Gay couples wed just after midnight a...

Gay couples wed just after midnight as same-sex marriage is recognized in NJ

There are 47 comments on the The Winnipeg Free Press story from Oct 20, 2013, titled Gay couples wed just after midnight as same-sex marriage is recognized in NJ. In it, The Winnipeg Free Press reports that:

Gay couples exchanged vows in early morning ceremonies in several New Jersey communities Monday as the state began recognizing their marriages at 12:01 a.m., becoming the 14th state to do so.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Winnipeg Free Press.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#21 Oct 21, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, true......lol!!!
I think we get New Mexico and Hawaii long before we get Illinois.....at least that is my opinion......seems Illinois is just dragging their feet!!!
We shall know about Illinois in the next four weeks. I think the House will climb on board. There's so much momentum... Illinois will be watching how much blowback Cristie gets for abandoning the fight. My guess is not much. Just a lot of hyperventilation from the usual suspects.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#22 Oct 21, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
The State famous for Franklin and the Underground Railroad should be ashamed of itself.
Perhaps we SHOULD have gone ahead with Franklin having his own State.
There was a "State Of Franklin" for awhile (I think it became part of Tennessee).

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#23 Oct 21, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Politically more appealing to be overridden by the court than by the legislature?
The Dems in the legislature claim they're still going to try to override Christie's veto anyway just to get rid of the current law completely. I really don't see that vote happening when it's not really necessary now.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#24 Oct 21, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, true......lol!!!
I think we get New Mexico and Hawaii long before we get Illinois.....at least that is my opinion......seems Illinois is just dragging their feet!!!
New Mexico & Hawaii are both next week.

Illinois may vote in the Nov veto session, or they may wait until the regular session in Jan. They need 72 votes for the law to take effect immediately, but only 60 votes if the effective date is 6 months. It's an odd rule for their veto session.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#25 Oct 21, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
New Mexico & Hawaii are both next week.
Illinois may vote in the Nov veto session, or they may wait until the regular session in Jan. They need 72 votes for the law to take effect immediately, but only 60 votes if the effective date is 6 months. It's an odd rule for their veto session.
Interesting......hopefully Hawaii gets it done.....they have waited 20 years for marriage Equality.......New Mexico hopefully will also get it done, though this should have happened long ago!!

I really don't care how we get 15th, 16th and 17th States......just that we get them!!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#26 Oct 21, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting......hopefully Hawaii gets it done.....they have waited 20 years for marriage Equality.......New Mexico hopefully will also get it done, though this should have happened long ago!!
I really don't care how we get 15th, 16th and 17th States......just that we get them!!!
Hawaii appears to be a done deal. I can't imagine the Gov calling a special session if he wasn't assured the votes were there.

New Mexico is already marrying same-sex couples; the only question is whether they can continue & whether it will go statewide. I expect their Supreme Court may do something similar to New Jersey- they won't stop marriages from continuing, but they'll likely take a bit more time to write an opinion extending it statewide.

Illinois & the remaining 9th circuit states may wait until 2014, but that takes us to 23!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#27 Oct 21, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Hawaii appears to be a done deal. I can't imagine the Gov calling a special session if he wasn't assured the votes were there.
New Mexico is already marrying same-sex couples; the only question is whether they can continue & whether it will go statewide. I expect their Supreme Court may do something similar to New Jersey- they won't stop marriages from continuing, but they'll likely take a bit more time to write an opinion extending it statewide.
Illinois & the remaining 9th circuit states may wait until 2014, but that takes us to 23!
It will certainly be a great victory when we reach the 20th state mark.........23 would be simply amazing:-)

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#28 Oct 21, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The Dems in the legislature claim they're still going to try to override Christie's veto anyway just to get rid of the current law completely. I really don't see that vote happening when it's not really necessary now.
On the other hand, the supreme court has given them the cover to amend the law. They can say they're merely complying with orders from the judiciary.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#29 Oct 21, 2013
To any Jewish gay couples:
MAZELTOV!

Warning!
Once that bigmouth Oiving and his overstuffed missus visit, you'll never get rid of them. Your only chance is to offer a tuna casserole.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#30 Oct 21, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, true......lol!!!
I think we get New Mexico and Hawaii long before we get Illinois.....at least that is my opinion......seems Illinois is just dragging their feet!!!
It's electioneering that's the rub there.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#31 Oct 21, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
To any Jewish gay couples:
MAZELTOV!
Warning!
Once that bigmouth Oiving and his overstuffed missus visit, you'll never get rid of them. Your only chance is to offer a tuna casserole.
You're in fine gefilte, this evening!

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#32 Oct 21, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
You're in fine gefilte, this evening!
Have you heard about the loxfish? Instead of the usual schools, it swims in Yeshivas.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#33 Oct 22, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The Dems in the legislature claim they're still going to try to override Christie's veto anyway just to get rid of the current law completely. I really don't see that vote happening when it's not really necessary now.
I'm of two minds on overriding the veto now.

On one hand, it would be good for the legislature to override the veto as a slap in Christie's fat face.

But on the other hand, what Christie vetoed along with marriage equality was the additional protections that were in the bill to protect the religious bigots from their own ignorance when they refuse to participate in marriage equality.

NOW New Jersey has marriage equality ANYWAY, but guess what the bigots DON'T have??? Those extra protections for their bigoted behaviour.

Of course, they already HAVE those protections in the 1st Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion, but they would have had yet another layer protection had their Golden Boy not vetoed that bill.

