NJ rejects gay marriage bill.....YES!!!

[tonymctones]

It's really pretty simple: Definitions and social norms change naturally over time and modifying them for political gain or to soothe sandy vaginas is silly. Something equivalent would be fine, IMO, but it's doubtful expanding the definition would cause American society to collapse and really wouldn't affect my life one bit.

My main criticism of this foolishness is the intentionally inflammatory/racist language some left wingers are using. We all know the civil rights act's intent was to create parity for white women in the workplace. Nitwits saying "there was a time blacks and whites couldn't marry" is code for "how can you let blacks have more rights than us?!"

These opinions have been posted many times. I thought you were joking.

At some point in the next 5 or 10 years Americans will be so busy trying to survive financially that no one will give a damn about redefining marriage or abortion. It'll be a sad time for politics because there really aren't too many issues separating democrats from republicans. I do doubt Obama will do anything other than pick a Supreme Court Justice who may lean in that direction as he is personally opposed to redefining marriage. Then again... he's a politician so it's impossible to tell if there are any convictions truly held beyond whatever lies people are willing to believe.

I am a little curious if changing something people claim is so essential to our cultural identity will have any real, lasting impact. I'd like to believe we'd get some useful information over time from what happens in the states where same-sex marriage is practiced but it's doubtful.

LOL never thought about it like that hahahah pretty funny

I agree pretty much with your stance I dont think it would change much if anything simply more appeasement I think ppl need to learn that you dont always get what you want.

[drkaje]

LOL never thought about it like that hahahah pretty funny

I agree pretty much with your stance I dont think it would change much if anything simply more appeasement I think ppl need to learn that you dont always get what you want.

I do sort of agree with your "why not just make all showers and bathrooms unisex" position but am nearly not cute enough to believe every gay man wants to be gay with me.

[tonymctones]

I do sort of agree with your "why not just make all showers and bathrooms unisex" position but am nearly not cute enough to believe every gay man wants to be gay with me.

LOL me either doc but then again thats probably a good thing 

[peteyp]

I'm wiling to entertain logical reasons why/how it might affect someone.

If the divorce rate were less than 50%, pretending they were protecting marriage or children would make sense.

In the same vein, most of the arguments I've seen for it are stupid too. Ultimately I feel the issue is primarily driven by gays who think their identity crisis will be solved if homosexuality is legitimized through changing marriage's definition. It's pretty stupid.

"all persons should have the opportunity to be married and miserable"!

[drkaje]

"all persons should have the opportunity to be married and miserable"!

Are all married people miserable?

[muscleforlife]

Are all unmarried people miserable?

It's is never all black and white.

Could care less if you are homo/hetro/married/unmarried.

If you have the same rights as I do under the law....
not an issue....

But then again, that is the issue.

Sandra

[tonymctones]

Are all unmarried people miserable?

It's is never all black and white.

Could care less if you are homo/hetro/married/unmarried.

If you have the same rights as I do under the law....
not an issue....

But then again, that is the issue.

Sandra

agreed sandra are you ok with me coming into your locker room and watching you change?

gays get to do it seems a tad unfair to me, you?

[chadstallion]

agreed sandra are you ok with me coming into your locker room and watching you change?

gays get to do it seems a tad unfair to me, you?

and that has to do with marriage....how?

[MCWAY]

The gay "marriage" thing has now switched to California, where the case of "Perry v. Schwarzenegger" has the plaintiffs claiming that Prop. 8 violates the US Constitution. The specific charges are violation of the 14th amendment and (citing Romer v. Evans) showing animus towards homos.

Here's what I don't get.

We have a federal Supreme Court ruling from 1972 ("Baker v. Nelson") that already states that defining marriage as a one-man-one-woman (1M-1W) union doesn't violate the Constitution. And that's binding on all lower courts.

And, the 8th and 11th Circuit Courts, over the last 5 years, have ruled that the laws and amendments in Nebraska and Florida, respectively, do NOT violate the US Constitution. So how does California's amendment do such, when those of Florida and Nebraska do not?

