It's almost like dominoes....not the pizza...the game.
With Maine becoming the fifth state to enact marriage equality, gay rights advocates in New Jersey now believe their state is poised to pass such a law this year. Of course, the opposition is not giving up the fight--they're pushing for the issue to go to the ballot box as a constitutional amendment, so voters decide who can use the term "marriage."
Who can use the term "marriage"? Doesn't that sound discriminatory. It's almost like saying who can use what bathrooms or drinking fountains, but we'd never do anything like that, would we?
Back to my post.
New Jersey already recognizes civil unions for same-sex couples; a 2006 Supreme Court decision left it up to the Legislature, but any decision to reverse that law -- or take it further -- is still in the hands of Legislature, where lawmakers have introduced two new bills.
One would allow gay couples to marry.
One would ask voters to amend the constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and woman.
John Tomicki of the New Jersey Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage said there was no reason to change civil union laws to gay marriage other than to change the "traditional" meaning of the term, saying. "If they have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities of marriage, why do we want to redefine marriage?"
First off, John, don't use the term 'they' to describe gay people anymore. It's a subtle way of saying we're somehow different or 'less than' regular Americans. We're us; we're you. And we derve the same rights, priviliges and respect.
And John, if the New Jersey civil unions have all the same benefits and protections as marriage, then, isn't it marriage?
So all you care about, John, is the "word"?
Well then,ladies and gentleman, Cher: