Chris Christie Promises to Veto New Jersey Same Sex "Marriage" Bill

[DeedsResearcher]

BRAVO, Governor! Your position is clear: You believe, as I do, that marriage is between one man and one woman. PERIOD! If that is to ever be changed, it shoudl be by a general vote of "WE THE PEOPLE", and not by the vote of a few people in black robes or sitting at desks in the state house...of ANY state!

[ualsdu7777]

The gay movement has gone too far. They are the 1% of the population who is seeking to cram their perverse lifestyle on the rest of the 99%. I long for the day when this foolishness will be laid to rest via a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as that between one man and one woman.

[3martijns]

Four Steps in the Destruction of a Country:

1. Moral breakdown.

2. Family breakdown.

3. Society breakdown.

4. Nation breakdown.

See what is happening to the USA?!

[smilelywiley]

Just because a person doesn't agree with same sex marriage, it shouldn't give them the right to dictate who can and cannot get married. What happened to simple toleration?

[newjerseyequality]

@smilelywiley Who give you the special right to abolish marriage and redefine the marriage of everybody else. You are the 1% who is abusing the 99%.

[johngahott]

Thank God finally Someone who supports the voters!!!

[juiceeddieshow]

I'm glad Christie will be our next governor

[newjerseyequality]

Me too

[newjerseyequality]

That is what same sex marriage laws do. It transform marriage into civil unions. What shall we called marriage. Gay activits have no respect for anyone else

[imanerd36]

This is why I like my idea, you can call marriage whatever you want to. The government will recognize civil unions. How does that hurt you? You can define marriage to what ever you want, and gay people get their rights.

P.S. How do we not have respect for anyone else?

[BIitzed]

How exactly do same-sex marriage laws change marriage at all? The institution will be more inclusive than before, but how does it affect your marriage? How do two gay people affect the marriage of straight people? That's a logical question which you simply can't answer because there is no effect.

[Kevstar19]

It sickens me how people feel joy and happiness when two loving partners (no matter how long or how much they love each other ) cannot get married and cherish life together. It is absolutely mind blowing that people seriously can say that gay marriage is wrong.

[newjerseyequality]

People have a complete opposite idea of what marriage is that you have. Once you understadn and accept that, then you can start to understand.

[TheLibertariansUnite]

If they couldn't pass it in NY what makes you think they can pass it in NJ...

They don't have the votes. They never had the votes. They never will have the votes.

The people of NJ are loud and clear.

No Gay Marriage!

[filmstocker]

Er yeah... Because I take my cues on effective political organizing and messaging from... LIBERTARIANS.

Lol. Have you EVER won an election? NOT come in last?

gay marriage was an absurd joke , the most loathed and ridiculed and unreal idea in American politics 13 years ago. It is now a political reality in 5 states and on its way in DC. This has happened faster than even its strongest supporters predicted. NY was a minor setback in a loooong struggle. Stay tuned, Mary.

[newjerseyequality]

There was a set back in California and in Maine. Every time people could vote, there was a set back

[filmstocker]

Do you imagine those majorities are permanent?

Take a look at the breakdown of the vote by age. In some states, support for ssm among voters 18-29 is almost as high as 75%.

If your entire case rests on the (rather shaky) notion that anything the majority says about rights goes, it's a matter of time until opposition is in the minority.

And 47% in ME is not a fringe minority. That's striking distance of a majority. 5 years ago, who would have dared to imagine support would be that high?

[filmstocker]

In other words, we supporters take a long view.

Don't think that we're discouraged or we're giving up. We know that these are just the opening salvo's in a loooooooooong struggle, and, if anything, we are shocked by the success... and so quickly.

It's surreal to me that ssm is legal in 5 states, that close to half of the voters in Me and Ca support it.

6 years ago, I would never have dared to imagine either.

[kristich78]

He completely contradicted himself by first saying that people should decide social policy and later saying that people expect their leaders to make decisions regardless of their approval; "if we disagree we live in a democratic society." Well, history has shown us that sometimes government needs to step in and check the social injustices of its people, by passing laws the majority disagrees with. Example: Religious and racial persecution. Wake up and be logical with your opinions!

[theboybeagle69]

you are certainly not a leader not my leader now or ever. you are a hateful person

[TheLibertariansUnite]

We're getting off topic here.

Christie said he will Veto any same sex marriage bill. Jon Corzine doesn't care anymore. Thank you Christie for not pissing on the sacred institution of marriage.

So whether you're for it, against it, it doesn't matter. It's going to be shelved and we have to look to the next gay marriage bill to defeat.

You can rest assured that the old senior Grandmas/Grandpas and conservative folk who want the USA back will vote this libtard shit down ANYWHERE.

[BIitzed]

Right, because in your mind, giving gay people the same rights as you would be "pissing on marriage". With a divorce rate of 50% you can hardly call it sacred anyway.

[TheLibertariansUnite]

It wouldn't be "pissing on marriage"?

Here comes the... Groom???

I now pronounce you man and man, you may kiss the man?

I know Steve... What Adam? We can adopt a little boy.

I want to be a father.

Just because your life is ruined... Don't go and ruin someone elses... please...

Try telling a US Army veteran married to the same woman for 50 years his marriage to his wife isn't sacred. After all the divorce rate is 50%.

Foolish Liberal... Marriage is between a man and woman.

[BIitzed]

- First of all, gay people can already adopt children without being married, so I don't know why you're bringing that up. - My life isn't ruined. I have no idea why you think being gay has a negative impact on my life. Oh, except for all of the discrimination I face from people such as yourself. - His marriage isn't sacred. Marriage is a government institution. He can consider it sacred if he said his vows in his place of worship, but that has no legal standing.