The idea that the instutition of marriage was made for the expressed purpose of being mean to gays is utterly ridiculous.

[tonymctones]

and that has to do with marriage....how?

ahhhh equal rights...NUMB NUT

you want equal rights when it suits you but not when it doesnt

also if you dont see how this relates to gays in the military then you need to log off or go post on the G&O permanently.

[tonymctones]

The gay "marriage" thing has now switched to California, where the case of "Perry v. Schwarzenegger" has the plaintiffs claiming that Prop. 8 violates the US Constitution. The specific charges are violation of the 14th amendment and (citing Romer v. Evans) showing animus towards homos.

Here's what I don't get.

We have a federal Supreme Court ruling from 1972 ("Baker v. Nelson") that already states that defining marriage as a one-man-one-woman (1M-1W) union doesn't violate the Constitution. And that's binding on all lower courts.

And, the 8th and 11th Circuit Courts, over the last 5 years, have ruled that the laws and amendments in Nebraska and Florida, respectively, do NOT violate the US Constitution. So how does California's amendment do such, when those of Florida and Nebraska do not?

The idea that the instutition of marriage was made for the expressed purpose of being mean to gays is utterly ridiculous.

I think it has something to do with whats not defined by the feds is left to the states. The supreme court didnt say that marriage is between one women and one man from what I understand only that defining it as such doesnt violate the constitution.

Thus it leaves the door open for states to define marriage b/c it wasnt defined by federal authorities. This is the problem though and the reason it will keep getting thrown back to the supreme court. When lower courts have multiple rulings that differ from one another dealing with federal questions(this isnt really a federal question but since it does deal with the federal govt taxes, registration etc. it could be put in federal court) they get bumped up to higher courts to try and solidify the rulings with one from a higher court.

you should know that simply b/c a higher court rules a certain way doesnt mean the lower courts are legally bound to rule on cases that way. Now those cases may get over turned in appeal and the judge look like an ass which is why alot of judges find the same way as others but doesnt mean they cant legally go against higher courts.

"stari decis" or something like that means let the decision stand

[Option D]

N.J. Senate rejects bill legalizing gay marriage
By The Star-Ledger Continuous News Desk
January 07, 2010, 4:39PM
TRENTON -- The state Senate rejected a same-sex marriage bill today, a major victory for opponents who contend the measure would damage religious freedom and is not needed because the state already permits civil unions.

The 20-14 vote defeating the measure followed an hour and a half of public debate inside the packed Senate chamber. The nearly thousand supporters and opponents of the bill held rallies on the Statehouse steps.

Statewide polls have shown New Jersey residents closely divided on same-sex marriage, and leading up to today’s vote, indicators showed a majority of the senators opposing the measure.

But momentum for the bill grew after Gov. Jon Corzine lost the November election. He has promised to sign the measure before Gov.-elect Chris Christie takes office. Christie has said he opposes the bill.

After the vote, Corzine said he was appreciative the bill was publicly debated, but was "deeply disappointed by the final tally on this common-sense measure that would have assured equal rights for all New Jerseyans."

"Most assuredly, this is an issue of civil rights and civil liberties, the foundation of our state and federal constitutions," the governor said. "Denying any group of people a fundamental human right because of who they are, or whom they love, is wrong, plain and simple."

Last month, the legislation cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee after hours of emotional debate and testimony, which set the stage for today’s full Senate showdown.

New Jersey passed a domestic partnership law in 2002 and legalized civil unions in 2006, but supporters say there are major flaws, like problems with pension benefits and hospitals denying visits to partners. They say gay couples do not have equal rights without being allowed to marry.

Just four state have legalized gay marriage, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont, while 30 states have banned it through constitutional amendments.

There were three abstentions in the vote. They were Sens. Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen), Steve Sweeney (D-Gloucester) and James Beach (D-Camden). Sen. Andrew Ciesla (R-Ocean) was not present and Sen. Diane Allen (R-Burlington) has been out sick while she fights cancer.

