Christie Vetoes Gay Marriage

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Actually discrimination is the core if the issue, wether it be based on race or gender.

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

My view is... no.

Actually Civil Marriage is legal in this country in 8 legal entities 5 of the 3 have been achieved through legislative action.

And no tradition is not considered a compelling reason to deny equal treatement under the law. Respectfully that may work for you, but it shouldn't (in my view) be justification under secular law.

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

My view is... no.

"Marriage" has been defined as one woman and one man AND one man and many women for thousands of years.

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

If California had voted that men could not be Public School teachers would that have been OK?

If California had voted that there were to be separate water fountains for whites and colored would that be OK?

How about if California had voted that hispantics had to attend searpate schools would that be OK?



If not, then why is it OK for California to discriminate based on gender with no compelling government interest.

>>>>

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

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...

anyone that thinks that the GOP isn't using this as a wedge issue (to regain power) needs to look at your graph and find the red states.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

It is indeed a civil rights issue, not subject to majority rule; voters don’t decide who will or will not have his civil rights – in this case equal access to the law as mandated by the 14th Amendment.

As the Ninth Circuit ruled in Perry:

Prior to November 4, 2008, the California Constitution guaranteed the right to marry to opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples alike. On that day, the People of California adopted Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. We consider whether that amendment violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that it does.

Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted. Because under California statutory law, same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status, all parties agree that Proposition 8 had one effect only. It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State, or any other authorized party, an important right—the right to obtain and use the designation of ‘marriage’ to describe their relationships. Nothing more, nothing less.

Constitutional Law Prof Blog: Opinion Analysis: Ninth Circuit in Perry v. Brown, the Prop 8 case

What was Christie’s ‘legitimate reason’ for vetoing the bill?

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.

No government can, big or small.

But if the big, bad government violates your civil rights, let me know, I’ll help you file your lawsuit.

 

[rdean]

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?

Because he should be doing more good than harm.

Something that Chrispie and his ilk no longer believe in.

 

[g5000]

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.

That is the argument and you need to familiarize yourself with what the 14th amendment is about.

You cannot write a law that extends state protection (cash and prizes) to one group of people and excludes another group of people for the sole reason that you do not like them.

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

No, that's the bigot's argument, not the legal one. "We have always discriminated against people we don't like" is not a legal precedent. We discriminated against blacks for hundreds of years, too.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You cannot write a law that extends state protection (cash and prizes) to one group of people and excludes another group of people for the sole reason that you do not like them.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

That is the argument and you need to familiarize yourself with what the 14th amendment is about.

You cannot write a law that extends state protection (cash and prizes) to one group of people and excludes another group of people for the sole reason that you do not like them.

If you were paying attention, I have no problem with gay marriage. Why should just the straights have to suffer?

I have a problem with judges making up rights because they can't get their way at the ballot box.

There is no right to gay marriage hiding in the closet of the 14th Amendment. Sorry. Just isn't.

You want to change the law, we have a legislative process to do that.

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

No, that's the bigot's argument, not the legal one. "We have always discriminated against people we don't like" is not a legal precedent. We discriminated against blacks for hundreds of years, too.

There's no discrimination here. Marriage- One Man. one Woman. that's how people have always understood it.

 

[rdean]

Chrispie's dong must be about a foot long. How else can you explain "kids"?

?

?

 

[JoeB131]

Wow, Dean, that totally lacked class, and I'm not even a big fan of Christie.

 

[Seawytch]

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

That is the argument and you need to familiarize yourself with what the 14th amendment is about.

You cannot write a law that extends state protection (cash and prizes) to one group of people and excludes another group of people for the sole reason that you do not like them.

If you were paying attention, I have no problem with gay marriage. Why should just the straights have to suffer?

I have a problem with judges making up rights because they can't get their way at the ballot box.

There is no right to gay marriage hiding in the closet of the 14th Amendment. Sorry. Just isn't.

You want to change the law, we have a legislative process to do that.

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

No, that's the bigot's argument, not the legal one. "We have always discriminated against people we don't like" is not a legal precedent. We discriminated against blacks for hundreds of years, too.

There's no discrimination here. Marriage- One Man. one Woman. that's how people have always understood it.

Judges don't "make up rights". They DO interpret the Constitution...as is their job. It's one of the reasons why we have three branches of government...so the majority doesn't overstep and trample the rights of the minority.

The FACT is that at no time in history have we put minority rights to a majority vote except when it comes to those "icky" gays.

