Fight over gay marriage flares in N.J.

Fight over gay marriage flares in N.J.

There are 36 comments on the The Star Press story from Jun 27, 2013, titled Fight over gay marriage flares in N.J.. In it, The Star Press reports that:

Advocates for gay marriage in New Jersey gather outside the Statehouse in Trenton on June 27, saying they'll press their case in the Legislature and the courts after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that invalidates parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

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

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Jan 08

Manassas, VA

#1 Jun 27, 2013
Christie finally shows that he really is a republican. How sad; it must really suck to be a republican.

“God made in the image of man”

Since: May 07

Sausalito, CA

#2 Jun 27, 2013
It's mean-spirited. Do the State representatives and senators of New Jersey not represent the people of New Jersey? And if the legislation decides, were they not elected to speak on behalf of the residents of the State?

The anti-gay are always going on about 'activist judges' but now it appears that they reject also the legislative branch of the government. What is left is their idea of a theocracy -- and God help us if that's all that stands between us and anarchy!!!

“We are all atheists”

Since: May 11

Rehoboth Beach, DE

#3 Jun 28, 2013
It's pathetic that there's only one person blocking equality in New Jersey. As a retired federal employee, I cannot adequately express my anger at the federal policies that prevented me from enjoying the same benefits as my co-workers. I would never have encouraged a young person to pursue a federal career because of those policies. Now they are gone!

But not in New Jersey, despite a legislature (presumably representing the people of that state)that approved a measure that, today, would have given me equal benefits. I would be furious! Take back your state. Get rid of the roadblock, or roll over him.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#4 Jun 28, 2013
Anybody know what the Lt Governor's position is ?

I mean, it IS New Joisey, after all.
Ozzie

Rockingham, Australia

#5 Jun 28, 2013
snyper wrote:
Anybody know what the Lt Governor's position is ?
I mean, it IS New Joisey, after all.
Does it have anything to do with grabbing ankles? Bwahahaha yank poofters!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#6 Jun 28, 2013
Ozzie wrote:
<quoted text>Does it have anything to do with grabbing ankles? Bwahahaha yank poofters!
You like it THAT way?

No wonder you have a bitchy attitude, mate.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7 Jun 28, 2013
Dubya wrote:
Christie finally shows that he really is a republican. How sad; it must really suck to be a republican.
Christie is looking at the GOP primary in 2016. He has no choice but to oppose marriage equality if he wants a shot at winning the nomination.

He also knows the legislature will likely override his veto either this year or next, so then he can say he did everything he could and lay the blame (?) on the legislature.

He's a very smart politician.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8 Jun 28, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Christie is looking at the GOP primary in 2016. He has no choice but to oppose marriage equality if he wants a shot at winning the nomination.
He also knows the legislature will likely override his veto either this year or next, so then he can say he did everything he could and lay the blame (?) on the legislature.
He's a very smart politician.
Blaming activist judges didn't work so well for Mittens. The right hated him anyway for being too weak to stop it. And they were right: if the legislature had voted to confirm the 2004 amendment which included civil unions instead of trying to bar any recognition of same-sex couples, it would have been on the ballot in Massachusetts in 2006. Would there have been any realistic hope of beating back the constitutional amendment in 2006, when Massachusetts was the only state with same-sex marriage? California overturned same-sex marriage two years later.

The anti-gay in Massachusetts took a gambit when they should have finessed.
Ozzie

Perth, Australia

#9 Jun 28, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
You like it THAT way?
No wonder you have a bitchy attitude, mate.
Maybe It's because I am female "mate".

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#10 Jun 28, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Blaming activist judges didn't work so well for Mittens. The right hated him anyway for being too weak to stop it. And they were right: if the legislature had voted to confirm the 2004 amendment which included civil unions instead of trying to bar any recognition of same-sex couples, it would have been on the ballot in Massachusetts in 2006. Would there have been any realistic hope of beating back the constitutional amendment in 2006, when Massachusetts was the only state with same-sex marriage? California overturned same-sex marriage two years later.
The anti-gay in Massachusetts took a gambit when they should have finessed.
Agreed, but I think Christie took the only option available to him and still maintain a viability for the 2016 primary. Had he signed the marriage law he would have no chance at all, but by vetoing it and calling for a vote of the people, he played right along with the anti-gay GOP handbook.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#11 Jun 28, 2013
And don't forget there is a lawsuit still pending in New Jersey over equal rights for same-sex couples. Now that DOMA is gone, there is no was their High Court can do anything but rule that civil unions can't give the same rights & benefits of marriage.

Will the legislature hold off on an veto override attempt knowing such a ruling is almost certain to come from the courts?

Will the court wait to see if the legislature acts first?

It's another game of posturing and politics while New Jersey same-sex couples continue to be discriminated against.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#12 Jun 28, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed, but I think Christie took the only option available to him and still maintain a viability for the 2016 primary. Had he signed the marriage law he would have no chance at all, but by vetoing it and calling for a vote of the people, he played right along with the anti-gay GOP handbook.
Of course, the right wing is confident that we'll lose a ballot. I'm pretty confident at this point that we could win in a walk in New Jersey.

But I think the legislature is correct to avoid approving of a vote on people's rights. Still, it would be tempting to call the bluff.

