NJ Marriage Decision: The Slippery Slope Strikes Again

Legacy Law Foundation ^ | 10/26/06 | Legacy Law Foundation

[RightSideRedux]

New Jersey falls victim to the anti-marriage forces.

[RightSideRedux]

Take Action Here!

New Jersey falls victim to the anti-marriage forces

As supporters of traditional marriage, we have made many solid and logical arguments against the sanctioning of same-sex unions.  One of these arguments is commonly known as the "slippery slope" or the “death of marriage by a thousand cuts”.  In other words, organizations are dismantling marriage in small but effective steps until one day you wake up, and it’s over.  Thanks to the unfortunate actions of the New Jersey Supreme Court, that day is now much nearer. 

Read the rest here...

[FlipWilson]

I would like to take this moment to condemn the NJ Supreme Court for its activism.

Then again, I would also like to take this moment to thank the NJ Supreme Court for helping out the Republican Party in ways you fail to understand. Long may you write your looney opinions. Long may you energize the Republican base.

[Always Right]

Thanks to the unfortunate actions of the New Jersey Supreme Court, that day is now much nearer.

Actually it just makes it crystal clear why we need to amend the Constitution to define marriage. It is silly that it must go ther, but unfortunately there is only one way to stop these runaway judges.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

They are not anti-marriage forces, they are anti-corruption of marriage forces.

[Dilbert San Diego]

As I understand it, the legislature has to give the same benefits to same-sex couples as married couples, but doesn't have to call such legal benefits marriage. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. So the most likely thing is that they would pass a civil union bill, as in Vermont, and thus avoid a legislative battle over calling it marriage.

This is not as bad as the Massachusetts situation. It's unlikely that same-sex couples from other states will go to New Jersey and get a civil union license and go back home. No out of staters have gone to Vermont, gotten a civil union license, and then used it to challenge the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. I think that's partly because it's called a civil union and not marriage.

Sounds like this New Jersey decision caused confusion and the gay activists weren't happy because they wanted a clear cut order for same sex marriage.

[tobyhill]

NJ wanted all these Democrats running their state so this is what they get. Now the typical married union worker will have to share his or her benefits with a whole new classification of joint resources.

[steel_resolve]

What is so crazy about this decision is that the three dissenters (in the 4-3 decision) didn't object to gay marriage, quite the contrary: they thought the suit DIDN'T GO FAR ENOUGH!!" Literally there was no dissent. Insanity.

[sr4402]

NJ wanted all these Democrats running their state so this is what they get

The question is whether the NJ Legislature, run by the Dems will do the same as in MA. And then what will happen to the Dem party when the are assocaited with this?

[squeegee boy]

I was reading on michaelsavage.com who voted for the marriage decision and who didn't. Funny that 3 or the 4 judges voting in favor of the decision were nominated to the state supreme court and installed by McGreevey. The 3 who voted against the decision (and one who voted in favor of it) were nominated and placed on the bench by former Republican governor Christine Todd-Whitman.

Now McGreevey says he will be marrying his partner in NJ instead of running off to VT.

[tobyhill]

Sure they will. They're liberals and they can't help their warped sense of moral values. This isn't just about NJ, it's about the direction of the country as a whole. If the rats take over any side of congress the first thing they will do is attempt to make law benefiting gay couples as if they were married even if states have constitutional amendments barring gay marriage, just like NJ just did except on a federal level. Barney Franks is already saying he wants that dead gay former congressman's "spouse" to have the rights to his federal pension benefits and will propose law to make it happen.

[WOSG]

"Sounds like this New Jersey decision caused confusion and the gay activists weren't happy because they wanted a clear cut order for same sex marriage."

Yeah, but its basically 'marriage-but-not-in-name' ... part of the slippery slope to homosexual marriage.