Christie Vetoes Gay Marriage

[JimBowie1958]

Yes, civil unions should replace 'marriage' in our secular world.

Leave marriage to religion.

I said that ten years ago.

Now I am politically opposed to any compromise.

Understand the feeling.

It's like the more shenanigans the libtards play, the less willing people are to seek middle ground at all.

 

[Full-Auto]

Yes, civil unions should replace 'marriage' in our secular world.

Leave marriage to religion.

I said that ten years ago.

Now I am politically opposed to any compromise.

Understand the feeling.

It's like the more shenanigans the libtards play, the less willing people are to seek middle ground at all.

Thank you, precisely my point.

It is OK to discriminate against people because of income and color, by law. But not against gays

However before the lefties get their panties bunched, there are a few in my family that are gay. Two of them very dear to me.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I said that ten years ago.

Now I am politically opposed to any compromise.

Understand the feeling.

It's like the more shenanigans the libtards play, the less willing people are to seek middle ground at all.

Thank you, precisely my point.

It is OK to discriminate against people because of income and color, by law. But not against gays

However before the lefties get their panties bunched, there are a few in my family that are gay. Two of them very dear to me.

You guys realize that 10 years ago was 2002 which was smack in the middle of Constitutional Amendment from 2000 and 2004 with some like the one here in Virginia that barred both Civil Marriage AND Civil Unions. Then of course there was Referendum 71 in Washington state that attempted to repeal the States Civil Union law.

Speaking as a Republican, it's not quite fair to blame the whole "no compromise" thing on one side.


>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes, civil unions should replace 'marriage' in our secular world.

Leave marriage to religion.

What they’re called is irrelevant, and a game of semantics is pointless only to appease the religious.

States write and enforce the laws that identify what marriage is. As long as same-sex and opposite-sex couples are allowed equal access to the same law, affording the same rights and privileges to both couples – concerning such issues as insurance, government benefits, and child custody – then the Constitutional requirement is met.

The states may call these legal entities whatever they want: marriages, civil unions, partner contracts, whatever, it makes no difference – as long as they’re the same for opposite-and same-sex couples.

Needless to say none of this applies to religious institutions, as private entities they’re not subject to the 14th Amendment’s equal access requirement, unlike state and local governments. Religious institutions may refuse to marry same-sex couples, who would then need to marry in another faith that accepts same-sex couples or marry in a non-religious venue such as by a justice of the peace.

However a same-sex couple should marry, therefore, that marriage must be acknowledged and recognized by the state to be the same as an opposite-sex marriage.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yes, civil unions should replace 'marriage' in our secular world.

Leave marriage to religion.

What they’re called is irrelevant, and a game of semantics is pointless only to appease the religious.

No, it is not pointless or irrelevant except to YOU and those like you, which, THANK GOD, is not the majority.

 

[Full-Auto]

Understand the feeling.

It's like the more shenanigans the libtards play, the less willing people are to seek middle ground at all.

Thank you, precisely my point.

It is OK to discriminate against people because of income and color, by law. But not against gays

However before the lefties get their panties bunched, there are a few in my family that are gay. Two of them very dear to me.

You guys realize that 10 years ago was 2002 which was smack in the middle of Constitutional Amendment from 2000 and 2004 with some like the one here in Virginia that barred both Civil Marriage AND Civil Unions. Then of course there was Referendum 71 in Washington state that attempted to repeal the States Civil Union law.

Speaking as a Republican, it's not quite fair to blame the whole "no compromise" thing on one side.


>>>>

I dont live in virginny. I made the comment on a............. wait for it Message board

I am not blaming non compromise on anyone. That is my position, and guess what... Hard to believe as it is. Im independent and havent voted for a repub since 2004.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Thank you, precisely my point.

It is OK to discriminate against people because of income and color, by law. But not against gays

However before the lefties get their panties bunched, there are a few in my family that are gay. Two of them very dear to me.

You guys realize that 10 years ago was 2002 which was smack in the middle of Constitutional Amendment from 2000 and 2004 with some like the one here in Virginia that barred both Civil Marriage AND Civil Unions. Then of course there was Referendum 71 in Washington state that attempted to repeal the States Civil Union law.

Speaking as a Republican, it's not quite fair to blame the whole "no compromise" thing on one side.


>>>>

I dont live in virginny. I made the comment on a............. wait for it Message board

I know, I made a comment on a............. wait for it Message board

I am not blaming non compromise on anyone. That is my position, and guess what... Hard to believe as it is. Im independent and havent voted for a repub since 2004.

Funny thing is you said "It's like the more shenanigans the libtards play, the less willing people are to seek middle ground at all."

I don't see any reference as a counterpoint the shenanigans by social authoritarians to deny same-sex couples equal treatment under the law. When one blames one side and ignores the other, that's usually indicative of - well - blaming one side.


>>>>

 

[Full-Auto]

You guys realize that 10 years ago was 2002 which was smack in the middle of Constitutional Amendment from 2000 and 2004 with some like the one here in Virginia that barred both Civil Marriage AND Civil Unions. Then of course there was Referendum 71 in Washington state that attempted to repeal the States Civil Union law.

Speaking as a Republican, it's not quite fair to blame the whole "no compromise" thing on one side.


>>>>

I dont live in virginny. I made the comment on a............. wait for it Message board

I know, I made a comment on a............. wait for it Message board

I am not blaming non compromise on anyone. That is my position, and guess what... Hard to believe as it is. Im independent and havent voted for a repub since 2004.

Funny thing is you said "It's like the more shenanigans the libtards play, the less willing people are to seek middle ground at all."

I don't see any reference as a counterpoint the shenanigans by social authoritarians to deny same-sex couples equal treatment under the law. When one blames one side and ignores the other, that's usually indicative of - well - blaming one side.


>>>>

Personally I wish all of them the best.

Politically they can kiss my ass. If you cant leave me alone, I wont leave you alone.

I am an asshole that way.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I dont live in virginny. I made the comment on a............. wait for it Message board

I know, I made a comment on a............. wait for it Message board

I am not blaming non compromise on anyone. That is my position, and guess what... Hard to believe as it is. Im independent and havent voted for a repub since 2004.

Funny thing is you said "It's like the more shenanigans the libtards play, the less willing people are to seek middle ground at all."

I don't see any reference as a counterpoint the shenanigans by social authoritarians to deny same-sex couples equal treatment under the law. When one blames one side and ignores the other, that's usually indicative of - well - blaming one side.


>>>>

Personally I wish all of them the best.

Politically they can kiss my ass. If you cant leave me alone, I wont leave you alone.

I am an asshole that way.

So people that are being denied equal treatment under the law aren't supposed to try to correct that.

You are probably just a good guy, they are the assholes for their expectations.



>>>>

 

[Full-Auto]

I know, I made a comment on a............. wait for it Message board




Funny thing is you said "It's like the more shenanigans the libtards play, the less willing people are to seek middle ground at all."

I don't see any reference as a counterpoint the shenanigans by social authoritarians to deny same-sex couples equal treatment under the law. When one blames one side and ignores the other, that's usually indicative of - well - blaming one side.


>>>>

Personally I wish all of them the best.

Politically they can kiss my ass. If you cant leave me alone, I wont leave you alone.

I am an asshole that way.

So people that are being denied equal treatment under the law aren't supposed to try to correct that.

You are probably just a good guy, they are the assholes for their expectations.



>>>>

Discrimination is discrimination. I dont know what more I can add. I am and have always been the guy that pushes back. The guy never afraid to kick the table over. In doing so you usually get quicker resolution.

 

[bodecea]

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

No it's the disease called aids.

Then you support gay marriage for lesbians then...because you heteros have a WORSE record on AIDS than we do.

 

[bodecea]

No it's the disease called aids.

1. So you are cool with lesbians getting a Civil Marriage because they have the lowest incidence of HIV infection? (Or is it just homosexual males you have an issue with [which takes it back to being gender specific].)


2. Would you support HIV testing as part of Civil Marriage requirements for all participants and the refusal of a license if an individual tests positive for HIV? (Or is it just homosexual males you have an issue with [which takes it back to being gender specific].)​

See testing everyone for HIV and then refusing a Civil Marriage license would not be discriminatory based on gender.

P.S. You realize there are more heterosexuals with HIV/AIDS infections then homosexuals, right?

>>>>

When AIDS first appeared it was spread by gay men amongst each other. Then it spread to straight people via bisexual sex and shared needles. Today many more straight people than gays have HIV/AIDS.

All are unhealthy lifestyles.

AIDS first appeared in Africa and it was not gay men....but feel free to continue your little bugaboo.

 

[bodecea]

"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?

Yes, you cant violate anothers constitutional rights, voting like prop 8 in cali was just that.im not sure how many times this has to be told to you people, but seriously buy a clue.

Can you point me to the part of the constitution that gives you a right to marry? Because I have yet to find it anywhere in there. You are the one who is clueless. You cannot claim that what you consider to be a human or civil right is also a constitutional right, it does not work that way.

