N.J. Gov. Christie vetoes gay marriag...

N.J. Gov. Christie vetoes gay marriage bill as vowed

There are 2425 comments on the USA Today story from Feb 17, 2012, titled N.J. Gov. Christie vetoes gay marriage bill as vowed. In it, USA Today reports that:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has quickly vetoed a bill that would have allowed same-sex marriage in the state.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at USA Today.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#793 Mar 5, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm saying it COULD be about us now......just by changing from race to gender.....same arguments do apply!!!
Actually,'gender' was the center of Baker v Nelson...

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#794 Mar 5, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually,'gender' was the center of Baker v Nelson...
Not discussing Baker vs Nelson ANYMORE......it doesn't apply at ANY STATE LEVEL ARGUMENT and it DOESN'T apply in the Perry Case.

God, your dense!!!

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#795 Mar 5, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not discussing Baker vs Nelson ANYMORE......it doesn't apply at ANY STATE LEVEL ARGUMENT and it DOESN'T apply in the Perry Case.
God, your dense!!!
Okay, don't get mad...

I looked up the Mass one your referenced. If I'm not mistaken are you saying they are basing it off of the fact that 'civil unions' are inferior to marriage????

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#796 Mar 5, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, don't get mad...
I looked up the Mass one your referenced. If I'm not mistaken are you saying they are basing it off of the fact that 'civil unions' are inferior to marriage????
Civil Unions ARE inferior to Marriage in SO MANY WAYS!!!

“Commander & Chef”

Since: Sep 11

Saint Marys, GA

#797 Mar 5, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
But your prior statements, and this question, imply that there isn't a connection.
I invite you to list what you feel the underlying principles were present, discussed and employed in the Loving v Va decision.
The similarities lay there.
(here there be dragons)
I just reread Loving v Virginia. It is available on Justia at http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/38...

I found no mention of SSM or any element thereof.

I would be interested to learn where you think Loving is relevant to SSM. Remember, Baker v Nelson is more recent.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#798 Mar 5, 2012
LonePalm wrote:
I just reread Loving v Virginia. It is available on Justia at http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/38...
I found no mention of SSM or any element thereof.
I would be interested to learn where you think Loving is relevant to SSM. Remember, Baker v Nelson is more recent.
Loving also makes no mention whatsoever of deadbeat parents nor convicted felons, but the right of the individual to marry and the level of scrutiny demanded by its denial established by that decision was carried over to those suspect classifications, now wasn't it? Yes, the Minnesota Supreme Court found that their state's prohibition of same sex marriage didn't violate the individual's right to marry, as per Loving and by extension, the SCOTUS agreed with them through their summary dismissal of the appeal in the Baker case, citing a lack of a significant federal question. But since then, no states courts which has subjected the question of the individual's right to marry (when it came to someone of their same sex), to the same strict scrutiny demanded by Loving have agreed with Baker.

When the Lovings went before the Supremes they had a precedent standing in their way too. In Pace v Alabama, the SCOTUS had ruled that anti-miscegenation laws in no way violated the equal protection clause, because, in theory at least, they were equally applied.

Baker's ability to stand in the way of the right of the individual to marry someone of their same sex, basically came to an end when the Hawaii Supreme Court made their ruling in Baehr. The only reason that we're even still talking about it, is that there has yet to be a case before the SCOTUS to say the last rites over it. The case heading to trial in New Jersey may very well be bringing it's well deserved death certificate in about 4-5 years, if someone else doesn't beat them to it.

“Commander & Chef”

Since: Sep 11

Saint Marys, GA

#799 Mar 5, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Baker's ability to stand in the way of the right of the individual to marry someone of their same sex, basically came to an end when the Hawaii Supreme Court made their ruling in Baehr. The only reason that we're even still talking about it, is that there has yet to be a case before the SCOTUS to say the last rites over it. The case heading to trial in New Jersey may very well be bringing it's well deserved death certificate in about 4-5 years, if someone else doesn't beat them to it.
Baker does not stand in the way of SS couples marrying. They have that now in several states. It does stand in the way of anyone claiming that OSM laws are unconstitutional.

Your only lasting success in this matter will be found through the political process.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#800 Mar 5, 2012
In 1967, most gays did not even consider the possibility of legal marriage, probably because we were still trying not to get arrested, fired, evicted, or killed just for being who they were. Being openly gay was a rare thing in and of itself, much less demanding the right to have a legal marriage. LvV wasn't important then; we had bigger issues to pursue.

Now, when we have finally progressed to the point of having our basic rights recognized, we are better positioned to strive for full legal equality. LvV has finally become relevant to us.
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
So, even though homosexuals knew back then that this was not about them, you all are trying to say it's about you now???

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#801 Mar 6, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
In 1967, most gays did not even consider the possibility of legal marriage, probably because we were still trying not to get arrested, fired, evicted, or killed just for being who they were. Being openly gay was a rare thing in and of itself, much less demanding the right to have a legal marriage. LvV wasn't important then; we had bigger issues to pursue.
Now, when we have finally progressed to the point of having our basic rights recognized, we are better positioned to strive for full legal equality. LvV has finally become relevant to us.
<quoted text>
So, we didn't know as a nation that gays existed, is that the latest excuse you are offering up???

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#802 Mar 6, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
Civil Unions ARE inferior to Marriage in SO MANY WAYS!!!
I get it, so that is why you think NJ will be overturned in the court there?

Now don't get mad...

But Christians were agains civil unions as well, as we shouted from the rooftops this was a stepping stone to ssm. You all denied that (satan's lies) and that is the very reason you all are trying to use it now. Interesting to me....

