New Jersey’s move to give same-sex couples many of the legal rights of marriage goes against the will of the people, Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, said Friday.
He was commenting on the New Jersey Legislature’s passage of a bill on Thursday authorizing same-sex civil unions, in line with a recent New Jersey Supreme Court order.
After a long legal battle, the state’s supreme court ruled in October that same-sex couples should be given the same rights as married heterosexual couples. However, the court left it up to New Jersey lawmakers to decide whether those rights should be extended through marriage, civil unions or some other arrangement.
The bill passed on Thursday is expected to be signed by Democratic Gov. John Corzine.
“We’ve seen popular support for marriage in states all across the country,” Daniels told Cybercast News Service. “We’ve seen a landslide in favor of marriage — red states and blue states, including in the last election. It’s very clear where the people are,” he said.
“The forces that are trying to destroy marriage are doing so through the courts, because they have to do an end-un around the people,” Daniels added. “New Jersey is another example of that trend.
“The Alliance for Marriage authored the federal marriage amendment, which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Daniels said the New Jersey decision was “court-driven,” not democratic.
“The court held a gun to the head of the legislature and said there are two bullets in this gun – one bullet is so called gay-marriage, and the other is civil unions, which are gay marriage in all but name, and you get to pick which bullet. That’s not democracy in action.
“Daniel predicted the issue would end up back in court.
Homosexual advocacy groups, by contrast, say the bill does not go far enough.
“Although same-sex couples in New Jersey are better off today than yesterday, they are still not equal to other couples,” said David Buckel, marriage project director at Lambda Legal, and an attorney in the New Jersey case.
“Their relationships will likely continue to be disrespected,” he said. “By passing a law that marks same-sex couples as inferior, the government has paved the way for others to discriminate against them,” he said.
Buckel added, “Just as we saw happen with couples whose domestic partnerships were not recognized, so too are we likely to see similar hardships for couples in civil unions.”
I cannot and will not sympathize for people that choose to live in a sinful relationship. There is a reason that homosexuals are facing “discrimination”. It’s called righteousness and it hardly constitutes as any type of discrimination or persecution. Homosexual advocates want us to feel their “love” and their “pain” for being denied rights, when in reality, they already have all the same rights everyone else does. Homosexuals are free to marry anyone they want, as long as they are a member of the opposite sex.
Christians realize that we cannot force homosexuals from participating in this sinful perversion of God’s creation. But we can prevent them from forcing their beliefs on the rest of the nation by demanding special rights where none exist. Instead of fighting a battle they will never win, homosexuals have a [second] choice: live life without the benefits of marriage, or turn from their perverted lifestyle, and enter a man-woman marriage.
Of course, a loophole exists where a gay man and a lesbian woman can marry one another, but never live together, and name their “other” partners as insurance beneficiaries. But then we couldn’t demand the courts make any more special rights by creating new laws that violate a long-standing traditional cornerstone like marriage. There would be no more need for gay pride days or political involvment. It would be too simple.
Just another example of a moral issue turned politcal. Typical liberalism.