[BIitzed]

Go back and actually respond to what I wrote. All you have been doing for the past hour or so is attacking straw man arguments of your own creation. Unless you concede all of the points I made, don't ignore them and then claim that I am the foolish one.

[BrainChild42]

@TheLibertariansUnite you're a disgrace to libertarians. aren't the values of libertatians supposed to be AGAINST government interference? and you still say that we should impose our beliefs on good people, gay or otherwise?

[newjerseyequality]

Senator Weinberg or seantor Lesniack cannot redefine marriage, Jon Corzine or even Obama cant redefine marriage. Even God cant redefine marriage. When 2homosexuals can procreate gay children, then you have a claim on marriage. Until then you are just changing words that will create more suffering.

[Kevstar19]

Oh really? Then get rid of marriages between old people and infertile couples. Surely they cannot procreate therefore they don't deserve marriage. That is essentially what you just told me.

Oh please, I understand the other side completely. I was born and raised Catholic. My mother believes gay marriage is okay, my father is okay with it. My church is not. I understand them; do I believe it's the right thing? Of course not.

[newjerseyequality]

Couples find out after being married that they cannot have children.

Gays cant procreate ever of there own. It is dysfunctional to say the list

[Kevstar19]

Oh so just because they can't procreate they shouldn't be married? What about the people who get married but decide that they don't want children beforehand?? There are plenty of people like that. Gays adopting children isn't good enough? Because frankly there are thousands of children without a family as it is. Your argument is perpetually flawed

[BIitzed]

"Even God cant redefine marriage." Assuming that your god does exist, then of course it would be able to change the definition of marriage. It is supposedly omnipotent, and can therefore do anything and everything. Marriage has been redefined before, and it can be again. Unless you can prove that these changes would cause problems (which you can't) there is no reason to stop this natural evolution of our laws.

[filmstocker]

Until they're, uh, no longer part of the voting pool.

[TheLibertariansUnite]

Oh Blitzed Blitzed Blitzed... You yourself feel you're so smart, and yet you know so little... I find it funny how you need to defend EVERY SINGLE thing anyone says on this DEAD topic. It ain't happenin' :)

Those who think they know it all are very annoying to those of us who do.

I'll say it one more time, but this time screw on your listening ears. ALL men can marry ALL women. ALL women can marry ALL men.

Like your father told you. Straigten up, FLY right, and at least ACT like a man.

[BIitzed]

" ALL men can marry ALL women. ALL women can marry ALL men." Right, and pre-1967, ALL whites could marry ALL whites, and ALL blacks could marry ALL blacks. Fair, right? Of course not. As I have explained before, if one group has a right that another group does not possess (a woman's right to marry a man, or a white's right to marry a white) these two groups DO NOT have equal rights. You have yet to refute this, you merely continue to regurgitate the same line.

[BIitzed]

" You yourself feel you're so smart, and yet you know so little..." If this is the case, why haven't you proved it yet? It seems that thus far, I have given you a veritable thrashing; you have yet to actually defend your point of view in any meaningful way. If you really do know as much as you claim to know, then why waste your time posting illogical rantings that I so easily rebutted?

[BIitzed]

"Straigten up, FLY right, and at least ACT like a man." I don't know (and don't care) what you think "acting like a man" means, but at least I don't act like a child: resorting to pitiful and unsubstantial insults. Now try staying on subject, okay? Your ad hominem distractions are not impressive in the least.

[TheLibertariansUnite]

@ Blitzed

We have a gay philosopher on our hands here.

I mean is all you got, "What is normal anyway? Who is to say what a "real" man acts like anyway?

Are you friggen kidding me?

You know damn well what a real man does/acts/thinks. The soldier man who doesn't complain about a 12 hour work day, provides for his family, and enjoys his wife.

Prove you know nothing? Seriously if you read what I'm reading and not a homosexual brainwashed Obama Zombie Liberal.

[BIitzed]

Actually, I stated that I don't care what you think "acting like a real man" means. It seems that you have completely misconstrued what I said. In any case, the definition of a "real man" is opinion. You don't know the first thing about me, but if being gay automatically means that I am not "a real man" in your eyes, then I couldn't care less. You act as if gay people don't have jobs or families. Seriously, open your eyes and stop wallowing in your own pathetic ignorance.

[csnow75]

I don't know what the problem is! He is a politician that is stating what his personal belief is WITHOUT fear; but most importantly distinctly said if the people of NJ voted in the MAJORITY for gay marriage that he would uphold it REGARDLESS of his beliefs! Finally a politician that works for his constituents instead of enforcing what he believes to become law without the input of the people! DEAL WITH IT, it's a new day PC DAYS ARE COMING TO AN END!!!

[BIitzed]

You told me to "Stop Christian Bashing". I have yet to say anything pejorative or derogatory about Christians. Instead of calling people "Christian-bashers" maybe you should actually take the time to read the comments posted here.

[csnow75]

When I said stop Christian bashing I don't believe I was referring specifically to you. But since you responded I DID read some of your posts which seemed to have a belligerent

inflection on Christians or the religious in general. Specifically when you pointed out the divorce rate and called it "hardly sacred" and pointed to the divorce rate; not necessary to do.

[BIitzed]

It is completely necessary, because some people seem to be under the false impression that marriage in America is something religious or 'sacred' to Christianity. The Bible opposes divorce, yet Americans are perfectly free to divorce. The Bible is okay with polygamy, but we clearly aren't. In the Bible, women are to be property of their husbands, but that simply won't fly here. Obviously there is a vast disconnect between 'holy matrimony' as described by the Bible and our legal definition.

[csnow75]

There is no false impression about marriage. Originally intended (since you want to go there) so that a man would know and take claim of his rightful offspring. AT ALL then gay MARRIAGE could not be. If you were to go by the bare bones root of marriage,homosexuals can't produce an offspring together. Religious reasons for marriage, which was to have God bless the union of one man and one woman, was adopted later. The core of the beginning of marriage began with the production of offspring.