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#803 Mar 6, 2012
AS a nation, you vilified, criminalized, and ostracized us. Many people in fact had no idea what a gay person was because few people talked about us. For many of my generation, we figured out that we were gay before we knew the word for it.

I'm guessing you are 30 or younger; you have so little idea of what it was like before the 70's.
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
So, we didn't know as a nation that gays existed, is that the latest excuse you are offering up???

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#804 Mar 6, 2012
Most of the states with SSM did not have civil unions. Civil unions in fact were brought about as an appeasement, to try to get us to forget about legal marriage.
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
I get it, so that is why you think NJ will be overturned in the court there?
Now don't get mad...
But Christians were agains civil unions as well, as we shouted from the rooftops this was a stepping stone to ssm. You all denied that (satan's lies) and that is the very reason you all are trying to use it now. Interesting to me....
reality

Miamisburg, OH

#805 Mar 6, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
In 1967, most gays did not even consider the possibility of legal marriage, probably because we were still trying not to get arrested, fired, evicted, or killed just for being who they were. Being openly gay was a rare thing in and of itself, much less demanding the right to have a legal marriage.
<quoted text>
But look at what has happened to our nation and a lot of the world since the 50's and 60's.
Rampant moral decay had taken hold and is virtually everywhere.
And a lot of it started with 60's gay freakazoidz having nothing better to do but disturb NORMAL PEOPLE by coming "out of the closet".

If you want to, have same sex unions 'till the cows come home. They're NOT marriages, at least not in the eyes of anyone who possesses common sense.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#806 Mar 6, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Most of the states with SSM did not have civil unions. Civil unions in fact were brought about as an appeasement, to try to get us to forget about legal marriage.
<quoted text>
Which you all accepted....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#807 Mar 6, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
AS a nation, you vilified, criminalized, and ostracized us. Many people in fact had no idea what a gay person was because few people talked about us. For many of my generation, we figured out that we were gay before we knew the word for it.
I'm guessing you are 30 or younger; you have so little idea of what it was like before the 70's.
<quoted text>
You would be wrong, and trust me, we knew who was gay in our neighborhood.....

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#808 Mar 6, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
So, we didn't know as a nation that gays existed, is that the latest excuse you are offering up???
No, that's not what cpeter said......what he said was that there were another more important issues to deal with........do you seriously have reading comprehension issues?

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#809 Mar 6, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
I get it, so that is why you think NJ will be overturned in the court there?
Now don't get mad...
But Christians were agains civil unions as well, as we shouted from the rooftops this was a stepping stone to ssm. You all denied that (satan's lies) and that is the very reason you all are trying to use it now. Interesting to me....
Out of ALL of the States that have Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships.....New Jersey was the ONLY state to assign to a Commission to do a study or reality check on exactly how Civil Unions worked and were they truly equal to marriage, as they were billed to be......the Commission found that NO Civil Unions are NOT EQUAL to marriage in many ways......so, if this current lawsuit does win......it will be inline with what the Commission already showed, and the people who have them testified in the public hearings as to the differences as well.

Are Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships stepping stones to full marriage equality? Well, so far they have been.......but only because of the lies that have been perpetrated by those who oppose Full Marriage Equality and try to give something that they know is not the same. In other words, let's throw the Gays and Lesbians some small morsels and it will keep them quiet.....but that simply ISN'T working!!!

The bottom line is this.....NO MATTER IF THE RIGHTS, BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES are the same as marriage, even if they were recognized in all 50 states and the federal government.....there still would be ONE MAJOR DIFFERENCE and that difference would make the two SEPARATE BUT EQUAL......and that is the word or title of "MARRIAGE".....it's universal across languages.....no explanation is needed......if you say you're married.....everyone knows EXACTLY what that means, not true with a Civil Union or Domestic Partnership.

THAT DIFFERENCE IS HUGE!!!

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#810 Mar 6, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
So, we didn't know as a nation that gays existed, is that the latest excuse you are offering up???
Don't you know how to read? That's not what he is saying! Of course people knew that gays existed, but it was far less accepted in the 60s and most gays kept their homosexuality hidden for fear of derision (and worse) from society.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#811 Mar 6, 2012
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you know how to read? That's not what he is saying! Of course people knew that gays existed, but it was far less accepted in the 60s and most gays kept their homosexuality hidden for fear of derision (and worse) from society.
Well, the law wasn't based on the popularity of homosexuality, merely the sexes of the participants. I have to tell you, the latter makes more sense to me, as you all don't seem to understand this law isn't just for ss homosexual couples, but ss heterosexual couples as well.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#812 Mar 6, 2012
The 60's? Twit, the 60's was about the HETERO sexual revolution. Gays were still in the closet. If you are "disturbed" by people who aren't exactly like you--grow the fu** up, princess.
reality wrote:
<quoted text>
But look at what has happened to our nation and a lot of the world since the 50's and 60's.
Rampant moral decay had taken hold and is virtually everywhere.
And a lot of it started with 60's gay freakazoidz having nothing better to do but disturb NORMAL PEOPLE by coming "out of the closet".
If you want to, have same sex unions 'till the cows come home. They're NOT marriages, at least not in the eyes of anyone who possesses common sense.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Priests and nuns hold bizarre ceremony to 'puri... 13 min Spotted Girl 54
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 13 min Rosa_Winkel 18,525
News 10 Reasons Why You Should Help Fight Biphobia i... 1 hr Xstain Mullah Fra... 64
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Andy 40,551
News Moore goes before ethics panel on gay marriage ... 2 hr DebraE 3
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 3 hr Frankie Rizzo 68,993
News Eastern Kentucky holds first Pride Festival 4 hr Rose_NoHo 102
More from around the web