TRENTON, N.J. -This situation highlights a couple of concerns. First, civil unions and domestic partnerships are marital type relationships which lay the foundation for homosexual marriage by placing in law legal recognition of homosexual relationships on par with marriage relationships between a man and a woman. They are merely a pretext or stepping stone for homosexual marriage.
New JerseyGov. Jon S. Corzine on Tuesday said he has "significant concerns" about whether civil unions give gay couples the same rights as married couples, but didn't back a quick change to state law.
A spokeswoman said the Democratic governor would sign a bill allowing gay marriage, but not until after November's presidential election.
"He will sign a bill, but doesn't want to make it a presidential election year issue," Corzine spokeswoman Lilo Stainton said.
Steven Goldstein, chairman of gay rights group Garden State Equality, said a state report that found civil unions creates a second-class status for gay couples boosts their claims that the unions don't work.
It found gay couples in
Massachusetts_ the only state that allows gay marriage _ don't experience the legal complications that those in New Jersey do.
"New Jersey's civil union law segregates, discriminates and humiliates the very people it is supposed to help," Goldstein said.
Second, it highlights the need for a federal marriage amendment. Having states develop various definitions of marriage is untenable for the entire nation. I believe it's analogous to the battle over slavery. Some thought we could compartmentalize slavery by allowing some states to remain free and others slave. Lincoln ultimately saw this as unworkable. The slave states demanded that slave owners be able to take their "property" with them wherever they went. Lincoln said we'll eventually be all free or all slave. So too, homosexual couples will demand recognition of their homosexual "marriages" when they move to states which don't recognize same sex marriage. So the entire nation will either entirely recognize homosexual marriage or stay with marriage between a man and a woman. There is no middle ground.
Some will say, as former Governor Ventura said to me when I ran into him recently, that the answer is get the state out of the marriage business. I asked how would it do this? By simply establishing civil unions for same and oppose sex couples. But isn't that marriage by another name? He didn't have a plausible response.
The fact is marriage is both a religious and civil institution. It's found in our religious traditions but also written on our hearts by our Creator. It's part of our DNA and is as much a part of the natural order as the law of gravity. Human race is dependent on a man and a woman procreating to insure there's a next generation. But also having those mothers and fathers raising children who in turn will be mothers and fathers themselves. When we deviate from this natural design untold problems result, e.g. messed up kids, crime, poverty, drug abuse, abortion, disease and on and on the list goes.
Homosexual marriage advocates believe marriage and the norm of mothers and fathers raising their children is merely a social construct we can change at will. The lessons of history, decline of past civilizations and cultures and our current social experiment in alternative family arrangements in the West and the US reveal how fatally flawed this notion is. (Our first experiment with family redefinition, e.g. encouraging single parent headed households has been an abysmal disaster.)
The outcome of the homosexual marriage experiment and with it the fundamental redefinition of family is not in question -- the destruction of our culture and society. The only question is will the United States veer away from the precipice before it's too late.