JuridicsUSA: New Jersey: 'Gay marriage' defeated

David Kocienniewski, New York Times (Jan7,2k10) reports defeat yesterday of the latest onslawt of sexpol activists trying to change the definition of marriage in New Jersey, until now considered among the most tolerant states of the 50:

New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

Trenton, NJ — The State Senate on Thursday rejected a proposal that would have made New Jersey the sixth state in the nation to allow marriages involving same-sex couples. The vote was the latest in a succession of setbacks for advocates of gay marriage across the country.

I have argued at length in the past against the idiocy of changing the traditional definition of marriage as state recognition of the special relationship of intimacy, reciprocity, and mutuality that can exist between one woman and one man. I'm tired of commenting, but I used to live in New Jersey before immigrating into Canada many decades ago. I'm homo, vowed celibate, old, with a very low libido. But I'd support and do support now at a distance the decision of the state's Senate. I opposed Canada's ignorant courts and federal law-making around a specious theory of sameness dumbed down to what prevails here now.

I think the various lesser jurisdictions -- the provinces (Canada) and states (USA) shoud be able by democratic means to recognize one, two or three kinds of intimate unions: but without altering the special status of heterosexual unions which are distinctive because the members of each marriage negotiate the difference within the relationship of the two genders. A month back New York said No; and last November the state of Maine repealed its short-lived 'gay marriage' law in a referendum. New Jersey already approves so-called "civil unions" for homos of both stripes; but the notion of civil union does not recognize the difference of lesbian unions in contrast to gaymale unions, so for me, it's also quite absurd. These three are irreducible to one another, shoud have distinctive legal names, and do not depend on the state for their existence.

-- Lawt