents and the like. I also don't put much stock in the slippery slope thing.

We're talking about two unrelated adults. Shouldn't the same rules with regard to consanguinity apply?

So you draw a line?

jillian
02-19-2007, 08:38 PM
So you draw a line?

Shouldn't we? It wasn't what I was thinking about when the question was first asked. But shouldn't there be consanguinity limits same as heterosexual marriages?

trobinett
02-19-2007, 08:40 PM
Originally Posted by jillian
FWIW is "for what it's worth". Sorry.

As for consenting adults, I think we know we aren't talking about incestuous relationships. At least I'm not.

The "talking points" is about Benefits for gay couples, AND if it starts in NJ, where does it end.

Gay couples are "consenting adults", yes?

Two brothers could be involved in an "incestuous" gay relationship, yes?

Not trying to put words in your mouth jillian, but come on, 2 plus 2 still equals 4, or at the least 4.5, even using the liberals version of new math.

Yurt
02-19-2007, 08:45 PM
Shouldn't we? It wasn't what I was thinking about when the question was first asked. But shouldn't there be consanguinity limits same as heterosexual marriages?

I asked you. Kindly answer the question. Don't dodge.

jillian
02-19-2007, 08:45 PM
I asked you. Kindly answer the question. Don't dodge.

Who dodged? I said the same rules should apply.

Your turn. :bye1:

Yurt
02-19-2007, 08:50 PM
Who dodged? I said the same rules should apply.

Your turn. :bye1:

You funny, really.



Then you must take out consenting for you are labeling consenting adults.

*gasps*

You know the question, kindly don't dodge it again.


Yurt

Dilloduck
02-19-2007, 08:58 PM
Who dodged? I said the same rules should apply.

Your turn. :bye1:

Brothers shoul be allowed to marry ? :eek:

Gunny
02-19-2007, 11:36 PM
Brothers shoul be allowed to marry ? :eek:

A lot of sheepherders are lovign this .... the walls are tumbling their way!:smoke: