Christie Vetoes Gay Marriage

[Seawytch]

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.

Some guys go to the Gym to get more gay...

But since you guys haven't found the "Gay Gene" yet, an argument can be made that there's really not a genetic cause. There is genetic causality to obesity...

No actually, that argument can't be made...especially if you ask a geneticist. The overwhelming majority of scientists will tell you that there is a genetic predisposition for sexual orientation.

Not that it will convince homophobes. It makes it much easier on them if they keep believing that sexual orientation is a choice.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

And yet, how much you wanna bet that the 14th will come into play when the SCOTUS finally rules on marriage equality?

You still haven't answered the question: What civil rights have EVER been granted by majority vote through a ballot initiative?

 

[peach174]

I don't understand why you would want to be subject to divorce laws.
Where your partner could take you to the cleaners.

 

[Seawytch]

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

Really? That's the argument you want to go with? Do you really think it is going to stand up in a court of law?

Other than being a bit overweight (thanks in large part to having had a bunch of babies), what is so "unhealthy" about my "lifestyle".

 

[JoeB131]

[
And yet, how much you wanna bet that the 14th will come into play when the SCOTUS finally rules on marriage equality?

You still haven't answered the question: What civil rights have EVER been granted by majority vote through a ballot initiative?

one more time.

There are no such things as "rights".

There are privilages the rest of society thinks you have. The legistlatures and courts merely reflect which ones people agree to.

In 1980's, everyone was afraid of AIDS, so in the Hardwicke decision, the SCOTUS decided states really did have the right to regulate anal sex.

Later,people were less scared, so the Lawrence decision decided there was a right to do so.

Both of those decisions couldn't be "right".

So, yeah, "rights" are largely what everyone kind of admits you should have, which is why this should happen through referendum or legislative action, not judicial fiat.

 

[Seawytch]

I don't understand why you would want to be subject to divorce laws.
Where your partner could take you to the cleaners.

Oh, and they can't without marriage? You've never heard of palimony suits?

 

[Seawytch]

[
And yet, how much you wanna bet that the 14th will come into play when the SCOTUS finally rules on marriage equality?

You still haven't answered the question: What civil rights have EVER been granted by majority vote through a ballot initiative?

one more time.

There are no such things as "rights".

There are privilages the rest of society thinks you have. The legistlatures and courts merely reflect which ones people agree to.

In 1980's, everyone was afraid of AIDS, so in the Hardwicke decision, the SCOTUS decided states really did have the right to regulate anal sex.

Later,people were less scared, so the Lawrence decision decided there was a right to do so.

Both of those decisions couldn't be "right".

So, yeah, "rights" are largely what everyone kind of admits you should have, which is why this should happen through referendum or legislative action, not judicial fiat.

Oh, there's no such thing as rights. Interesting theory you have. Does it stand up anywhere?

Okay, we'll play it your way. When have "privileges" ever been granted by a majority vote on a ballot?

The fact is they haven't. The "privilege" for women and blacks to vote was not put to a majority vote. The "privilege" for blacks to marry whites was not granted by a majority vote.

It's only for those "icky" gays that the "majority" has to decide what "privileges" they are granted.

 

[peach174]

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

Really? That's the argument you want to go with? Do you really think it is going to stand up in a court of law?

Other than being a bit overweight (thanks in large part to having had a bunch of babies), what is so "unhealthy" about my "lifestyle".

If you have Doctor's testifying yes.

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/healthrisksSSA.pdf

 

[peach174]

I don't understand why you would want to be subject to divorce laws.
Where your partner could take you to the cleaners.

Oh, and they can't without marriage? You've never heard of palimony suits?

Palimony suits do not take you to the cleaners. The two are different.

Unlike alimony, palimony settlements usually involve a lump sum paid at once, versus permanent monthly payments. A further difference is that palimony does not divide "common assets." In a palimony suit, the legal owner of any assets gets those assets without question, even if the partner has paid into them and considers them common property.

 

[Seawytch]

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

Really? That's the argument you want to go with? Do you really think it is going to stand up in a court of law?

