Poll: NJ residents oppose gay marriage

A Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday shows New Jersey voters narrowly oppose legalizing gay marriage by a 49 to 46 margin.

[Kyra]

I still don't see why it matters. If all these people opposed to same-sex marriage are not willing to give up their OWN marriage rights, they can just suck it up, the selfish, careless, privileged jerks.

[GM in PHX]

The original press release, found the school's Web site, says that the margin of error is +/- 2.4 percent. That makes the 49-46 results statistically a tie. This poll does not indicate a majority one way or the other. Maybe some day, someone in the media will take a stats class so these sorts of reports can be made accurately.

[Dubya]

Does it really matter what any poll says when it comes to civil rights? Legislaters need to get a spine (or a pair of balls) and pass legislation that gives equal rights to all before the court mandates arrive. Perhaps there should be a poll of gays on whether heterosexual marriages should be legal. It wouldn't really matter either, would it?

[BS Detector]

Dubya wrote:

Does it really matter what any poll says when it comes to civil rights? Legislaters need to get a spine (or a pair of balls) and pass legislation that gives equal rights to all before the court mandates arrive. Perhaps there should be a poll of gays on whether heterosexual marriages should be legal. It wouldn't really matter either, would it?

Yes, it matters. You see, the people elected to represent the people who elected them are expected to represent the wishes of those people who elected them.(That's how a representative form of government works.. if those legislators want to get re-elected.)

Gays are not exactly a huge or powerful voting block. When people are more concerned about being able to pay their bills, caving in to your tantrums is not exactly high on their priority list.

So when you pout that legislators should "get... a pair," you might better be advised to *get a clue.* In the larger scheme of things, you just are not that important.

[Roisia]

BS Detector wrote:

<quoted text>Yes, it matters. You see, the people elected to represent the people who elected them are expected to represent the wishes of those people who elected them.(That's how a representative form of government works.. if those legislators want to get re-elected.)
Gays are not exactly a huge or powerful voting block. When people are more concerned about being able to pay their bills, caving in to your tantrums is not exactly high on their priority list.
So when you pout that legislators should "get... a pair," you might better be advised to *get a clue.* In the larger scheme of things, you just are not that important.

So its ok to vote on peoples rights?.... I mean other than the majority because well no way in hell the majority will take away their rights after all.

[nhjeff]

BS Detector wrote:

<quoted text>Yes, it matters. You see, the people elected to represent the people who elected them are expected to represent the wishes of those people who elected them.(That's how a representative form of government works.. if those legislators want to get re-elected.)

Actually, politicians are elected to represent the best interests of their constituents, not the consensus of their constituents on any given issue.

When they go against the electorate's consensus too often, they will lose their seat. It's common, however, for the majority to understand that the politician truly did what he thought best even when it differs with overall public opinion.

I think marriage equality is this type of issue: Put to an up or down vote, many would vote against it who would not vote against a pole just be cause he or she voted for it.

[Gryph]

So when and where can I vote on if the straight people can stay married after the sham they make of "traditional marriage" and all the other things granted to them, just because they are straight.

[BS Detector]

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, politicians are elected to represent the best interests of their constituents, not the consensus of their constituents on any given issue.
When they go against the electorate's consensus too often, they will lose their seat. It's common, however, for the majority to understand that the politician truly did what he thought best even when it differs with overall public opinion.
I think marriage equality is this type of issue: Put to an up or down vote, many would vote against it who would not vote against a pole just be cause he or she voted for it.

Since you have a vested interest in this matter, it's not like you can be expected to have an objective opinion. In the larger scheme of things (like the economy, or the war), this is simply not an important issue.

[BS Detector]

Roisia wrote:

<quoted text>
So its ok to vote on peoples rights?.... I mean other than the majority because well no way in hell the majority will take away their rights after all.

Do you know the proceedure for ammending the US Constitution? And do you recall how the so-called "Equal Rights Amendment" failed?

And to answer your question, that's the system we have. Don't like it? Change it. That's what liberals do. When they don't like the Constitution that we have, they claim that it doesn't really mean what it means or what the men who wrote it meant for it to mean.

And for rebuttal, do you believe imaginary rights should be artificially fabricated by tantrum?

[Joe in Novato]

NJ opposed is only 49%??? That is a first that I can recall where those opposed to marriage equality are below 50%... In California, we lost to Prop H8ers by just slightly over 50%, and Maine was the same.

We ARE making progress one percentage point at a time!

[Roisia]

BS Detector wrote:

<quoted text>Do you know the proceedure for ammending the US Constitution? And do you recall how the so-called "Equal Rights Amendment" failed?
And to answer your question, that's the system we have. Don't like it? Change it. That's what liberals do. When they don't like the Constitution that we have, they claim that it doesn't really mean what it means or what the men who wrote it meant for it to mean.
And for rebuttal, do you believe imaginary rights should be artificially fabricated by tantrum?

Well since im not a liberal i guess i should just get used to bending over and taking it because if we let the majority vote I will never be seen as an equal.
And last time i checked the wrote the constitution to PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE not to allow them to vote on who deserves rights and who doesnt.

[Roisia]

BS Detector wrote:

<quoted text>Do you know the proceedure for ammending the US Constitution? And do you recall how the so-called "Equal Rights Amendment" failed?
And to answer your question, that's the system we have. Don't like it? Change it. That's what liberals do. When they don't like the Constitution that we have, they claim that it doesn't really mean what it means or what the men who wrote it meant for it to mean.
And for rebuttal, do you believe imaginary rights should be artificially fabricated by tantrum?