[BIitzed]

Religious and traditional marriage have nothing to do with our current legal definition of marriage. In our legal system, marriage has never been and never should be about having biological children.

[csnow75]

In order to make a determination you must consider what is normal. If you cannot produce biological children in the MAJORITY that is if you and your mate are both healthy and virile/fertile, you should be able to reproduce. This was the ORIGIN of marriage BEFORE RELIGION. In order to have a bases to argue gay marriage you have to understand the ORIGIN of marriage. If its SOLELY legal then CIVIL UNIONS meet this criteria. Maybe gays should fight to have more rights under civil unions instead.

[BIitzed]

You don't seem to understand. The origin of marriage as a human tradition has nothing to do with our legal institution of marriage. In a "traditional marriage", a woman was the property of her husband, and could often be bought with a generous dowry. Wealthy men could have many wives, because as you said, it was about reproduction.Thankfully, our legal system does not legislate based on traditions which are nowadays completely obsolete and harmful.

[csnow75]

You can't build a house and then take out the foundation and hope that the house continues to stand. Marriage as it stands today was based off of the production of offspring, everything else came later. I mean if you want to COMPLETELY start to take out traditions this country would collapse, not just slowly crumble as it unfortunately is now. Everything else you've mentioned, although having an extremely negative connotation, comes down to them joining in matrimony to produce offspring.

[csnow75]

To speak to your mentioning wealthy men having many wives to have children, this is where the Church stepped in and adopted a blessed union of 1 man 1 woman to give the child a stable moral and religious element to be born into. Also as a man was to marry one woman it meant he now had to respect her as well. So that is where the church sanctified marriage.

[csnow75]

cont'd for Blitzed: And then in you single out Conservative Christians believing marriage

being one man one woman. As if NO OTHER religion in the world has nothing to say in regards to a gay union of any kind. Do you think there would be NO problems if a homosexual couple

went outside of the Country

to any other place to try to marry? Do you think it would be without a detrimental consequence instead of some verbal opposition?

[BIitzed]

Please note that I was referring to beliefs about marriage in America, not the world as a whole. And what I said was true; there aren't liberals or atheists who believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. All of the opposition to gay marriage is coming from conservative Christians. Sure, there may be a handful of Jewish or Muslim people who are also opposed to it, but they constitute a small minority. I think you missed the overall point of my post.

[csnow75]

You cannot say (unless you've done a poll) that "there aren't liberals or atheist who believe marriage should between 1 man and 1 woman. You're not going to tell me that everyone in California who voted AGAINST gay marriage were ALL religious. Nope didn't miss the point of the post. People can say outright what you want to hear by when they go behind that curtain to vote, they are voting on what they feel strongly about. This is whether they are religious, atheist, conservative or liberal.

[BIitzed]

-The fact is that almost all are, and there are no leaders in the anti-marriage equality movement who are not motivated by religion. There may be a very small minority of atheists or liberals, but most are not.

[csnow75]

Ok so your statement now becomes an ad hominem since you've refused to point out a poll or any other information which backs up your point but...alright. This happens a lot during a passionate debate. Not a fact but it makes you feel secure to state it any way.

[BIitzed]

That's not what an ad hominem argument is. An ad hominem is a logical fallacy based on a personal attack. Which I didn't do.

[csnow75]

Ad hominem- 1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.

2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Hated to do that as I do not want to appear condescending, but I know what it means just like I THOUGHT you did. Oh and when I mentioned your statement being an Ad Hominem I was referring to definition number 1. It's very apparent you are basing some of what you're saying in emotion rather than fact.

[csnow75]

in conclusion for Blitz:

Look I don't have a problem with civil unions which is recognized in some states

including NJ. But I don't agree with changing the definition of marriage because of the myriad of complications that will SURELY follow.

[BIitzed]

If you are willing to give gays almost identical rights to straights (civil unions do not constitute equal rights), then why would changing the legal definition of a word even matter to you? If you believe that gays having civil unions would be completely harmless, why is there reason to believe that a "myriad of complications" would arise if we don't institute a system of marriage apartheid in the US?

[csnow75]

Because Identical rights are still RIGHTS, they do not dismantle the core of marriage and what it means. And by keeping it intact it does not open the door for other RIGHTS that people want in regards to marriage like I mentioned before. Like people wanting to marry a close relative, or take many spouses, or have adults marry children. You see all of those people want the right to go outside of what they think is our (necessarily) "antiquated" definition of marriage also. Hence the big problem.

[BIitzed]

-First of all, civil unions and domestic partnerships don't offer identical rights to marriage. And secondly, even if they did, they wouldn't be equal, because separate is not equal. To have two separate institutions based on sexual orientation is tantamount to segregation.

[csnow75]

Then fight for more rights under civil unions you most likely would have MORE lee-way by doing so. Again you have to look at the ORIGIN of marriage to make this decision. If all heterosexual decided (crazy but work with me for a second) to stop having children....could gay people continue to multiply and populate society? If there was a disaster and the only few people left on earth were gay and lesbian men and women how would you continue the human race?

[BIitzed]

Your arguments are all hypotheses contrary to fact. You are making up bizarre "what if" scenarios and expecting this to be considered relevant to the argument. There is no reason for me to talk about what would happen if that were the case, because there is no reason for me to believe that either of those things has any chance of happening.

