Christie Vetoes Gay Marriage

[JoeB131]

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?

That's really not my job. I think that there was some borderline judicial activism going on with Loving v. Virginia.

 

[Seawytch]

If the Supreme Court had waited for the "will of the people" like the Governorsaraus wants to do...

Interracial marriage would not have passed for decades after when the SCOTUS did it.

this may sound harsh, but one of the reasons the opinions changed was people passed away. i think the issue of gay marriage is following the same path.

It may be harsh, but is it is absolutely true...

 

[Seawytch]

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?

That's really not my job. I think that there was some borderline judicial activism going on with Loving v. Virginia.

Maybe it would be easier if you showed us where, in history, that civil rights were ever granted by a majority vote?

Ever heard of "tyranny of the majority"?

 

[JoeB131]

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

That's really not my job. I think that there was some borderline judicial activism going on with Loving v. Virginia.

Maybe it would be easier if you showed us where, in history, that civil rights were ever granted by a majority vote?

Ever heard of "tyranny of the majority"?

All civil rights are granted by a majority vote.

There are no rights. There are privilages society begrudgingly lets you have.

gays will never get to the point where people don't look at them kind of funny, but they might get begrudging toleration. Come on, fastest way to get a cheap laugh in a movie is to have a dude kiss another dude.

That is when they don't get all ACT-UP in people's faces. That just pisses people off unnecessarily.

The reason why Abortion is still a hot topic today is because the courts ran an end run around the people.

 

[Seawytch]

That's really not my job. I think that there was some borderline judicial activism going on with Loving v. Virginia.

Maybe it would be easier if you showed us where, in history, that civil rights were ever granted by a majority vote?

Ever heard of "tyranny of the majority"?

All civil rights are granted by a majority vote.

There are no rights. There are privilages society begrudgingly lets you have.

gays will never get to the point where people don't look at them kind of funny, but they might get begrudging toleration. Come on, fastest way to get a cheap laugh in a movie is to have a dude kiss another dude.

That is when they don't get all ACT-UP in people's faces. That just pisses people off unnecessarily.

The reason why Abortion is still a hot topic today is because the courts ran an end run around the people.

When in history have civil rights or any minority rights been put on a ballot? When have they been granted by initiative or popular vote?

Again, have you ever heard the term "tyranny of the majority", yes or no?

You can talk about how "icky" you think gays are all you want to. People thought interracial marriage was "icky" too. When interracial marriage bans were overturned, you actually had people that didn't think blacks were full human. Doesn't change the fact that civil rights have NEVER been put to a majority vote (except for "they gheys")

 

[JakeStarkey]

The republican will of the people was expressed by their representatives.

Those asking for a plebiscite are asking for the democratic mass to express its will.

Some on this board clearly do not understand republican (representative) and democratic (the people) government.

 

[JoeB131]

When in history have civil rights or any minority rights been put on a ballot? When have they been granted by initiative or popular vote?

Again, have you ever heard the term "tyranny of the majority", yes or no?

You can talk about how "icky" you think gays are all you want to. People thought interracial marriage was "icky" too. When interracial marriage bans were overturned, you actually had people that didn't think blacks were full human. Doesn't change the fact that civil rights have NEVER been put to a majority vote (except for "they gheys")

This isn't a "civil rights" issue.

It's an issue of changing contract law.

Again, I have no problem changing the law, if you get a majority to agree to it, not a tyrant in a robe deciding he's going to make a new law on his way to the bathhouse. That's a real tyranny. Especially when the voters clearly said NO! twice.

 

[Seawytch]

When in history have civil rights or any minority rights been put on a ballot? When have they been granted by initiative or popular vote?

Again, have you ever heard the term "tyranny of the majority", yes or no?

You can talk about how "icky" you think gays are all you want to. People thought interracial marriage was "icky" too. When interracial marriage bans were overturned, you actually had people that didn't think blacks were full human. Doesn't change the fact that civil rights have NEVER been put to a majority vote (except for "they gheys")

This isn't a "civil rights" issue.

It's an issue of changing contract law.

Again, I have no problem changing the law, if you get a majority to agree to it, not a tyrant in a robe deciding he's going to make a new law on his way to the bathhouse. That's a real tyranny. Especially when the voters clearly said NO! twice.

Ah, therein lies the crux. You don't see it as a civil rights issue, when it clearly is. Guess we'll never get beyond that or your personal homophobia.

