Christie Vetoes Gay Marriage

[JoeB131]

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal....

1) Not in the Constitution. (It's the Declaration of Independence)

2) Has nothing to do with whether or not the states (the only entity that can regulate marriage) should be able to define who can and can't get married.

Which is why the marriage laws are different in all 50 states.

If you were to argue to me, that the laws should be changed because it's not unreasonable to let two consenting adults marry, even if they are of the same Gender, then, yes, that's not an imposition on anyone.

If you argue to me, marriage is whatever I want it to be because there's an imaginary "I want to" Clause in the 14th Amendment, I don't buy that shit at all.

the 14th Amendment has been in the constitution since 1870 or so. We are just noticing this now?

 

[Chris]

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal....

1) Not in the Constitution. (It's the Declaration of Independence)

2) Has nothing to do with whether or not the states (the only entity that can regulate marriage) should be able to define who can and can't get married.

Which is why the marriage laws are different in all 50 states.

If you were to argue to me, that the laws should be changed because it's not unreasonable to let two consenting adults marry, even if they are of the same Gender, then, yes, that's not an imposition on anyone.

If you argue to me, marriage is whatever I want it to be because there's an imaginary "I want to" Clause in the 14th Amendment, I don't buy that shit at all.

the 14th Amendment has been in the constitution since 1870 or so. We are just noticing this now?

Not in the Constitution?

Who cares?

It is the greatest political statement in the history of Man.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, it's a great political statement...

It just doesn't happen to be true.

All men are NOT created equal. Some are born with inherit talents others lack. Some are just plain lucky.

This has nothing to do with the debate at hand.

Marriage is something that the collective - the state - grants. Therefore they collective has the right through referendum or elected representatives to define that right. That's why I have NO PROBLEM with what the NJ Legislature did and think what Governor Jabba did was wrong. He abused his authority.

I have a HUGE problem when a judge like Judge Walker decides, "Ahhh, screw it. I don't care that the people of California voted TWICE to define marriage as one man and one woman, I want it to be this way." Even the Ninth Circus ratcheted him back a bit from his claims there was a constitutional right involved.

 

[rightwinger]

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal....

1) Not in the Constitution. (It's the Declaration of Independence)

2) Has nothing to do with whether or not the states (the only entity that can regulate marriage) should be able to define who can and can't get married.

Which is why the marriage laws are different in all 50 states.

If you were to argue to me, that the laws should be changed because it's not unreasonable to let two consenting adults marry, even if they are of the same Gender, then, yes, that's not an imposition on anyone.

If you argue to me, marriage is whatever I want it to be because there's an imaginary "I want to" Clause in the 14th Amendment, I don't buy that shit at all.

the 14th Amendment has been in the constitution since 1870 or so. We are just noticing this now?

Well, Gov Christie says we get to vote to decide who gets to be equal

 

[Harry Dresden]

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal....

yea until the Black or Brownie wants to move into your Neighborhood....

 

[Harry Dresden]

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal....

1) Not in the Constitution. (It's the Declaration of Independence)

2) Has nothing to do with whether or not the states (the only entity that can regulate marriage) should be able to define who can and can't get married.

Which is why the marriage laws are different in all 50 states.

If you were to argue to me, that the laws should be changed because it's not unreasonable to let two consenting adults marry, even if they are of the same Gender, then, yes, that's not an imposition on anyone.

If you argue to me, marriage is whatever I want it to be because there's an imaginary "I want to" Clause in the 14th Amendment, I don't buy that shit at all.

the 14th Amendment has been in the constitution since 1870 or so. We are just noticing this now?

Not in the Constitution?

Who cares?

It is the greatest political statement in the history of Man.

until both parties start living up to that it dont mean shit.....

 

[JoeB131]

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal....

1) Not in the Constitution. (It's the Declaration of Independence)

2) Has nothing to do with whether or not the states (the only entity that can regulate marriage) should be able to define who can and can't get married.

Which is why the marriage laws are different in all 50 states.

If you were to argue to me, that the laws should be changed because it's not unreasonable to let two consenting adults marry, even if they are of the same Gender, then, yes, that's not an imposition on anyone.

If you argue to me, marriage is whatever I want it to be because there's an imaginary "I want to" Clause in the 14th Amendment, I don't buy that shit at all.

the 14th Amendment has been in the constitution since 1870 or so. We are just noticing this now?

Well, Gov Christie says we get to vote to decide who gets to be equal

And unfortunately, unless the NJ Legistlature grows a pair of balls, that's probably what it's going to come down to. Or they can wait until he's tossed out on his can in 2013 and get a Governor who will sign the law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

2) Has nothing to do with whether or not the states (the only entity that can regulate marriage) should be able to define who can and can't get married.

Which is why the marriage laws are different in all 50 states.

They may decide who can and can not marry provided the criteria are applied consistently, excluding no particular class of persons, predicated on a compelling governmental reason.