[csnow75]

Not ALL of my "arguments" are a hypothesis, just the what if scenario. It was my intention to put you in a position to answer truthfully an uncomfortable question. You chose to deflect by getting offended and calling ALL of my arguments a hypothesis and bizarre. Hey the History channel has an ongoing series about what the Earth would be like without people! Now THAT'S bizarre! I guess I was just trying to see if in the scenario I presented you would answer honestly. Guessed wrong on that one

[csnow75]

What you didn't SEEM to answer is if it's all about legalities why gay people won't just fight to extend their rights under Civil Unions? Why dismantle something that his had thousands of years rooted into society and has only changed to make things better for the man and soman that choose to marry today? FIGHT to improve civil unions!! Fight to get everything you're entitled to have under that! But DO NOT CHANGE what we have come to understand TO DATE as marriage.

[BIitzed]

By your fallacious logic, giving basic civil rights to a minority would lead to the legalization of pedophilia. Did you know that the exact same thing was said about interracial marriage? Of course, it didn't happen. Do you know why? Because extending rights to a minority will not lead to completely unrelated groups gaining legal rights. Again, same-sex marriage is legal in 7 countries, and none of those countries have legalized any of the things you talk about.

[csnow75]

Ok you still avoid what was stated as the ORIGIN of marriage which was to produce offspring. A man and woman of different races can produce offspring. How is my logic fallacious? Men and Women can procreate to produce offspring right? NO fallacy there.

If you have a change in marriage laws outside of what is considered the norm, that is persons in the majority who can procreate to extend the human race in a healthy natural way

you will have other groups push for THEIR rights also.

[BIitzed]

Marriage laws already extend beyond couples who can procreate. Case in point: the elderly & infertile couples. There are no restrictions on straight people getting married, even if they cannot or do not reproduce. The concern towards pedophilia is that pedophilia is demonstrably harmful. It revolves around the victimization of children, and that's just not okay. This is not analogous to a consenting relationship between two adults.

[csnow75]

Yes there ARE no restrictions on a man and a woman who marry and do not have children. The whole basis is that if they wanted to the could. For the most part A LOT of people do just that. Yes there are abnormal and very painful instances where the man and woman involved are unable to reproduce but it is just that ABNORMAL. That couple painfully has to make some decisions. I am not talking about the root of pedophilia I am talking about them wanting RIGHTS based on a major change like this.

[BIitzed]

If they are so "abnormal" and cannot reproduce, they should be stripped of their marriages license, correct? Or maybe people shouldn't even be given a marriage license until they produce some kids? How does that sound? From your reaction, I can tell that you know just as well as I do that such action on the part of the government would be cruel and unjust. So why do you insists on such measures being taken against gays?

[BIitzed]

Your first comment betray a lack of understanding when it comes to the US Constitution. The vote of the majority should have NO ability to strip rights away from any minority. This is "majority rule, minority rights". Consider Loving v. Virginia. At the time the case was decided, 70% of Americans opposed interracial marriage, but the Supreme Court still repealed laws that banned it.

[csnow75]

Ok as I stated before but will repeat once again ; Christie pointed out his beliefs but CLEARLY stated that he would uphold whatever the people chose regardless of his own ideology. What I was pointing out was quite truistic under the 9th and 10th amendment. "Anything that is implicit under the constitution falls by default under the power of individual states or it's individual citizens". Where was my "lack of understanding" of the US Constitution?

[BIitzed]

The 14th Amendment states that no state shall deny any citizens equal protection under the law. Denying two gay people the right to marriage is a violation of this amendment, so therefore the citizens of New Jersey have no right to put MY rights up to a vote in a state-wide popularity contest. This is something the US constitution is very clear on: majority rule, minority rights.

[csnow75]

Again, the 9th and 10th plain and simple. Guess we're at a stalemate on amendments.

[BIitzed]

We're not in a stalemate; it is made clear in the 14th Amendment that states cannot deny equal rights to any individual. If states have the power to give marriage licenses, it is unconstitutional for them to discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation.

[csnow75]

ACTUALLY we ARE in a stalemate as you choose to represent your point under the 14th and I under the 9th AND 10th. There is NO clear cut law which allows gay marriage therefore the 9th and 10th applies in this situation. Women and Men are fee to marry each other. You are a man and are free to marry (just not another man), but in NJ you can have a civil union.

[BIitzed]

However there is a law which allows marriage between straights, so therefore the 9th and 10th Amendments do not apply. Only the 14th amendment applies, because the rights which the state gives do not equally protect. Gays are not free to marry. If only men and women can marry one another, then only straight people can have their relationships recognized under marriage, and such discrimination based on sexual orientation is a travesty of justice.

[csnow75]

Yes the law clearly allows marriage for a woman and a man. You're a man and can marry your rights therefore are not violated. Gays are not free to marry and it is not clearly stated in the constitution which is why the 9th and 10th amendment would apply in this situation for each state and its citizens to decide. If the majority rules in favor of gay marriage you wouldn't be offended at all; you also wouldn't object as to how it was done.

[BIitzed]

Gays cannot marry. Let me walk you through this one more time: gay people have relationships with the SAME sex. Marriage is only legal between people of the opposite sex. Therefore, our relationships are not recognized as marriage by the federal government, and that is a serious violation of our rights. Yes, we could marry someone of the opposite sex, but to what end? The legal protections of marriage are useless unless you are in a monogamous relationship with the person you're married to.

[csnow75]

Civil Union is the only way because it does not have the history that marriage has. Even Sir Elton John doesn't think gays should push on dismantling marriage. Look it up. HE gets it.

[BIitzed]

The definition of marriage has been changed multiple times before, and its "history" was never an issue. Legal definitions are subject to change whenever they unfairly discriminate, and the traditional definition does not preclude rights being given to a minority group. You re relying on the argument that traditional or historical laws should not/cannot be changed, and this is obviously false. If it were true, we would have never had any progress in terms of human rights in American history.