Voters would have said no to women voting, ending slavery, blacks voting, blacks marrying whites, and on and on. Should those things have been left to the tyranny of the majority as well or just the queers?

 

[NYcarbineer]

When in history have civil rights or any minority rights been put on a ballot? When have they been granted by initiative or popular vote?

Again, have you ever heard the term "tyranny of the majority", yes or no?

You can talk about how "icky" you think gays are all you want to. People thought interracial marriage was "icky" too. When interracial marriage bans were overturned, you actually had people that didn't think blacks were full human. Doesn't change the fact that civil rights have NEVER been put to a majority vote (except for "they gheys")

This isn't a "civil rights" issue.

It's an issue of changing contract law.

Again, I have no problem changing the law, if you get a majority to agree to it, not a tyrant in a robe deciding he's going to make a new law on his way to the bathhouse. That's a real tyranny. Especially when the voters clearly said NO! twice.

Are you claiming that discrimination cannot occur in so-called contract law? seriously? lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

That's really not my job. I think that there was some borderline judicial activism going on with Loving v. Virginia.

But didn't you say this was about 'contract law'. Are you claiming you can't find a constitutional protection against discrimination on the basis of skin color therein?

 

[Peach]

"I am adhering to what I've said since this bill was first introduced — an issue of this magnitude and importance, which requires a constitutional amendment, should be left to the people of New Jersey to decide,"

Seems like he wants the people to make the decision. And you have a problem with this?

Does the NJ Constitution ban same gender marriage or define marriage? If not, why would an amendment be necessary? Does the Legislature of NJ pass laws in other areas without a statewide vote. So much for a REPUBLIC as the form of government if a statewide vote is required for legislation to be enacted.

 

[rightwinger]

"I am adhering to what I've said since this bill was first introduced — an issue of this magnitude and importance, which requires a constitutional amendment, should be left to the people of New Jersey to decide,"

Seems like he wants the people to make the decision. And you have a problem with this?

Does the NJ Constitution ban same gender marriage or define marriage? If not, why would an amendment be necessary? Does the Legislature of NJ pass laws in other areas without a statewide vote. So much for a REPUBLIC as the form of government if a statewide vote is required for legislation to be enacted.

Actually Gov Christie refused a public vote on whether taxes should be raised on the highest earners but insists on a vote on whether gays should be allowed to marry

You can vote on the civil rights of others but not taxes

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

But big government can.

 

[Seawytch]

"I am adhering to what I've said since this bill was first introduced — an issue of this magnitude and importance, which requires a constitutional amendment, should be left to the people of New Jersey to decide,"

Seems like he wants the people to make the decision. And you have a problem with this?

Does the NJ Constitution ban same gender marriage or define marriage? If not, why would an amendment be necessary? Does the Legislature of NJ pass laws in other areas without a statewide vote. So much for a REPUBLIC as the form of government if a statewide vote is required for legislation to be enacted.

Actually Gov Christie refused a public vote on whether taxes should be raised on the highest earners but insists on a vote on whether gays should be allowed to marry

You can vote on the civil rights of others but not taxes

Interesting...

and hypocritical.

 

[JoeB131]

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

That's really not my job. I think that there was some borderline judicial activism going on with Loving v. Virginia.

But didn't you say this was about 'contract law'. Are you claiming you can't find a constitutional protection against discrimination on the basis of skin color therein?

That's not the argument, and I'm not wasting my time on it. Sorry.

The argument is, should a judge be able to rewrite marriage as it has been understood for thousands of years.

My view is... no.

If the people decide to, that's a different issue.

In the case of California, the people said no. Twice. Pretty clearly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One can easily see this is a contract issue only without being homophobic. To insist that his homophobia as such is to reveal a personal weakness. I personally believe it is a human rights issue, but I can see room for disagreement.

 

[rdean]

Chrispie should be vetoing thirds at the buffet or that fourth Whopper.

 

[Unkotare]

Chrispie should be vetoing thirds at the buffet or that fourth Whopper.

And that has what to do with the topic, you hateful little fucking shill?

 

[rightwinger]

Chrispie should be vetoing thirds at the buffet or that fourth Whopper.

And that has what to do with the topic, you hateful little fucking shill?

It WAS funny though

 

[JoeB131]

Chrispie should be vetoing thirds at the buffet or that fourth Whopper.

And that has what to do with the topic, you hateful little fucking shill?

It WAS funny though

Punkotard doesn't have a sense of humor.