How can you even say "there is no discrimination" simply because "that's the way it's always been done"?

Women were "always" property in marriage...until that was changed. Marriage was "always" between whites and whites or blacks and blacks...until it was changed.

If you cannot show a compelling reason to deny the LEGAL institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied. A nebulous declaration like "marriage has always been between a man and a woman" is hardly a compelling reason, but a declaration of prejudice.

 

[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?

Because he should be doing more good than harm.

Something that Chrispie and his ilk no longer believe in.

Christies weight is a choice..........homosexuality is not

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

Actually discrimination is the core if the issue, wether it be based on race or gender.



Actually Civil Marriage is legal in this country in 8 legal entities 5 of the 3 have been achieved through legislative action.

And no tradition is not considered a compelling reason to deny equal treatement under the law. Respectfully that may work for you, but it shouldn't (in my view) be justification under secular law.

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

My view is... no.

"Marriage" has been defined as one woman and one man AND one man and many women for thousands of years.

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

If California had voted that men could not be Public School teachers would that have been OK?

If California had voted that there were to be separate water fountains for whites and colored would that be OK?

How about if California had voted that hispantics had to attend searpate schools would that be OK?



If not, then why is it OK for California to discriminate based on gender with no compelling government interest.

>>>>

If by law you can discriminate solely based on income, you can discriminate against anything.

 

[Seawytch]

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

Because he should be doing more good than harm.

Something that Chrispie and his ilk no longer believe in.

Christies weight is a choice..........homosexuality is not

LOL...they'll argue that his weight has genetic factors, but will declare that sexual orientation is a choice (with no proof to support that claim). You can go to the gym and get less fat. You can't go to the gym and get less gay.

 

[chanel]

Christie is sucking up to the Muslims.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Actually discrimination is the core if the issue, wether it be based on race or gender.



Actually Civil Marriage is legal in this country in 8 legal entities 5 of the 3 have been achieved through legislative action.

And no tradition is not considered a compelling reason to deny equal treatement under the law. Respectfully that may work for you, but it shouldn't (in my view) be justification under secular law.



"Marriage" has been defined as one woman and one man AND one man and many women for thousands of years.

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

If California had voted that men could not be Public School teachers would that have been OK?

If California had voted that there were to be separate water fountains for whites and colored would that be OK?

How about if California had voted that hispantics had to attend searpate schools would that be OK?



If not, then why is it OK for California to discriminate based on gender with no compelling government interest.

>>>>

If by law you can discriminate solely based on income, you can discriminate against anything.

They tried that with race, didn't work. Now the reasoning is gender. In the long term it will not be successful.

BTW - I support a flat tax which treats everyone the same.


>>>>

 

[peach174]

It's not based on gender.
It's about a very unhealthy and harmful lifestyle.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Dumb, dumb dumb...

U.S. News - NJ Gov. Christie vetoes same-sex marriage bill

I've always been a critic of judges who decide they are going to disregard the will of legistlatures and the populace and impose these things, but here's a case where they did it the right way, they passed a bill, and Christie the Hutt decides he's stull sucking up to be RomBot's running mate.

Gov Christie answered the most important question I use in measuring someone's leadership. He evaluated the legislation as all non leaders evaluate change by asking this question: "How will this effect me?".

Leaders make decisions which effect the lives of others, true leaders ask how will this effect others, their organization, or the nation?

 

[rightwinger]

It's not based on gender.
It's about a very unhealthy and harmful lifestyle.

What makes it unhealthy and harmful is the hatred directed at gays

 

[WorldWatcher]

It's not based on gender.
It's about a very unhealthy and harmful lifestyle.

Really? Last I checked "man" and "woman" were genders not a lifestyle.

Please, show us any Civil Marriage law that is based on lifestyle.

• I have not seen one law based on sexual orientation.
• I have not seen one law denying Civil Marriage to the Obese.
• I have not seen one law denying Civil Marriage to smokers.
• I have not seen one law denying Civil Marriage to child molesters.
• I have not seen one law denying Civil Marriage to murders.

Maybe you could look at the following variables and tell us which one is a determining criteria for Civil Marriage:

Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Heterosexual Woman = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal
Homosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal​

>>>>

 

[Article 15]

Christie is sucking up to the Muslims.

The finest moment I've ever seen Chris Christie have.....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y83z552NJaw]Governor Christie Talks About Superior Court Judge Sohail Mohammed - YouTube[/ame]