Marriage, as a concept, exists in two separate spheres. In the religous context, it is defined by each religion in any way that the religion chooses to do so. Religion is a voluntary matter, and one can certainly choose to associate with traditions that one feels comfortable with, and to define ones life around the ideas and institutions that the relgion promotes.

Compliance with the laws is not a voluntary matter, and the government is not a spiritual institution. Governments recognize marriages, and offer benefits to those engaged in them, because it is a simple fact of life that humans tend to form pair bonds, and these social units are an important aspect of any successful society. For the government, the issue of marriage is a practical matter, dealing with issues like tax laws, legal contracts and the like.

Whereas marrying your refrigerator, or your pet, or not doing so, might be an issue for a church to deal with, it is not relevant to the government. Refrigerators and pets are not persons under the law to whom benefits or legal status might accrue, nor can they enter into contracts etc.

Your statement about the preferential treatment of marriage and married people is rather absurd. There will be no change in these preferences - in fact the NJ courts made clear that these preferences are perfectly legitimate - all they decreed is that they be extended to gay committed couples that form stable social units.

I dont know if you are married, but if so, I hope your wife isn't too brokenhearted by your view of the value of your marriage, now that gay couples can have legal rights too.

When the "civil rights paradigm" was extended to sexual orientation, it was absolutely inevitable that this would spell the demise of preferential treatment to marriages and married people. Everybody must have the same opportunities and benefits.

There will be a brief rally when sponsors try to enact preferential benefits for those who birth or adopt children, then those too will die at the hands of those unable to be parents.

Marriage has value to society as originally construed. Marriage in this brave new world retains no value at all.

New Jersey rules in favor of Gay Marriage.
New Jersey’s highest court ruled Wednesday that gay couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but that lawmakers must determine whether the state will honor gay marriage or some other f...

For the record, I would hope the legislature does call the unions marriages. But if the people arent ready for that, well, at least they cannot deny equal treatment to gays, in terms of legal benefits and priveledges. If it turns out that a "civil union" is a sham form of equality, as the Plessy equality was, and then I will join your critique.

Sorry John, we liberals don't believe in hunting either.

...

New Jersey could become the nation's gay wedding chapel should the state's highest court rule in fav...

New Jersey's marriage laws, which were first enacted in 1912, limit marriage to heterosexual couples. The
recently enacted Domestic Partnership Act explicitly acknowledges that same-sex couples cannot marry. Although
today there is a national debate over whether same-sex marriages should be authorized by the states, the framers of
the 1947 New Jersey Constitution could not have imagined that the liberty right protected by Article I, Paragraph 1
embraced same-sex marriage.

But they claim they can ignore this.

Times and attitudes have changed. There has been a developing understanding that discrimination against gays
and lesbians is no longer acceptable in this State. On the federal level, the United States Supreme Court has struck
down laws that have unconstitutionally targeted gays and lesbians for disparate treatment. Although plaintiffs rely
on the federal cases to support the argument that they have a fundamental right to marry under our State
Constitution, those cases fall far short of establishing a fundamental right to same-sex marriage "deeply rooted in the
traditions, history, and conscience of the people of this State." Despite the rich diversity of this State, the tolerance
and goodness of its people, and the many recent advances made by gays and lesbians toward achieving social
acceptance and equality under the law, the Court cannot find that the right to same-sex marriage is a fundamental
right under our constitution.

So following that reasoning, they could still discriminate against polygamy because they will just say that the state hasn't developed an understanding that it is no longer unacceptable. The court has magic powers to throw out any laws they don't like if they think that the states has developed an understanding that being against such things are no longer acceptable.

So I figure that we can look forward to rulings that while the original intent of the constitution writers could not have imagined it, times have changed. Therefore it is legal to kill any conservative who says something you disagree with as part of preserving a leftist right to free speech. I mean, isn't it clear that the state has developed an understanding that such hate speech by a conservative is no longer acceptable. The state legislature has 180 days to issue hunting licenses.