So I'm not so sure. Once again, the bigots have shot themselves in the foot. I don't think anyone's thinking about that aspect of the law, but I think it's an important point to make--when the courts force equal rights, all the little goodies that are tacked onto a bill aren't there. So if they want the extra bigot-protections, they need to quit opposing the legislation because that's the only way those extra protection get enacted.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#34 Oct 22, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
It's electioneering that's the rub there.
Which is why I wouldn't be surprised if Illinois waits to vote until January- after the primary filing deadline.

Either way, I think we get Illinois soon.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#35 Oct 22, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is why I wouldn't be surprised if Illinois waits to vote until January- after the primary filing deadline.
Either way, I think we get Illinois soon.
I think New Mexico will be next.

And I still say that this is an exercise in the Law Of Diminishing Returns. Resources would now be better used in the federal courts.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#36 Oct 22, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is why I wouldn't be surprised if Illinois waits to vote until January- after the primary filing deadline.
Either way, I think we get Illinois soon.
There are a couple of calculations to be made here, and I don't think they favor waiting.

A legislator could fear that a vote on the matter would encourage a primary opponent. On the other hand, those who have primary opponents are not going to be anxious to have a high-profile vote in the middle of the election cycle.

Some will argue that passing the bill during the veto session abuses the purpose and precludes proper consideration on the floor.(Nevermind that they've had nine months to consider the Senate bill and failed to do so.) Waiting for the next session, however, opens the bill to horse-trading and parliamentary obstruction. Opponents could threaten other important legislation if it pass. We know the opposition has no respect for good governance.

The earlier the bill passes, the less effect on the general election. I think they'll want to do it this fall. If they can't get the votes now, we'll probably have to wait for a new legislature.

And the next legislature is bound to be a bit more blue.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#37 Oct 22, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I think New Mexico will be next.
And I still say that this is an exercise in the Law Of Diminishing Returns. Resources would now be better used in the federal courts.
Unless the New Mexico Supreme Court issues a ruling from the bench tomorrow (unlikely), then Hawaii will probably be next (special session Oct 28th).

Federal cases will take 3-5 years to get to the SCOTUS. The more states we have by then the better our chance of being successful. Plus it gives the rights & benefits to couples who maybe can't wait another 5 years.

Either way, we're quickly running out of states where it's even possible to get marriage equality without a SCOTUS ruling. In order of likelihood:

Hawaii (2013)
New Mexico (2013/14)
Illinois (2013/14)
Oregon (2014)
Nevada (2016)
Colorado (2016)
Michigan (2016)
Ohio (2016)

That's it. Pennsylvania is possible ONLY if their entire state govt flips control to the Dems in '14.

So while we wait for the federal cases to work their way to the SCOTUS around 2016, we might as well get the rest of the low hanging fruit.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#38 Oct 22, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
There are a couple of calculations to be made here, and I don't think they favor waiting.
A legislator could fear that a vote on the matter would encourage a primary opponent. On the other hand, those who have primary opponents are not going to be anxious to have a high-profile vote in the middle of the election cycle.
Some will argue that passing the bill during the veto session abuses the purpose and precludes proper consideration on the floor.(Nevermind that they've had nine months to consider the Senate bill and failed to do so.) Waiting for the next session, however, opens the bill to horse-trading and parliamentary obstruction. Opponents could threaten other important legislation if it pass. We know the opposition has no respect for good governance.
The earlier the bill passes, the less effect on the general election. I think they'll want to do it this fall. If they can't get the votes now, we'll probably have to wait for a new legislature.
And the next legislature is bound to be a bit more blue.
I still think an early January vote is most likely.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#39 Oct 22, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless the New Mexico Supreme Court issues a ruling from the bench tomorrow (unlikely), then Hawaii will probably be next (special session Oct 28th).
Federal cases will take 3-5 years to get to the SCOTUS. The more states we have by then the better our chance of being successful. Plus it gives the rights & benefits to couples who maybe can't wait another 5 years.
Either way, we're quickly running out of states where it's even possible to get marriage equality without a SCOTUS ruling. In order of likelihood:
Hawaii (2013)
New Mexico (2013/14)
Illinois (2013/14)
Oregon (2014)
Nevada (2016)
Colorado (2016)
Michigan (2016)
Ohio (2016)
That's it. Pennsylvania is possible ONLY if their entire state govt flips control to the Dems in '14.
So while we wait for the federal cases to work their way to the SCOTUS around 2016, we might as well get the rest of the low hanging fruit.
I don't see Ohio being more likely than Pennsylvania. Dems are likely to win the popular vote in PA next year, but it would take a tsunami of Democratic votes to flip the gerrymandered legislature. It's not clear to me that Ohio is any likelier to flip.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#40 Oct 22, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see Ohio being more likely than Pennsylvania. Dems are likely to win the popular vote in PA next year, but it would take a tsunami of Democratic votes to flip the gerrymandered legislature. It's not clear to me that Ohio is any likelier to flip.
The only reason I added Ohio is because they have the referendum option, like Michigan. It's still likely a long shot even in 2016.

That's why I say we're quickly running out of states where anything is possible without the federal courts acting.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Belmar Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Matthew Casper, 23, Asbury Park, charged with s... (Mar '14) Nov 21 No one 9
News Cash-strapped Lakewood schools hire another law... Nov 11 yitzyma 1
News Wonder why near-broke Lakewood schools are payi... Oct '17 Old person 2
News Lakewood fraud: Christie 'willing to consider' ... Oct '17 yitzy g 1
News Ex-yeshiva teacher faces sex assault charges in NJ (May '13) Sep '17 gay 34
Lost Black Cat! Aug '17 cat locator 2
News Anti-Semitic banner, fliers tied to arrests of ... Aug '17 hier is a liar 2

Belmar Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Belmar Mortgages