And it would still suck for Christie if he called for a vote that resulted in SSM in New Jersey. That would actually hurt him worse than a veto override. He's counting on the Dems not to call his bluff.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#13 Jun 28, 2013
Ozzie wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe It's because I am female "mate".
Still a bloody uncomfortable position. Kinda puts the hotspots all out of reach like.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#14 Jun 28, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, the right wing is confident that we'll lose a ballot. I'm pretty confident at this point that we could win in a walk in New Jersey.
But I think the legislature is correct to avoid approving of a vote on people's rights. Still, it would be tempting to call the bluff.
And it would still suck for Christie if he called for a vote that resulted in SSM in New Jersey. That would actually hurt him worse than a veto override. He's counting on the Dems not to call his bluff.
In the end we probably won't get a vote of any kind, since the legislature will most likely wait for their Supreme Court to order them to allow same-sex couples to marry.

Now that DOMA is dead, there is no way civil unions can provide the same benefits as marriage- as required by the courts previous ruling- so it should be a pretty quick ruling.
Pete

London, KY

#15 Jul 2, 2013
GOD APPROVES SAME-SEX-MARRIAGE NOW!!!. He seems to be answering their prayers, with the big Supreme Court rulings and all, God won't answer us Straight guys. You know, I once asked God for a wife, 5 months later, He gave me a wh**e!. I do admit, I did used to blaspheme God a couple of years on down before this, but I stopped this. I figured this is why God raped me. If God didn't want to give me a wife, He sure as Hell didn't have to give me that rotten wh**e!!!. Because God foistered this evil upon me, my blaspheming Him came back with a vengence!!!. I lay it on old God now and I don't care if I do go burn forever, HAHAHHAHA!!!. I blaspheme God real good now. I do it more then ever and I am a might proud of that fact, HAHAHAHAHA!!!. GIVE ME ANOTHER WH**E GOD!!!!!!!!!.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#16 Jul 4, 2013
Umninimuzi wrote:
It's mean-spirited. Do the State representatives and senators of New Jersey not represent the people of New Jersey?
No one represents the people better than the people themselves.
Cristy wants it on the ballot. With polls showing greater than 60% support for gay marriage in NJ you have little to worry about with a ballot vote. Ballot votes don't always go the way of a poll though.

“We are all atheists”

Since: May 11

Rehoboth Beach, DE

#17 Jul 4, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
No one represents the people better than the people themselves.
Cristy wants it on the ballot. With polls showing greater than 60% support for gay marriage in NJ you have little to worry about with a ballot vote. Ballot votes don't always go the way of a poll though.
It's the principle. Our constitutional republic says that majority rules, but does not allow votes on persons' rights. So yes, maybe we would win at the ballot box, but this is not the type of issue that should ever be on a ballot.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#19 Jul 4, 2013
qwerty26 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the principle. Our constitutional republic says that majority rules, but does not allow votes on persons' rights. So yes, maybe we would win at the ballot box, but this is not the type of issue that should ever be on a ballot.
There is always a vote, that can't be avoided. Whether it's the people the legislators, the supreme court, there is always a vote.

In Massachusetts the legislators took the vote away from the people and voted gay marriage legal. Is this elected officials representing the people? No, it's a handful of people dictating to the people.

Section 1. No man shall marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, stepmother, grandfatherís wife, grandsonís wife, wifeís mother, wifeís grandmother, wifeís daughter, wifeís granddaughter, brotherís daughter, sisterís daughter, fatherís sister or motherís sister.

How did stepmother get in there? No blood there. Some stepmothers are as young as the children.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#20 Jul 4, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
..
In Massachusetts the legislators took the vote away from the people and voted gay marriage legal. Is this elected officials representing the people? No, it's a handful of people dictating to the people.
Section 1........
if "The people" vote away basic civil and human rights from "other people", then should certainly expect to be overruled.

Thanks goodness our system has protections for minorities in this sort of situation.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#21 Jul 4, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
There is always a vote, that can't be avoided. Whether it's the people the legislators, the supreme court, there is always a vote.
In Massachusetts the legislators took the vote away from the people and voted gay marriage legal. Is this elected officials representing the people? No, it's a handful of people dictating to the people.
Section 1. No man shall marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, stepmother, grandfatherís wife, grandsonís wife, wifeís mother, wifeís grandmother, wifeís daughter, wifeís granddaughter, brotherís daughter, sisterís daughter, fatherís sister or motherís sister.
How did stepmother get in there? No blood there. Some stepmothers are as young as the children.
We are SUPPOSED to elect the cream of the crop to exercise wisdom and be the voices of our better ideals. That is a Republican form of government.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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.

Lawrenceville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Were you a child psych student or intern in the... (Oct '15) Nov 13 wideyesbigforehead 4
Disability Doctor Nov 9 fibromyalgia suff... 1
amber sanders Oct 31 patricia erbetta 2
Review: Greenfield, Harold D DDS - Harold D Gre... (Apr '11) Oct 30 deman525 7
Are you're teens on lean?? Oct 27 three blocks 1
News After 3 decades, this N.J. leader won't be back... Oct '17 Nope 1
Looking for birth mom (Apr '17) Oct '17 Family 3

Lawrenceville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Lawrenceville Mortgages