New Jersey legislature will hold marriage equality veto override votes this session

Feb 22, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Daily Kos

A year ago, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie showed his true Republican colors and vetoed legislation that would have legalized same sex marriage, using a number of excuses including saying that something this important should be done by referendum, voted on by the people.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of33
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jan 12

New Port Richey, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Feb 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

if his fat ass rejected food the same way he rejects gays he might even look human

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Feb 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Good. I hope they make it happen.

Where the hell is DELAWARE?!?!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Feb 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

snyper wrote:
Good. I hope they make it happen.
Where the hell is DELAWARE?!?!
Delaware seems to be dragging their feet. They haven't even introduced the bills yet as far as I can tell. Considering their legislative session ends in May, they better get moving.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Feb 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Assuming DOMA is overturned, that should push enough legislators to vote for override because the civil unions law will no longer provide the equal rights it was supposed to.

If they can't get the votes, then they need to put it on the ballot in Nov and let the people do what the legislators don't have the courage to do.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Feb 23, 2013
 
I mean, does anyone really think it won't pass by popular vote?

Standing on principle is one thing; harming your constituents is another.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Feb 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

WeTheSheeple wrote:
Assuming DOMA is overturned, that should push enough legislators to vote for override because the civil unions law will no longer provide the equal rights it was supposed to.
If they can't get the votes, then they need to put it on the ballot in Nov and let the people do what the legislators don't have the courage to do.
I don't think something like this should ever be put to a referendum. If you do that, then who's to say you can't also put on teh ballot the same types of questins based on race, religion, national origin, etc. Where will it end ?

The legislators and\or the courts should decide this.

And when teh federal DOMA statute is overturned by SCOTUS, other states will have to legally recognize teh gay marriage sperformed in other states, whether their states permit it or not.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Feb 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think something like this should ever be put to a referendum. If you do that, then who's to say you can't also put on teh ballot the same types of questins based on race, religion, national origin, etc. Where will it end ?
The legislators and\or the courts should decide this.
And when teh federal DOMA statute is overturned by SCOTUS, other states will have to legally recognize teh gay marriage sperformed in other states, whether their states permit it or not.
So same-sex couples in New Jersey should be denied the right to marry just because they have cowards for representatives?

It ends when sames-sex couples can marry in every state; I don't care how that comes about, whether the courts or legislature or popular vote.

Only section 3 of DOMA will be overturned; states will still be able to deny recognition of married same-sex couples.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Feb 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

If they can't override fat-boy's veto, then the only option is to put it to a popular vote or wait another 4 years for a chance at equality.

Of course none of those legislators so worried about standing on principle will have to wait to get married, but at least they won't have to risk being voted out of office......

Cowards.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Feb 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
If they can't override fat-boy's veto, then the only option is to put it to a popular vote or wait another 4 years for a chance at equality.
Of course none of those legislators so worried about standing on principle will have to wait to get married, but at least they won't have to risk being voted out of office......
Cowards.
we still have te courts to override the governor and the legislature.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Feb 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
we still have te courts to override the governor and the legislature.
No reason to wait years for the courts to act when the people could simply vote for it in November. The courts will be plan B in case the vote should fail.
David Traversa

Federal, Argentina

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Feb 23, 2013
 
I've read somewhere he has a bad heart .. Let's hope the pig just peters off .. soon.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Feb 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No reason to wait years for the courts to act when the people could simply vote for it in November. The courts will be plan B in case the vote should fail.
Well, we agree on teh goal. Just not on the route to get there.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Feb 23, 2013
 
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, we agree on teh goal. Just not on the route to get there.
I see no reason to wait for years for the courts to act if the same can be accomplished through a popular vote sooner.

Polling consistently shows over 50% support for marriage equality, with the latest polls at 57%.

Try for a veto override, but if that fails let the people vote.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Feb 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I see no reason to wait for years for the courts to act if the same can be accomplished through a popular vote sooner.
Polling consistently shows over 50% support for marriage equality, with the latest polls at 57%.
Try for a veto override, but if that fails let the people vote.
Then what is to stop a vote at a later date from stripping away those rights thru a referndum ??

One of the reasons that we have a federal constitution, and state constitutions, is to PREVENT exactly what you are advocating, i.e putting fundamental RIGHTS to a popular vote.

You know at one time, some states prehibited, by law, Jews from voting. Would you like to put that to a popular vote ? And why not ? Although sexual orientation is an in-born indelible characteristic of a person that CANNOT be changed, one's religion is a wholly "chosen lifestyle" that one may change at any time for any reason.

"Just say you're a Christian, and we'll allow you to vote." Why not ?!

And I have personally known at least one Jew who converted to Christianity, and at least one Christian who converted to Judaism (And at least one Protestant who converted to Roman Catholicism). Religion is a wholly "chosen lifestyle".