Other than being a bit overweight (thanks in large part to having had a bunch of babies), what is so "unhealthy" about my "lifestyle".

If you have Doctor's testifying yes.

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/healthrisksSSA.pdf

LOL...do you honestly believe that anything that "doctor" says is going to stand up in a court of law as a reason to deny gay and lesbians equal access to legal, civil marriage?

Here's the deal...in order to keep gays and lesbians from being granted the "privilege" of civil marriage, you must come up with a societal harm in allowing them. Nobody can which is why these anti-gay marriage laws keep losing in court.

 

[Seawytch]

I don't understand why you would want to be subject to divorce laws.
Where your partner could take you to the cleaners.

Oh, and they can't without marriage? You've never heard of palimony suits?

Palimony suits do not take you to the cleaners. The two are different.

Unlike alimony, palimony settlements usually involve a lump sum paid at once, versus permanent monthly payments. A further difference is that palimony does not divide "common assets." In a palimony suit, the legal owner of any assets gets those assets without question, even if the partner has paid into them and considers them common property.

You can get fleeced with a palimony suit just as readily as a divorce.

Why are you automatically assuming that marriage will end in divorce? I've been in a monogamous relationship with my life partner for over 16 years now. Why isn't our relationship deserving of the same rights, benefits, privileges and protections of legal civil marriage that is granted heterosexual couples?

Got anything that WILL stand up in a court of law as a reason to deny me this equality?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Notice the weakness when the atheist is confronted with American concepts of law and rights. Since s/he cannot accept that rights inalienably are created by God, s/he must change 'rights' inalienable to 'privileges' granted.

If an atheist wants the Court to consider his/her argument, then the Court has the right to consider's Jefferson's concept of inalienable rights in the DoI.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

1. Equal protection clause, 14th Amendment - yup it's there.

2. I'm not a liberal, I've been in the Republican party since 1978. But then again I'm not a social authoritarian either. I believe in small government, liberty, and justice. Nice try at pigeon holing though.



>>>>

 

[peach174]

Oh, and they can't without marriage? You've never heard of palimony suits?

Palimony suits do not take you to the cleaners. The two are different.

Unlike alimony, palimony settlements usually involve a lump sum paid at once, versus permanent monthly payments. A further difference is that palimony does not divide "common assets." In a palimony suit, the legal owner of any assets gets those assets without question, even if the partner has paid into them and considers them common property.

You can get fleeced with a palimony suit just as readily as a divorce.

Why are you automatically assuming that marriage will end in divorce? I've been in a monogamous relationship with my life partner for over 16 years now. Why isn't our relationship deserving of the same rights, benefits, privileges and protections of legal civil marriage that is granted heterosexual couples?

Got anything that WILL stand up in a court of law as a reason to deny me this equality?

I am not assuming, the statistic's say that there is a very large number of marriages end in divorce whether it be straight or Gay's.
I also said that you should have the same rights but doing it with laws.
I also said why it harms the nation as a whole.

Couples living together. Sex without marriage.
Drug abuse, porn, sex trafficking, alcoholism and homosexuality,pedophiles and bestiality.
Whenever these type of sins become accepted by society, civilization starts to decay and fall.
All of this leads to the decline of the family unit. A husband and wife who raise their families. When things go well with the family, life is worth living, when the family falters, life falls apart.

When deadly sins like pedophiles, bestiality and homosexuality are accepted it decays the moral and spiritual values in a well ordered civilization.

Families are the foundation of a nation.

When one sin becomes more acceptable others follow.
If you get your marriage rights, what is stopping the next one, which is those that want to marry their animal sex partners. They are coming out of the closet around the world now and are speaking out about their civil rights also.

 

[rightwinger]

Palimony suits do not take you to the cleaners. The two are different.

Unlike alimony, palimony settlements usually involve a lump sum paid at once, versus permanent monthly payments. A further difference is that palimony does not divide "common assets." In a palimony suit, the legal owner of any assets gets those assets without question, even if the partner has paid into them and considers them common property.

You can get fleeced with a palimony suit just as readily as a divorce.