[csnow75]

Again we need to go back to origin. History does play a position and as I stated before we've come full circle on this debate. At this point we're going to have to agree to disagree. I will never support gay marriage, period.

[BIitzed]

"Again we need to go back to origin." No, we don't. Do you know what the origin of marriage is? Marriage was a originally a contract between two men-- the groom and the bride's father. Marriages were not about love, marriages could be between multiple people and women were treated as property that facilitated childbirth. Obviously our current definition of civil marriage has evolved a long way from the origins of religious marriage. So why shouldn't gender restrictions change as well?

[csnow75]

I've covered this, I can't teach you any more, if the lesson isn't retained it becomes ridiculous to repeat the same thing again and again. Like I said I will NEVER support gay marriage EVER. There is no further point for you to debate this with me at least. If you want to post without addressing me that is fine. Your debate is dead with me because of the many reasons of already stated. I will never change my mind so that's it for our discussion. Good luck with civil union.

[BIitzed]

"I said I will NEVER support gay marriage EVER." That's a cop-out. It's showing that you are unwilling to change our mind, regardless of any evidence presented to you. If you have that kind of attitude, how is it possible to learn anything that doesn't already coincide with your pre-existing worldview? How can you expand your knowledge?

[csnow75]

How can you expand yours? There is nothing to learn further on this issue. If you have something viable to teach then do so. If two people have information to back up their argument the only thing that may possibly change one or the others mind is if there is STRONGER evidence to support the others argument. I believe I have stronger evidence to support why I feel the way I do. No cop out just a dead issue here.

[BIitzed]

That's the thing, you have made several claims which are just plain false. For example, saying that civil marriage is partially religious, when the fact of the matter is that civil matter is a government institution with no links to marriage. Other than that, you have often reiterated your point about the origins of marriage, which I have already pointed out, are radically different than today's legal definition.

[csnow75]

They are not false you just don't agree. The origin of marriage is something you don't agree with doesn't make it false. I said nothing of civil marriage being partially religious. It's silly of you to try to twist my words when anyone can clearly read what I've written. Our laws are also based in what was religious. I did repeat a point because you kept stating things which often showed you didn't understand what was being pointed out to you. Well like I said I will never support gay marriage.

[BIitzed]

Whose religion? Only 2 of the 10 Commandments were ever made into law, and those 2 (Thou shalt not kill/steal) are not exclusive to Christianity, or religion for that matter. We actually have freedom of and from religion in this country, and it's not right for us to have laws based on religion.

[csnow75]

Oh boy. Read your history, people came to America for a HUGE reason, and it wasn't eventual gay marriage. It was...drum roll....FREEDOM OF RELIGION 1st and to get away from debt 2nd. Read your history and then maybe you'll have better arguments.

[BIitzed]

I need to read "my" history? Well, first of all, I stated exactly what you just did, only I did it 10 minutes before you. And do you know what constitutes freedom of and from religion? Separation of church and state, that's what! That means no one gets to make unconstitutional laws based on their holy book of choice.

[BIitzed]

"Again we need to go back to origin." No, we don't. Marriage's origin was as a contract between two men-- the groom and the bride's father. Marriages were based on childbirth, financial security and little more, and women were the property in this business deal. Our current legal definition of civil marriage is hardly recognizable to what you call "the origin of marriage". Such huge changes have been made, so there is no way to reason that marriage cannot or should not be changed again.

[csnow75]

Last comment on this. If it's legal you're after go for civil marriage. Gay people have things that are exclusive to them separate from heterosexuals so don't give me the separate but equal crap. AND PLEASE don't compare yourself if your Caucasian to a Person of Color. I am SO tired of that argument. Black people can't come out of the closet when their ready ok!!! You already KNOW! SO stop. Civil Unions are LEGAL, Marriages are RELIGIOUS PLUS LEGAL. I will never support gay marriage..ever.

[BIitzed]

"Marriages are RELIGIOUS PLUS LEGAL." We are discussing civil marriages, are we not? Civil marriages are not religious; they are performed by the state, which is separated from any church. Both civil marriages and civil unions are 100% legal issues, hence the word civil.

[BIitzed]

"Black people can't come out of the closet when their ready ok!!! " People of color have families who love and support them unconditionally. Gay people aren't born into gay families, and more often than not, our families want nothing to do with us. No one is accused of choosing to be born a certain race. This preposterous lie has been used constantly against gays. Since skin color is visible, they are forced out into the open, whereas most people pretend gays don't even exist.

[csnow75]

As a person of color your statement offends me and shows that you most likely know NOTHING of that experience so please do not attempt to "teach" me anything about what you obviously have NO clue about. You're also not going to tell me all families reject their child for being gay. And yes I am speaking about something I know. For those whose families shun them it's unfortunate and sad. Pls don't speak about people of color and what goes on there and try to compare being gay and African Amer.

[BIitzed]

"You're also not going to tell me all families reject their child for being gay." You're using hyperbole to mischaracterize my statement. I said "more often than not", not "all". You speak about being it as if it rarely happens. It seems that you are the one who knows nothing about our experience. Why do you think that 40% of homeless youth are LGBT? 26% of gay kids are kicked out of the house when they come out to their parents, and that doesn't even count the adults who are ostracized.

[csnow75]

Ok as sad as that statistic is, you're now getting way off topic. The gay experience will never be the AA experience and I am not going back and forth on THAT one. Gay marriage will never be something I support guy and that is that.

[BIitzed]

They will never be exactly the same, but there are plenty of interesting similarities. Hopefully one day I will be able to say that one of the commonalities is that we are both first-class citizens. But there are undoubtedly parallels in the two histories. You know, religious arguments were also used to keep segregation and anti-miscegenation laws on the books. And, what do you know? Religious fundamentalists are at it again, putting down another minority group of people using the same tactics.