Why do you care if Gays get married or not...are you gay?

[Soul Crusher]

Personally, I could care less.  If the voters want it, fine, if not, fine too. 

[chadstallion]

ahhhh equal rights...NUMB NUT

you want equal rights when it suits you but not when it doesnt

also if you dont see how this relates to gays in the military then you need to log off or go post on the G&O permanently.

nothing wrong with equal rights. and also for military.
sissy boi.

[chadstallion]

Personally, I could care less.  If the voters want it, fine, if not, fine too. 

i agree; we should have had the chance to vote on civil rights; not left it up to the courts.
I would like the front of the bus back, please...

[tonymctones]

nothing wrong with equal rights. and also for military.
sissy boi.

point is dip shit that gays also have advantages protected by the law, so if you want equal rights nancy you should be advocating them not picking and choosing.

IF...you want to pick and choose like it seems you do then you shouldnt talk about equal rights 

[MCWAY]

I think it has something to do with whats not defined by the feds is left to the states. The supreme court didnt say that marriage is between one women and one man from what I understand only that defining it as such doesnt violate the constitution.

Thus it leaves the door open for states to define marriage b/c it wasnt defined by federal authorities. This is the problem though and the reason it will keep getting thrown back to the supreme court. When lower courts have multiple rulings that differ from one another dealing with federal questions(this isnt really a federal question but since it does deal with the federal govt taxes, registration etc. it could be put in federal court) they get bumped up to higher courts to try and solidify the rulings with one from a higher court.

you should know that simply b/c a higher court rules a certain way doesnt mean the lower courts are legally bound to rule on cases that way. Now those cases may get over turned in appeal and the judge look like an ass which is why alot of judges find the same way as others but doesnt mean they cant legally go against higher courts.

"stari decis" or something like that means let the decision stand

With regards to marriage, the lower courts that have legalized gay "marriage" have done so, claiming it violates its own state constitution, not the federal one.

You make a good point. State constitutions can be stricter than the federal one, providing that there's no direct contradiction (see the 2002 school voucher case, "Zellman v. Simmons-Harris". The ruling doesn't mandate school vouchers for all states or that such be allowed for use at religious schools; it merely states the parameters for a school voucher program, if religious school usage is included).

A lower court, however, (as it relates to marriage) can NOT rule that a marriage law is federally unconstitutional, since the US Supreme Court has said the exact opposite.

Nor can lower courts assume that more recent federal Supreme Court rulings trump earlier ones (the argument gay activists are making in the case against Prop. 8, claiming that the 1996 ruling in "Romer v. Evans" trumps the 1972 ruling in "Baker v. Nelson).

[drkaje]

The gay "marriage" thing has now switched to California, where the case of "Perry v. Schwarzenegger" has the plaintiffs claiming that Prop. 8 violates the US Constitution. The specific charges are violation of the 14th amendment and (citing Romer v. Evans) showing animus towards homos.

Here's what I don't get.

We have a federal Supreme Court ruling from 1972 ("Baker v. Nelson") that already states that defining marriage as a one-man-one-woman (1M-1W) union doesn't violate the Constitution. And that's binding on all lower courts.

And, the 8th and 11th Circuit Courts, over the last 5 years, have ruled that the laws and amendments in Nebraska and Florida, respectively, do NOT violate the US Constitution. So how does California's amendment do such, when those of Florida and Nebraska do not?

The idea that the instutition of marriage was made for the expressed purpose of being mean to gays is utterly ridiculous.

Does letting same-sex marriages from a limited time period remain in effect create a separate class and essentially deny other gays seeking the same benefits equal protection under the law? Maybe no gay advocates want to risk the backlash if challenging existing marriages on that basis renders them null and void.

[chadstallion]

... so if you want equal rights nancy .....

nancy; who are u calling nancy?   Sarah, maybe.....

you are so fun to tease; you fall for it every time!