Why are you automatically assuming that marriage will end in divorce? I've been in a monogamous relationship with my life partner for over 16 years now. Why isn't our relationship deserving of the same rights, benefits, privileges and protections of legal civil marriage that is granted heterosexual couples?

Got anything that WILL stand up in a court of law as a reason to deny me this equality?

I am not assuming, the statistic's say that there is a very large number of marriages end in divorce whether it be straight or Gay's.
I also said that you should have the same rights but doing it with laws.
I also said why it harms the nation as a whole.

Couples living together. Sex without marriage.
Drug abuse, porn, sex trafficking, alcoholism and homosexuality,pedophiles and bestiality.
Whenever these type of sins become accepted by society, civilization starts to decay and fall.
All of this leads to the decline of the family unit. A husband and wife who raise their families. When things go well with the family, life is worth living, when the family falters, life falls apart.

When deadly sins like pedophiles, bestiality and homosexuality are accepted it decays the moral and spiritual values in a well ordered civilization.

Families are the foundation of a nation.

When one sin becomes more acceptable others follow.
If you get your marriage rights, what is stopping the next one, which is those that want to marry their animal sex partners. They are coming out of the closet around the world now and are speaking out about their civil rights also.

Do you think couples who are not virgins should be allowed to marry?

Isn't that a deadly sin?

 

[Full-Auto]

Palimony suits do not take you to the cleaners. The two are different.

Unlike alimony, palimony settlements usually involve a lump sum paid at once, versus permanent monthly payments. A further difference is that palimony does not divide "common assets." In a palimony suit, the legal owner of any assets gets those assets without question, even if the partner has paid into them and considers them common property.

You can get fleeced with a palimony suit just as readily as a divorce.

Why are you automatically assuming that marriage will end in divorce? I've been in a monogamous relationship with my life partner for over 16 years now. Why isn't our relationship deserving of the same rights, benefits, privileges and protections of legal civil marriage that is granted heterosexual couples?

Got anything that WILL stand up in a court of law as a reason to deny me this equality?

I am not assuming, the statistic's say that there is a very large number of marriages end in divorce whether it be straight or Gay's.
I also said that you should have the same rights but doing it with laws.
I also said why it harms the nation as a whole.

Couples living together. Sex without marriage.
Drug abuse, porn, sex trafficking, alcoholism and homosexuality,pedophiles and bestiality.
Whenever these type of sins become accepted by society, civilization starts to decay and fall.
All of this leads to the decline of the family unit. A husband and wife who raise their families. When things go well with the family, life is worth living, when the family falters, life falls apart.

When deadly sins like pedophiles, bestiality and homosexuality are accepted it decays the moral and spiritual values in a well ordered civilization.

Families are the foundation of a nation.

When one sin becomes more acceptable others follow.
If you get your marriage rights, what is stopping the next one, which is those that want to marry their animal sex partners. They are coming out of the closet around the world now and are speaking out about their civil rights also.

Our single parent birthrate is now at 50%

Liberals seem to think uncle sam can do a better job then the actual fathers.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

Chris Christie has always said, even during his election, that if it came to his desk, he would veto a bill on gay's getting married. So it came to his desk and unbelievable, he did what he said he would do. Now Governor Christie has said that he wants the citizens of New Jersey to vote on the matter. Oh my GAWD! The audasity of this man!

Now I realize that for the left, a politician doing EXACTLY what he said he would do is unique. I mean look at Barry and his pals. The poster child for saying one thing in the campaign and doing another in reality. We could start with Barry declining public financing. We could move to 9 trillion dollars in debt being "unpatriotic", but let's not bore everyone with details. Besides the left is not big on facts.

States have the ability to define what marriage is. In Oklahoma we have a constitutional amendment that defines it as one man and one woman. Further, our state does not recognize marriages that do not conform to that definition from other states. It is a state issue and it should be. Don't like it? Then don't live there.

I also think that when Prop 8 from California gets to the Supreme Court, it's going to be bad news for those of you that want it over turned. But hey, we'll see.