[BIitzed]

"Even Sir Elton John doesn't think gays should push on dismantling marriage." An extremely weak example of an appeal to authority. Your logic is that because Elton John is famous and gay, this must make him an expert on what is best for gay people as a whole, or that his opinion is inherently correct. Of course, you only singled him out because he agrees with you, not because he has some sort of substantial argument to make.

[csnow75]

Gay people will most often put up as a poster child as many famous ppl as possible who support their argument for gay marriage. I therefore put up a very respected and well known musician who understands the opposition for changing the terms of marriage. From his point of view it WAS substantial, you're just upset that it is in opp. to YOUR debate. I am sure there are other gay people who understand why the resistance will always be. This debate is now repetitive and over. Good luck w/ civil u.

[BIitzed]

Two wrongs don't make you right. No matter who uses an "appeal to authority", be it you or a gay rights advocate, that person will be using a fallacious line of reasoning. I have never pointed to any of the people (famous or not) who support gay marriage. My argument stands on its own. Just because he believes his argument to be substantial does not make it so. I am not upset that he has an opposite point of view, I am perturbed that you are employing a logical fallacy in your argument.

[BIitzed]

I feel the need to explain this once and for all: regardless of how famous or "respected" someone is, their beliefs are not automatically correct or not subject to scrutiny. If you want to argue using Elton John, then you should be arguing using his opinion: list x, y & z reasons why he doesn't support gay marriage. Arguing that his opinion should be considered based on his fame is ridiculous.

[csnow75]

I'm not going to list that, look it up, he explains it perfectly. Rosie O'Donnell's opinion is championed all the time. Like I said as long as the gay famous person is FOR not AGAINST gay marriage then it's ok to hold their beliefs up like a huge banner. Dead issue. We're not going to agree guy, we're just going to have to give this debate up. Anything you post from here on to me is simply desperate as I stated the argument is over. I won't change my mind and you won't change yours.

[BIitzed]

It seems that you misunderstood me. I have yet to use a celebrity's opinion in my arguments, simply because it proves nothing. Celebrity opinion is worthless, whether they are for or against gay marriage.

[csnow75]

Blitzed I want to make this clear to you. I do not have ANY malice what so ever to you sir, honestly. I do not compare gay people to pedophiles or persons who engage in bestiality, that is insulting and ridiculous to even think this. What I am saying is that if marriage is changed to this extreme these "freaks" and yes THAT I meant to them, will come out of the wood work to have their peace of the pie. This is why I would push for more rights under civil unions since it is a legal matter.

[BIitzed]

Marriage is a legal matter, too. If you believe that gay people are not comparable to pedophiles or people who have sex with animals, then why do you think that they will have a case when and if they demand marriages to children or animals?

[csnow75]

Again, like I stated, they would push the "violation of rights message" in order to get what they deem as equal rights. I believe we've come full circle on this debate. Marriage and what it means should not be dismantled, gay people should push to extend rights under CIVIL union laws since it is all about the legalities PERIOD. Marriage has both religious and legal ties. I don't care what anyone says that is its history. Civil unions, however, can be expanded to include the legal equivalent.

[BIitzed]

"Marriage has both religious and legal ties." Not under our government it doesn't! You see, we do not live in a theocracy, and our government is certainly not beholden to the whims of the pious at large. This means that no matter what your religion believes to be holy matrimony, this should not be imposed on everyone else via our legal system. Notice that I said YOUR religion, because plenty of religious denominations believe that gays are equal and therefore deserve equality.

[BIitzed]

Civil unions will never be equal to marriage, because they aren't marriage. By creating two institutions for what amount to the exact same rights, and then separating them based on sexual orientation, what you are doing is apartheid. It's meaningless and divisive and ultimately only serves to discriminate. Separate is no longer equal in the United States, hopefully you will finally wake up and realize that.

[newjerseyequality]

Civil Unions should no be limited to homosexuals only. It should include different kinds of domestic partnerships. Gays do not want that because it would diminishes their false claims of discrimination

[BIitzed]

Why would anyone who wasn't gay get a civil union instead of a marriage? They would be foregoing a number of rights that they could have had with marriage. Civil unions are not legally equal, so we ARE being discriminated against by being forced to have them instead of marriage. At a federal level they give absolutely no protection, which has a crippling effect on low and middle income gay families.

[BIitzed]

"Civil Unions should no be limited to homosexuals only." So you're saying that you people get the right to marriage and civil unions, while we are forced to have a civil union? This is obviously discriminatory! You say that our claims of discrimination of false, but just look at our legal system! Because we are being denied marriage equality, we are losing out on +1,100 rights and protections that straights get! I cannot believe that anyone could possibly be as deceitful as you! For shame!

[newjerseyequality]

Marriage is the opposite of same sex unions and different form other legal partnership. It needs to be protected because it brings about the next generations. This 1100 list of right is mostly bogus. You could not even list 5% of them. It is a lawyer's dream list for propaganda. It looks so stupid to even bring it up

[BIitzed]

Children can be brought about without marriage, and marriage does not ensure procreation. Furthermore, to say that you are protecting marriage from 'gays' is preposterous. Allowing gays to marry in no way affects married couples, nor will it somehow cause fewer heterosexuals to have kids. Straight people will continue to reproduce, regardless of marriage or civil rights for gays. And gays will continue to raise families of our own, even if you choose to strip those families of rights.

[BIitzed]

"This 1100 list of right is mostly bogus.... You could not even list 5% of them. It looks so stupid to even bring it up" The list of +1,100 rights (1,138 to be exact) was actually compiled by the United States Government Accountability Office. Since the list is published online, you can either provide evidence that one or more items on the list is incorrect, or apologize for incorrectly stating that I cannot "list 5% of them" and admit that you made a ridiculous assertion without thinking.