What imagined rights? You mean Equality. The right not to be fired because im trans? The right to be comfortable with who i am and live life the way i want if it doesnt harm others? You see if people are allowed to vote on it. They would make what I am Illegal and then i would have to live a miserable life because the majority thinks im a pervert when the truth is im so conservitive I wont even watch sex scenes in movies.

[BS Detector]

Roisia wrote:

<quoted text>
What imagined rights? You mean Equality. The right not to be fired because im trans? The right to be comfortable with who i am and live life the way i want if it doesnt harm others? You see if people are allowed to vote on it. They would make what I am Illegal and then i would have to live a miserable life because the majority thinks im a pervert when the truth is im so conservitive I wont even watch sex scenes in movies.

I'm sorry. I really am. But you're not the same as normal people. It may not be fair, but you're just not.

There is no "right to be comfortable." There is no right to be free of misery. No court in the world can chage that.

[BS Detector]

Gryph wrote:

So when and where can I vote on if the straight people can stay married after the sham they make of "traditional marriage" and all the other things granted to them, just because they are straight.

You can vote right now for all anybody cares. You'll lose and again, nobody will care.
Do you see a pettern yet?

[Roisia]

BS Detector wrote:

<quoted text>I'm sorry. I really am. But you're not the same as normal people. It may not be fair, but you're just not.
There is no "right to be comfortable." There is no right to be free of misery. No court in the world can chage that.

There is a right to libertu. Well unless your gay or trans it seems. Your right im less then normal people. If someone did to normal people what they did to me they would be condemned if not more. But since im not a normal person i have not right to it.

Since im not a normal person my murderer can get a lesser sentence. Since im not a normal person its all but ok to attack me.
Since im not a normal person its ok to treat me as less than human
Since im not a normal person I have no right to be happy. Because what makes me happy is different.
Since im not a normal person People can vote my rights away.

[BS Detector]

Roisia wrote:

<quoted text>
There is a right to libertu. Well unless your gay or trans it seems. Your right im less then normal people. If someone did to normal people what they did to me they would be condemned if not more. But since im not a normal person i have not right to it.
Since im not a normal person my murderer can get a lesser sentence. Since im not a normal person its all but ok to attack me.
Since im not a normal person its ok to treat me as less than human
Since im not a normal person I have no right to be happy. Because what makes me happy is different.
Since im not a normal person People can vote my rights away.

Feel better after that? Sure, you're bitter, but that doesn't change anything. If it's more comfortable for you to believe that stuff you just wrote, that's up to you. It's crap, of course, but if that's how you you need to channel your anger and bitterness, so be it.

[Roisia]

BS Detector wrote:

<quoted text>Feel better after that? Sure, you're bitter, but that doesn't change anything. If it's more comfortable for you to believe that stuff you just wrote, that's up to you. It's crap, of course, but if that's how you you need to channel your anger and bitterness, so be it.

Believe I live it. Tell me? How come no murderer of a transexual was ever found guilty of first degree murder between (and i'll be easy on the timeframe) 1980 and last year.

Tell me you yourself say im not normal and because of that i dont deserve the same rights as you. Is that not treating me as a human.

You yourself say that we should be able to vote on rights. Which means that you can vote my rights away. In fact Transgender people have less rights today than we did in the 1970's

Bitter, yes. I treat people i meet in my life with respect I get treated as if i was a disgusting creature.

[Dubya]

BS Detector wrote:

<quoted text>Yes, it matters. You see, the people elected to represent the people who elected them are expected to represent the wishes of those people who elected them.(That's how a representative form of government works.. if those legislators want to get re-elected.)
Gays are not exactly a huge or powerful voting block. When people are more concerned about being able to pay their bills, caving in to your tantrums is not exactly high on their priority list.
So when you pout that legislators should "get... a pair," you might better be advised to *get a clue.* In the larger scheme of things, you just are not that important.

Well, let's let the good people of the deep south vote on whether to retain civil rights for their black populations. Then we can vote on voting rights, welfare payments, and, while we're at it, curriculum in public schools (you know, no more Darwin crap). Any why stop there, let's vote whether legal immigrants can stay, Paris Hilton can dye her hair, or George H.W. Bush can keep his pension. Where does it end? The fact is that more energy is expended in trying to defeat same sex marriage than in trying to get it passed, which it eventually will when the dinosaurs die off.

The point is, certain rights are not up for sale. The fact that there are so many bigots in the U.S. has made cowards of most of our politicians and some judges.

[BS Detector]

Dubya wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, let's let the good people of the deep south vote on whether to retain civil rights for their black populations. Then we can vote on voting rights, welfare payments, and, while we're at it, curriculum in public schools (you know, no more Darwin crap). Any why stop there, let's vote whether legal immigrants can stay, Paris Hilton can dye her hair, or George H.W. Bush can keep his pension. Where does it end? The fact is that more energy is expended in trying to defeat same sex marriage than in trying to get it passed, which it eventually will when the dinosaurs die off.
The point is, certain rights are not up for sale. The fact that there are so many bigots in the U.S. has made cowards of most of our politicians and some judges.

And some things aren't rights no matter how many tantrums you throw or how many times you claim them to be so.

[BS Detector]

Roisia wrote:

<quoted text>
Believe I live it. Tell me? How come no murderer of a transexual was ever found guilty of first degree murder between (and i'll be easy on the timeframe) 1980 and last year.
Tell me you yourself say im not normal and because of that i dont deserve the same rights as you. Is that not treating me as a human.
You yourself say that we should be able to vote on rights. Which means that you can vote my rights away. In fact Transgender people have less rights today than we did in the 1970's
Bitter, yes. I treat people i meet in my life with respect I get treated as if i was a disgusting creature.

What you're going through is beyond what I'm qualified or comfortable to advise about or reasonably discuss. Respecfully, therefore, I'll decline to continue this dialogue and wish you the best.