It's right next to the part that gives YOU the right to marry.

 

[bodecea]

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....

Wallace did not run as a Democrat. They rejected him and what he stood for.

He did in 1972; go look it up.

You are correct, in 1972, he ran as a Democrat AFTER repudiating Segregation. in 1968, while still supporting segregation, he ran as the American Independent Party candidate.

 

[bodecea]

I dont live in virginny. I made the comment on a............. wait for it Message board

I know, I made a comment on a............. wait for it Message board

I am not blaming non compromise on anyone. That is my position, and guess what... Hard to believe as it is. Im independent and havent voted for a repub since 2004.

Funny thing is you said "It's like the more shenanigans the libtards play, the less willing people are to seek middle ground at all."

I don't see any reference as a counterpoint the shenanigans by social authoritarians to deny same-sex couples equal treatment under the law. When one blames one side and ignores the other, that's usually indicative of - well - blaming one side.


>>>>

Personally I wish all of them the best.

Politically they can kiss my ass. If you cant leave me alone, I wont leave you alone.

I am an asshole that way.

Let's see...how are YOU not being left alone? How are we affecting the legality of YOUR marriage? Please explain.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one's civil or religious liberties are undermined by universal marriage.

 

[JoeB131]

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....

Wallace did not run as a Democrat. They rejected him and what he stood for.

He ran as an independent in 1968, costing Humphry the election. He ran as a Democrat in 1972, but an assassination attempt took him out of the race.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, you cant violate anothers constitutional rights, voting like prop 8 in cali was just that.im not sure how many times this has to be told to you people, but seriously buy a clue.

Can you point me to the part of the constitution that gives you a right to marry? Because I have yet to find it anywhere in there. You are the one who is clueless. You cannot claim that what you consider to be a human or civil right is also a constitutional right, it does not work that way.

It's right next to the part that gives YOU the right to marry.

Oh, so you are admitting there IS no right to marry in the constitution?

Nope, it's a state's right issue. All powers not specifically given to the federal government are reserved to the states. Amendment 9.

I have no problem with gay marriage if it is voted on by the legistlatures OR in a statewide referendum. You won't hear me complain about NY or WA doing it that way.

I have a real problem with judges saying, "Wow, there's a right to marriage hiding there in the 14th Amendment." "And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling kids."

 

[WorldWatcher]

Can you point me to the part of the constitution that gives you a right to marry? Because I have yet to find it anywhere in there. You are the one who is clueless. You cannot claim that what you consider to be a human or civil right is also a constitutional right, it does not work that way.

It's right next to the part that gives YOU the right to marry.

Oh, so you are admitting there IS no right to marry in the constitution?

Nope, it's a state's right issue. All powers not specifically given to the federal government are reserved to the states. Amendment 9.

I have no problem with gay marriage if it is voted on by the legistlatures OR in a statewide referendum. You won't hear me complain about NY or WA doing it that way.

I have a real problem with judges saying, "Wow, there's a right to marriage hiding there in the 14th Amendment." "And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling kids."

1. The 9th Amendment doesn't say that, the 9th Amendment says that rights need not be enumerated in the Constitution for them to be held by people.

2. The rights of the people are different then enumerated Constitutional rights as an individual right (which not need be specifically enumerated) can be contained within a higher Constitutional right. And yes, the 14th enforces on States the rights of Due Process and Equal Protection of the Laws and that if a State is going to violate same, there must be a compelling government interest.


>>>>

 

[JoeB131]

It's right next to the part that gives YOU the right to marry.

Oh, so you are admitting there IS no right to marry in the constitution?

Nope, it's a state's right issue. All powers not specifically given to the federal government are reserved to the states. Amendment 9.

I have no problem with gay marriage if it is voted on by the legistlatures OR in a statewide referendum. You won't hear me complain about NY or WA doing it that way.

I have a real problem with judges saying, "Wow, there's a right to marriage hiding there in the 14th Amendment." "And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling kids."

1. The 9th Amendment doesn't say that, the 9th Amendment says that rights need not be enumerated in the Constitution for them to be held by people.

2. The rights of the people are different then enumerated Constitutional rights as an individual right (which not need be specifically enumerated) can be contained within a higher Constitutional right. And yes, the 14th enforces on States the rights of Due Process and Equal Protection of the Laws and that if a State is going to violate same, there must be a compelling government interest.


>>>>

9th 10th, whatever, I didn't bother to look it up...

Sorry, no "Right to Gay Marriage" hiding in the 14th Amendment, as much as you liberals want it to be.