[TheLibertariansUnite]

I really don't know what is so hard to understand. EVERYONE knows marriage is between a man and a woman.

Did these marriage equality liberals not learn that lesson?

Thank you Maine for keeping it the right way. You shook up the democrats so much that they won't pass this crap during Corzine's lame duck period.

[newjerseyequality]

ThelibertarianUnite. The democrats are trying to pass it during the lameduck session. I found out today

[TheLibertariansUnite]

I read about that in the Ledger also.

I really don't believe they have the gall to even try to pass it after being voted down in Maine. You really don't want to bring a vote up unless you know it can pass mainly because it might be politically risky on your voting record.

I'm not worried about it.

[BIitzed]

"EVERYONE knows marriage is between a man and a woman." Says who? Maybe most conservative Christians think this, but this hardly constitutes "everyone". Marriage is a legal institution, and as such, it must be defined in a way that is constitutional. In a society with a government based on equal rights for ALL citizens (not just straight ones) it only makes sense that the gays of this country get our marriages recognized.

[TheLibertariansUnite]

Says who? Says everyone of a sound traditional mind.

It just doesn't make sense that gays of this country get their marriages recognized. Should we also recognize the farmer who wishes to marry his horse? Or that weird neighbor who is into bestiality with his dog? You know they say, "You do strange things when you're in Love."

We already have equal rights. ALL men can marry ALL women.  ALL women can marry ALL men. Seems pretty equal to me.

Or do you guys want special rights?

[BIitzed]

"Says everyone of a sound traditional mind. " That's an appallingly fallacious line of reasoning. Tradition is not necessarily a good thing. Look at other "traditions" in human history: racial segregation, slavery, misogyny. Slavery and misogyny in particular have traditionally existed in most all cultures until relatively recently. Are these things automatically good because they are "tradition"? Of course not, and gender-based discrimination in marriage laws isn't either.

[BIitzed]

"Should we also recognize the farmer who wishes to marry his horse?" So gay people are now comparable to animals? You are really just demonstrating your bigotry and your inability to have a civil conversation. Gay marriage and bestiality are NOT analogous, because two adult people, regardless of gender, are able to consent to be married. Animals cannot consent to marry humans, period. It seems hard to comprehend that anyone would compare two loving people to someone who rapes dogs.

[BIitzed]

You just pointed out how the laws are not equal. If I as a man cannot marry another man, then women have a right that I do not possess. Similarly, a woman who wants to marry a woman would not have this right, whereas I would. Separate laws for each gender are not just, and they do not constitute equal protection under the law. Not surprisingly, your same argument was made in the 1960s, against interracial marriage. Funny how you bigots just recycle the same old poorly thought-out arguments.

[TheLibertariansUnite]

Yeah you're not following... Men and Women equally have the right to marry.

ALL Men have the right to marry.

But they are limited to marry ONLY women.

ALL Women have the right to Marry.

But they are limited to marry ONLY men.

They have equal rights. BOTH can marry.

I love the buzzwords and want to hear new ones and not just: Bigot, ignorant, fallacious.

All coming from someone of not a sound traditional mind, and possibly a "queer"

NO GAY MARRIAGE!

[BIitzed]

"They have equal rights. BOTH can marry." It seems that you are the one who is not following me. If both men and women are able to marry, but there are different restrictions on whom they may marry based on their gender, this means that their rights are NOT equal. Furthermore, the rights for gay people are not equal,because their relationships are not given the same legal status as straight people can receive.

[BIitzed]

"I love the buzzwords... Bigot, ignorant, fallacious." Fallacious is not just a 'buzzword'. You employed a logical fallacy in your comment: an appeal to tradition. I correctly pointed this out in my comment, and you have yet to refute my claim. I never called you ignorant in my comments, but you are a bigot. You are advocating denying rights to a minority group using the SAME exact arguments used against interracial marriage decades ago.

[csnow75]

Interracial marriage unlike gay marriage did not fall out of context of one man, one woman. If persons of opposite nationalities marry they can procreate, have a family and populate the country. Also when you change a law like this you will have those who would like to have the law recognize marrying a family member, or those who want a law marrying several people. Neither are as productively healthy in terms of extending the human race or promoting a healthy society.

[BIitzed]

-Marriage is not about the ability to procreate, and marriage gives no special priority to people capable of procreation at the expense of people who are not. So why should gay people be an exception this? We are just as capable and competent when it comes to having a family, and our families need equal protection now. - The legalization of gay marriage has no impact on the legalization of polygamy or consanguineous marriage, simply because these are completely different legal issues.

[csnow75]

Again ORIGIN ORIGIN ORIGIN. Yes it was.. but it wasn't originally about RELIGION...it was later adopted. It was INDEED based on offspring guy. So you have to look at that..it had NOTHING to do with the LAW or RELIGION initially....it was about...OFFSPRING!

[BIitzed]

"and possibly a "queer"" Possibly? You know, it's really funny that you act justified, as if you are not a bigot. Then you turn around and insinuate that my opinion counts for less than yours because I'm gay.

[TheLibertariansUnite]

Who is oppressing you and when have YOUR own Civil Rights been violated?

I love how the GLBT makes the parallel arguement with African Americans.

When have you had to drink from separate Gay/Straight fountains?

Have you had to sit on the back of the bus?

You ever give up your seat on a bus or train for a straight person?

Did you have to play on separate gay/straight sports teams?

Did you ever have to go to a separate school for gays?

You see how insulting it sounds you fool?

[BIitzed]

This is a no-brainer. Obviously gay people do not have the right to get married, and thus we lose out on the +1,100 rights and benefits that are given to straight married couples. I am also not allowed to serve in the military, I am barred from donating blood or organs. In most states, we also cannot adopt the children of our biological partners. And in the majority of states, we can be fired just for being gay.