If you were to argue to me, that the laws should be changed because it's not unreasonable to let two consenting adults marry, even if they are of the same Gender, then, yes, that's not an imposition on anyone.

If you argue to me, marriage is whatever I want it to be because there's an imaginary "I want to" Clause in the 14th Amendment, I don't buy that shit at all.

The 14th Amendment requires that states and local jurisdictions allow all citizens equal access to the law. However a given state defines marriage for opposite sex couples, must be applied to same sex couples as well.

the 14th Amendment has been in the constitution since 1870 or so. We are just noticing this now?

1868, actually; the Bill of Rights was first incorporated to the states via the 14th Amendment in 1897, concerning the 5th Amendment Taking Clause.

It’s not so much a matter of noticing it now as it is a conflict concerning its appropriate application.

 

[JoeB131]

Clay, nice stretching, but the logic of "I want to" in awarding marriage could strike down the incest and polygamy laws on the same basis.

 

[rightwinger]

1) Not in the Constitution. (It's the Declaration of Independence)

2) Has nothing to do with whether or not the states (the only entity that can regulate marriage) should be able to define who can and can't get married.

Which is why the marriage laws are different in all 50 states.

If you were to argue to me, that the laws should be changed because it's not unreasonable to let two consenting adults marry, even if they are of the same Gender, then, yes, that's not an imposition on anyone.

If you argue to me, marriage is whatever I want it to be because there's an imaginary "I want to" Clause in the 14th Amendment, I don't buy that shit at all.

the 14th Amendment has been in the constitution since 1870 or so. We are just noticing this now?

Well, Gov Christie says we get to vote to decide who gets to be equal

And unfortunately, unless the NJ Legistlature grows a pair of balls, that's probably what it's going to come down to. Or they can wait until he's tossed out on his can in 2013 and get a Governor who will sign the law.

No

Gov Christie made the call....he gets to live with it

He is now the George Wallace of Gay Rights......the only governor ever to veto gay marriage

Caving to your political base to make points sure did wonders for Wallaces hopes for the presidency

 

[JoeB131]

Well, Gov Christie says we get to vote to decide who gets to be equal

And unfortunately, unless the NJ Legistlature grows a pair of balls, that's probably what it's going to come down to. Or they can wait until he's tossed out on his can in 2013 and get a Governor who will sign the law.

No

Gov Christie made the call....he gets to live with it

He is now the George Wallace of Gay Rights......the only governor ever to veto gay marriage

Caving to your political base to make points sure did wonders for Wallaces hopes for the presidency

As I recall, Wallace was doing quite well for the nomination in 1972, until someone shot him.

Then the Democrats had a collective brain fart and nominated McGovern....

 

[DiamondDave]

And yet another reason to get government out of marriage except for governmental matters of taxes, inheritance, and power of attorney for emergencies and medical decisions....

Again.. all a ploy for forced acceptance and government interference on one side.. and on the other side, not wanting to reduce government's scope

so only religious people should be married, DD?

you want two tiers of relationships? one for religious folk and one for secular?

if you don't want government interference, i'm sure you'll agree that government should stay out of my uterus.

Never said that Jill... since when did I ever state anything like only religious people should get married?

I think govt should stay out of your uterus... and also away from the life someone is trying to carve out of someone's uterus

 

[freedombecki]

Christie Vetoes Gay Marriage

Actually I think government belongs out of marriage. I agree that marriage is between a man and a woman but that can only be sanctified by God.

Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. In this case I think that is beyond Ceasar's bounds.

I think you are correct, FactFinder.

I disagree. States must be involve in marriage if we are to have marriage licenses. Although marriages licenses have been used to prevent child marriages, bigamy, interracial marriages, same sex marriage, and transmission of disease, the primary purpose today is to legally document the marriage for tax purpose and many other legal actions. The lack of legal documentation of marriage, would cause a multitude of problems.

The founders were governed by social mores and never intended to insert religious mores into formal laws. All things governing religion were so important to the founders, they included freedom of religion in the first amendment.

I'm not buying the legal world prying at society's girders to foist an anything-goes society on American's heads. It's absolutely unwise because we came over here on boats from a corrupt European system based on all the assets in the government's hands crushing Christian believers. Our ancestors came here to escape that.

Why would we bring all that back, along with the big government it takes to crush dissent?

It's less wise to do such a thing than you think, imho.

 

[g5000]

Dick Cheney Lobbying for Gay Marriage - The Daily Beast

Dick Cheney, the former U.S. vice president known for his hard right stance on almost all matters political, is taking a stand in Maryland for gay marriage. Cheney, whose daughter is openly gay, has been lobbying Maryland lawmakers as they debate whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage in the state. Cheney believes states should legalize gay marriage individually.

Cheney is for gay marriage?