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Feb 23, 2013
 
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what is to stop a vote at a later date from stripping away those rights thru a referndum ??
One of the reasons that we have a federal constitution, and state constitutions, is to PREVENT exactly what you are advocating, i.e putting fundamental RIGHTS to a popular vote.
You know at one time, some states prehibited, by law, Jews from voting. Would you like to put that to a popular vote ? And why not ? Although sexual orientation is an in-born indelible characteristic of a person that CANNOT be changed, one's religion is a wholly "chosen lifestyle" that one may change at any time for any reason.
"Just say you're a Christian, and we'll allow you to vote." Why not ?!
And I have personally known at least one Jew who converted to Christianity, and at least one Christian who converted to Judaism (And at least one Protestant who converted to Roman Catholicism). Religion is a wholly "chosen lifestyle".
Once a right has been granted it can't be taken away just from one specific group. That's why Prop 8 is being overturned.

There is absolutely no difference between the legislature voting on civil rights and a referendum vote by the people.

If you oppose majority votes on civil rights issues, then you must oppose legislatures voting on civil rights as well.

So that leaves us with only the courts, which means decades for equality.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Feb 23, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Once a right has been granted it can't be taken away just from one specific group. That's why Prop 8 is being overturned.
There is absolutely no difference between the legislature voting on civil rights and a referendum vote by the people.
If you oppose majority votes on civil rights issues, then you must oppose legislatures voting on civil rights as well.
So that leaves us with only the courts, which means decades for equality.
That's UNTRUE. Once a right has been "granted" (and btw, since RIGHTS come from Nature, or God, they are NOT "granted" by a government. The Rights in the U.S. Constitution are "protected". NOT "granted" by that great document. There's a BIG difference), they CAN, AND HAVE BEEN, taken away at a later date. EXAMPLE: long before women were graned a national right to vote, by amendment of the U.S. Constitution, certain states, ad other jurisdictions in the U.S. DID allow women to vote. In many cases, that "Right", for women to vote, was later taken away.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, cannot, and should not, be voted on by the electorate. This is one of the main reasons that the U.S. Constitution was written.

And remember at that time, only about 6% of the populace of the U.S. had the "RIGHT" to vote at that time. Even as late as 40 years after the U.S. Constitution was ratified, many states did NOT allow the average citizen to vote for electors for POTUS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_El...

(at the above link, see "Alternative methods of choosing electors")

For instance, in 1832, DECADES BEFORE the Civil War, citizens of South Carolina had NO RIGHT to vote for electors for POTUS. They couldn't vote for POTUS.

And there is NOTHING that will prevent a state now, from taking away the right of teh average citizen to vote for electors for POTUS, if the legislature chooses to take away that right.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Feb 23, 2013
 
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what is to stop a vote at a later date from stripping away those rights thru a referndum ??
One of the reasons that we have a federal constitution, and state constitutions, is to PREVENT exactly what you are advocating, i.e putting fundamental RIGHTS to a popular vote.
You know at one time, some states prehibited, by law, Jews from voting. Would you like to put that to a popular vote ? And why not ? Although sexual orientation is an in-born indelible characteristic of a person that CANNOT be changed, one's religion is a wholly "chosen lifestyle" that one may change at any time for any reason.
"Just say you're a Christian, and we'll allow you to vote." Why not ?!
And I have personally known at least one Jew who converted to Christianity, and at least one Christian who converted to Judaism (And at least one Protestant who converted to Roman Catholicism). Religion is a wholly "chosen lifestyle".
(ooh! ouch! this hurts!)

I agree with you.

(ow,ow,ow,ow!)

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Feb 23, 2013
 
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
(ooh! ouch! this hurts!)
I agree with you.
(ow,ow,ow,ow!)
Well, that's what YOU get for being UN-Fair. And UN-Balanced.

:)

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Feb 23, 2013
 
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's UNTRUE. Once a right has been "granted" (and btw, since RIGHTS come from Nature, or God, they are NOT "granted" by a government. The Rights in the U.S. Constitution are "protected". NOT "granted" by that great document. There's a BIG difference), they CAN, AND HAVE BEEN, taken away at a later date. EXAMPLE: long before women were graned a national right to vote, by amendment of the U.S. Constitution, certain states, ad other jurisdictions in the U.S. DID allow women to vote. In many cases, that "Right", for women to vote, was later taken away.
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, cannot, and should not, be voted on by the electorate. This is one of the main reasons that the U.S. Constitution was written.
And remember at that time, only about 6% of the populace of the U.S. had the "RIGHT" to vote at that time. Even as late as 40 years after the U.S. Constitution was ratified, many states did NOT allow the average citizen to vote for electors for POTUS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_El...
(at the above link, see "Alternative methods of choosing electors")
For instance, in 1832, DECADES BEFORE the Civil War, citizens of South Carolina had NO RIGHT to vote for electors for POTUS. They couldn't vote for POTUS.
And there is NOTHING that will prevent a state now, from taking away the right of teh average citizen to vote for electors for POTUS, if the legislature chooses to take away that right.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ (mostly off topic & boring) ZZZZZZZZZ

Believe what you want you moron.

There is no difference between the legislature voting for marriage equality or the people voting.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Feb 23, 2013
 
I agree equal fundamental rights should never depend on any vote. This is after all, supposed to be self evident.

We need to reaffirm that principal, while voting for equality if that is the only available or even the best route. We also should consider a law like the one DC has, that prevents the denial of equal or human rights by popular vote. You can vote on a law that would require equal treatment, but you can't vote on one that would take human or equal rights away.

Voting for equal rights, is different than voting to take them away.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of33
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••