[BIitzed]

The fact of the matter is that since gay people aren't obviously recognizable by any physical traits, and as such, the same types of institutionalized discrimination used against blacks can't be used against us. Of course, this obvious truism makes all of your rhetorical questions look quite inane indeed.

[TheLibertariansUnite]

You said it yourself you have no recognizable traits, so what is the problem?

Military? Don't Ask, Don't Tell. How will they know unless you act stupid or tell them outright?

Donate Blood or Organs? We're rightfully fearful of HIV tainted blood and other cooties.

Adopt Children? Try asking those kids when they're 16 how they feel being raised by 2 gay men. You think they don't know what goes on in the bedroom across the hall?

Fired? At least act NORMAL here. If any place it's here.

[BIitzed]

- That's the whole point. No one should have to deliberate be less than truthful in the military, and no one should ever have to hide who they are. - Which is why they screen for HIV you moron. Being gay doesn't mean you automatically have HIV/AIDS. - So how is that any different from children adopted by straight parents? I know kids who were raised by gay parents, and they're just like any other family.

[TheLibertariansUnite]

There is a reason they don't ask... but only your dumbass would tell. "I want to be honest" in that fruity voice.

You forgot about the cooties.

You think they're just like any other family? Ask a 16 year old raised by 2 gay men how they feel about it. Other kids would rip the shit outa that kid in High School, lets not be naive about it.

But it's those other 16 yr olds who are "ignorant" right? They weren't taught to be "understanding" by their parents? Shame on them?

Fool

[BIitzed]

I just told you that I know kids raised by gay parents, and they love their parents. The sexual orientation of their two moms or dads does not affect them in anyway. As to what you said about the kids being made fun of in school... please get a grip. The ignorance of other people is no reason to curtail someone's liberties. Stop throwing around your useless straw men arguments and then call me a fool. You just invented a conclusion based on a completely false premise... you're the fool.

[BIitzed]

"Fired? At least act NORMAL here." How does the way someone acts impact a situation like this? Being openly gay isn't equivalent with being flamboyant or being butch. And unfortunately employers can still fire a masculine gay guy or a femme lesbian.

[imanerd36]

I am a 17 year old raised by a gay parent, and I don't mind it.

[csnow75]

Stop Christian bashing!

[JerecKatarn]

It's the intended purpose of the Supreme Courts to exercise the power of Judicial Review and sometimes make the unpopular decisions to make sure that the laws being passed by the legislative and executive branches don't infringe upon the basic concepts of the constitution. The problem with leaving it to a popular vote is that were dealing with the needs of a minority here. That's why the government is set up this way, to listen to the minority without infringing upon the minorities.

[JerecKatarn]

Listen to the majority I mean.

[obamadidit2008]

ever heard of the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY

[JerecKatarn]

Just want to clear it up since this was marked as a reply to my comments below. I am in favor of same sex major. I apologize if I didn't make myself completely clear. The second comment was a correction to the first.

[RayVelez1]

Marriage is a religious institution. Therefore the state should not be able to force religion to redefine marriage. BRAVO...CHRISTIE!!!

[neenerpuss]

@RayVelez1

Marriage is a CIVIL LEGAL CONTRACT. It exists entirely in state law. A wedding is a religious blessing of the signing of that LEGAL CONTRACT. Marriage does not exist without that LEGAL CONTRACT. Marriage DOES exist without the wedding.

Religion is trying to take over the government! Separation of Chuch and State. This is DANGEROUS TERRITORY for all Americans! Freedom of religion is also freedom FROM religion!

[sammyseattle]

They should be subject to the courts and legislature as they have been in the past.

[newjerseyequality]

A few judges or a bunch politicians have no business redefining the marriages of millions of people.

[sammyseattle]

Yes, they do. And yes, they should. As they have been for as long as this country has existed. As they did when they declared that a woman was no longer the property of her husband. As they did when they declared that a man could not rape his wife.  As they did when they declared that people of various races could not be barred from marrying one another. All of these things have redefined the meaning of civil marriage. They never would have been approved by vote.

[newjerseyequality]

Then the courts need to decide that same sex marriage is 100 % sexist. It rejects the value of the other sex. That is even lower than seeing it as property.

So gay men cannot rape young boys anymore. WOW ?

Marriage was never redefined as not being being between a man and a woman. EVER !!!

Your arguments fail miserably

[SpeedyBruin]

Gay men are not more likely to molest children.

[neenerpuss]

No one is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex. But you are advocation that gays are required to marry the opposite sex.

The constitution protects minorites from BIGOTS and uneducated people. It is LEGAL to be gay and is DISCRIMINATION to deny gays the EXACT SAME RIGHTS that heterosexuals already enjoy.

[sammyseattle]

What? Your arguments are pure lunacy.

[obamadidit2008]

you're for the equality of who?!

[neenerpuss]

That is exactly the job of a JUDGE. To protect minorities from the tryanny of a majority or "mob" rule. That's why courts exist. They are there to keep everything far for all citizens.

[sammyseattle]

So should all "significant, societal changes" be subject to the whims of the majority? Were women's vote, racial equality and interracial marriage subject to vote? Fail.

[SpeedyBruin]

He thinks that people's civil rights chould be put to a vote? sad.

[newjerseyequality]

same sex marriage is not a civil right and never will

[SpeedyBruin]

That is not how I, nor many others, read the 14th amendment.

[neenerpuss]

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... LOVING V. VIRGINIA

The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

If you protect it for race...you have to protect it for sexual orientation.

[newjerseyequality]

Marriage (beween a man and a woman) is one of the basic civil right.

You forgot something very important as always

[obamadidit2008]

marriage between two adult,mature,and consenting adults should constitute marriage