Holy shit! Maybe the world IS going to end in 2012!!!

Cheney's daughter is gay.

Isn't it funny how Cheney does the right thing when it affects him personally?

 

[g5000]

Same sex marriage is illogical overall. Government should stay out of any discourse on same. It should be a state level issue and right, in whatever outcome may come.

There are three mitigating issues that brought down all the great civilizations of the past, without exception: They are:

untendable debt
expansionism through endless warring
tolerance of all things sexual.

Robert

This is a favorite meme for which I have never seen evidence.

 

[g5000]

Here are a couple of examples of "marriage" in Civil Law, abolish Civil Marriage and here would be no recognition under the law:

1. There would be no transfer of property to a spouse (since there would be no such thing as "spouse" under the law. As such the surviving spouse would be subject to a tax liability upon the transfer of property between people not recognized as legally married.

2. It would eliminate the exemption form the Estate Tax applicable to the sale of a primary home, only Civil Marriage does that. (When a home is sold a single person can claim up to $250,000 in an exemption, $500,000 for a Civilly Married couple. When one spouse dies the surviving spouse can still claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death if the home is sold. No spouse, no exemption - the survivor is taxed like a single person.)

3. No spousal privilege in the case of a criminal prosecution.

4. Since there would be no "spouse", they could not be buried in a National Cemetery next to a spouse who was an honorably serving veteran of the United States.

5. Without the legal recognition of "spouse" there would not be automatic conveyance of parenthood upon the birth of a child.

6. Since there would be no spouse, there would be no establish family relationship recognized under the Family Medical Leave Act so that a person can care for their spouse (or be cared for by them) in times of medical emergency.

7. Since there would be no "spouse", employees would become liable for employer portions of health insurance because there would be no waiving of the tax penalty for employer provided health insurance for a spouse. (For Civily Married couples, the employer portion of Health Insurance is tax free, however on plans where the significant other is not a legal spouse - then the federal government charges that portion as income and is liable for taxation.)

8. No "spouse" means no family relationship under Social Security whereby the surviving spouse can receive benefits at the working spouses rate if higher then their own.

9. No "spouse" means no established a family relationship where a spouse can then sponsor their spouse for immigration purposes.

and to just round it out to 10...

10. No "spouse" means that military members will not be able to draw pay and benefits for dependent spouses: no housing allowance, no medical benefits for the spouse, no accompanied tours where the government provides for travel expenses of the spouse, etc... If there is no Civil Marriage, there is no recognition, and so those things all disappear.​

These are what I call the marriage "cash and prizes" the government protects by law.

 

[g5000]

Not looking for support. Just stating my mind. All those things you mention are the twisted twine ball of the government. Of course my family is entitled to all I have earned when I am gone. It should be a matter of fact not a goverment regulation. Nor should my family have to deal with the government in any way other than maybe to prove they exist if the government owes me.

The bigotry toward gays is so great, bigots are willing to cut their own throats rather than give homos the same protection under the law as them.

 

[g5000]

Right. A liberal thinks there are all sorts of rights hidden in the 14th Amendment- gay marriage, abortion on demand...

Can you show us where interracial marriage is protected in the Constitution?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal....

Actually it is in the Constitution, in the form of the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Because our rights are inalienable, no state may deny any citizen due process of the law, or equal access to the law.

 

[JoeB131]

I think you are correct, FactFinder.

I disagree. States must be involve in marriage if we are to have marriage licenses. Although marriages licenses have been used to prevent child marriages, bigamy, interracial marriages, same sex marriage, and transmission of disease, the primary purpose today is to legally document the marriage for tax purpose and many other legal actions. The lack of legal documentation of marriage, would cause a multitude of problems.

The founders were governed by social mores and never intended to insert religious mores into formal laws. All things governing religion were so important to the founders, they included freedom of religion in the first amendment.

I'm not buying the legal world prying at society's girders to foist an anything-goes society on American's heads. It's absolutely unwise because we came over here on boats from a corrupt European system based on all the assets in the government's hands crushing Christian believers. Our ancestors came here to escape that.

Why would we bring all that back, along with the big government it takes to crush dissent?

It's less wise to do such a thing than you think, imho.

Actually, our ancestors came here because they belonged to odd sects that fell out of favor every time a new King wanted to change the national religion.

I also think that their views on religion are kind of pointless. They also thought that one human being owning another was dandy and bleeding people was a valid medical treatment for what ailed you.

So the 'We should believe in these ancient superstitions becuase the founders did!" is kind of a silly argument for me. Especially when-

1) A lot of them were Deists who rejected Christianity.

2) There are a whole lot of "moral" laws in the bible that you ignore. You aren't stoning your daughter because she wasn't a virgin on her wedding day. (You know, like the bible says you should.)

So the whole, "We need to oppress the gays because the bible says its wrong" doesn't hold a lot of water with me.