document.write("

Now you're getting Wiggy with it

$\"Gravatar\"$ GOD bless the NJ Court for such a \"timely reminder of what could happen HERE!!!\"
Bet the vote NO people are thrilled!
JMW's DAD | 10.26.06 - 11:16 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ Actually, they didn't legalize gay marriage.

If you could read, you'd understand that.
Anonymous | 10.26.06 - 11:37 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ \"Must extend all rights of marriage to Gay couples\" Sorry Anonymous, but I have to disagree. If you are giving all of the rights of marriage to gay couples-You are basically leglizing Gay marriage. Maybe you are the one who cant read. And by the way, while I am at it, I think people that do not leave their identity after a comment are cowards. Have a nice day!
Doreen From Waukesha | 10.26.06 - 11:57 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ I've heard that New Jersey's constitution or law don't include any language regarding husband/wife or gender - that marriage is basically discussed as a legal arrangement. If true, that would make NJ substantially different from WI.

Me personally, I'd rather the state just get out of the business of marriage entirely and leave it to the churches. If couples want legal recognition, let them all get civil union licenses or whatever we'd like to call it. IMHO, conflating marriage as a religious institution with \"marriage\" as a legal contract is the biggest problem with keeping this entire debate above board and on track.

Approval before God isn't something government can grant. But a secular government can - and should - afford all citizens equal protection.
Recess Supervisor | Homepage | 10.26.06 - 12:29 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ My intuition tells me one of Doyle's first acts, if he's re-elected, would be a behind the scenes push on our supreme court to legalize gay marriage.

Actually I have no problem with conscenting adults living in any manner they choose. I have a big problem however when unmarried couples, same or opposite sex employed by government, are given taxpayer funded benefits, such as health care and survivor retirement checks, without taxpayer consent. This endless extortion by politicians and judges forcing taxpayers to pay benefits for people living together is wrong and it must be stopped.

It's time we discuss the reason we extended benefits to spouses in the first place. It was to allow mothers to perform one of the most jobs in the world, staying home and raising their children. It's bad enough that we provide spousal benefits for childless married couples, extending those benefits to additional gay or straight childless couples is wrong.
Russ | 10.26.06 - 12:57 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ Russ: But what about gay couples who have adopted children? And, what about fathers who stay home to tend to the young?

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruling simply granted same-sex couples the same civil rights afforded by heterosexual marriage and ordered state lawmakers to decide within six months if they want to change the state's definition of marriage … like is being attempted here in Wisconsin.

And Doreen, I agree with you. I can't stand cowardly anonymous posters, regardless of what side they're on.
Tim | Homepage | 10.26.06 - 2:03 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ We have Shirley Abrahamson
and Joan Kessler sitting on State Supreme and Appellate courts just itching to create a right to gay marriage firmly cemented in the state constitution and hence not subject to Federal review. It certainly can happen here.
Quietman | 10.26.06 - 10:39 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ I would add that Justice Wilcox is not running for re-election. Pass the amendment now, or re-fight this battle later.
James Wigderson | Homepage | 10.26.06 - 11:01 pm | #

Commenting by HaloScan

$\"\"$ ");