 

[peach174]

You can get fleeced with a palimony suit just as readily as a divorce.

Why are you automatically assuming that marriage will end in divorce? I've been in a monogamous relationship with my life partner for over 16 years now. Why isn't our relationship deserving of the same rights, benefits, privileges and protections of legal civil marriage that is granted heterosexual couples?

Got anything that WILL stand up in a court of law as a reason to deny me this equality?

I am not assuming, the statistic's say that there is a very large number of marriages end in divorce whether it be straight or Gay's.
I also said that you should have the same rights but doing it with laws.
I also said why it harms the nation as a whole.

Couples living together. Sex without marriage.
Drug abuse, porn, sex trafficking, alcoholism and homosexuality,pedophiles and bestiality.
Whenever these type of sins become accepted by society, civilization starts to decay and fall.
All of this leads to the decline of the family unit. A husband and wife who raise their families. When things go well with the family, life is worth living, when the family falters, life falls apart.

When deadly sins like pedophiles, bestiality and homosexuality are accepted it decays the moral and spiritual values in a well ordered civilization.

Families are the foundation of a nation.

When one sin becomes more acceptable others follow.
If you get your marriage rights, what is stopping the next one, which is those that want to marry their animal sex partners. They are coming out of the closet around the world now and are speaking out about their civil rights also.

Do you think couples who are not virgins should be allowed to marry?

Isn't that a deadly sin?

No it is not a deadly sin. But homosexuality is even worse, God says it's an abomination, worse that a deadly sin.
If more people would stop having sex any old time they wished, with as many people as they wanted to, the sexual diseases in this nation would decline dramatically though.

 

[rightwinger]

Chris Christie has always said, even during his election, that if it came to his desk, he would veto a bill on gay's getting married. So it came to his desk and unbelievable, he did what he said he would do. Now Governor Christie has said that he wants the citizens of New Jersey to vote on the matter. Oh my GAWD! The audasity of this man!

Now I realize that for the left, a politician doing EXACTLY what he said he would do is unique. I mean look at Barry and his pals. The poster child for saying one thing in the campaign and doing another in reality. We could start with Barry declining public financing. We could move to 9 trillion dollars in debt being "unpatriotic", but let's not bore everyone with details. Besides the left is not big on facts.

States have the ability to define what marriage is. In Oklahoma we have a constitutional amendment that defines it as one man and one woman. Further, our state does not recognize marriages that do not conform to that definition from other states. It is a state issue and it should be. Don't like it? Then don't live there.

I also think that when Prop 8 from California gets to the Supreme Court, it's going to be bad news for those of you that want it over turned. But hey, we'll see.

In justifying his impending veto, Christie also said that blacks wished that there could have been a vote on civil rights......it would have saved them a lot of aggravation

 

[rightwinger]

I am not assuming, the statistic's say that there is a very large number of marriages end in divorce whether it be straight or Gay's.
I also said that you should have the same rights but doing it with laws.
I also said why it harms the nation as a whole.

Couples living together. Sex without marriage.
Drug abuse, porn, sex trafficking, alcoholism and homosexuality,pedophiles and bestiality.
Whenever these type of sins become accepted by society, civilization starts to decay and fall.
All of this leads to the decline of the family unit. A husband and wife who raise their families. When things go well with the family, life is worth living, when the family falters, life falls apart.

When deadly sins like pedophiles, bestiality and homosexuality are accepted it decays the moral and spiritual values in a well ordered civilization.

Families are the foundation of a nation.

When one sin becomes more acceptable others follow.
If you get your marriage rights, what is stopping the next one, which is those that want to marry their animal sex partners. They are coming out of the closet around the world now and are speaking out about their civil rights also.

Do you think couples who are not virgins should be allowed to marry?

Isn't that a deadly sin?

No it is not a deadly sin. But homosexuality is even worse, God says it's an abomination, worse that a deadly sin.
If more people would stop having sex any old time they wished, with as many people as they wanted to, the sexual diseases in this nation would decline dramatically though.

Thou shall not commit adultery is one of the ten commandments. Homosexuality was never mentioned as a commandment