E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSTRENTON, New Jersey - In a move that supporters called a civil rights milestone, New Jersey's state Senate on Monday passed a bill to recognize same-sex marriages, marking the first time state lawmakers officially endorsed the idea — despite the promise of a veto by Gov. Chris Christie.
Monday's vote was 24-16 in favor of the bill, a major swing from January 2010, when the Senate rejected it 20-14.
"It means the world isn't changing, it means the world has already changed," Steven Goldstein, chairman of the gay rights group Garden State Equality said after the vote. "So wake up and smell the equality."
Before the vote, Marsha Shapiro squeezed the hand of her longtime partner Louise Walpin, and reflected on how a body that rejected gay marriage two years ago was about to change its stance.
"The pride will overpower the sorrow," she said.
Wash. governor signs gay marriage bill into law
But opponents say it's "an exercise in futility" even if the Assembly passes the bill Thursday as expected, given Christie's veto vow.
Len Deo, president of New Jersey Family Policy Council, called the vote "something we have to go through" and said it would be made moot with a veto.
While New Jersey differs from most states in that it has no law or state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, neither its court nor lawmakers have allowed gay nuptials. Seven states and Washington, D.C., allow gay marriage. Washington state joined the list Monday when Gov. Christine Gregoire signed a same-sex marriage law.
In 2006, the New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled that the state had to give the legal protections of marriage to committed gay and lesbian couples, but that it need not call those protections marriage.
Lawmakers responded by creating civil unions rather than marriage.
Gay rights advocates say civil unions have not provided true equality. They complain that they set up a separate and inherently unequal classification for gays — something social conservatives dispute.
Seven gay couples, along with several of their children, filed a lawsuit last year to try to get the court to order gay nuptials be allowed.
In the meantime, Democratic leaders in the Legislature are trying to do the same thing by passing a law.
When the Senate last voted on gay marriage two years ago, just before Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat who supported the measure, left office, several last-minute defections killed the bill. With the arrival of Republican Gov. Chris Christie, who spoke against gay marriage when asked about it during his campaign, advocates' hopes dimmed.
But the bill returned this year after Senate President Stephen Sweeney, a Democrat from Deptford, declared that it was a mistake for him to abstain on the 2010 bill. He vowed to make legalizing gay marriage a priority this year.
Christie last month said he'd veto the legislation if it passed. Christie said that such a fundamental change should be up to a vote of the people, and he has called for a referendum on the issue.
Democratic leaders say they will not allow a vote, arguing that a majority of the people should not be entrusted with deciding whether to protect a minority.
Instead, gay-rights supporters are hopeful that they can get enough lawmakers on their side to override Christie's expected veto.
It would take two-thirds of both chambers of the Legislature and would have to happen by the time the current legislative session ends in January 2014.
Sweeney said he knows which senators he'll try to persuade but won't name them publicly.
Sen. Raymond Lesniak, a Democrat from Elizabeth, said that if all lawmakers voted their conscience and didn't cave to political pressure, there would be enough Senate votes now to override a veto. And he said that some lawmakers could switch positions, partly because of the influence of gay friends or family. "You never know who's going to forward — a daughter, a son, a neighbor of significant meaning of a senator or assemblyperson — and change a mind," he said.
Two Democrats voted no and two Republicans voted yes in what was otherwise a party-line vote.
"It is my opinion that our republic was established to guarantee liberty to all people," said Jennifer Beck, a Republican from Red Bank who voted yes. "It is our role to protect all of the people who live in our state."
Sen. Gerald Cardinale, a Republican from Demarest, was the only senator to speak against the bill, saying allowing gays to marry goes against nature and history. "This bill simply panders to well-financed pressure groups and is not in the public interest," he said.
A majority of New Jersey voters say same-sex marriage should be decided by popular referendum - something Republican Governor Chris Christie has suggested, but Democratic leaders have pointedly refused to do - a poll released on Tuesday said.
Fifty-four percent of New Jersey voters said same-sex couples should be allowed to wed. By about the same margin, voters also thought the issue should be placed on a ballot, according to a survey by the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling at Rutgers University.
New Jersey's Democratic leadership, which controls both houses of the legislature, has made gay marriage a top priority this session, saying the state's civil union law does not adequately protect same-sex couples.
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News
Leave a Comment:
Hope they can overcome the veto. And it should not go to public vote as it is a rights issue.
Also, I have not been able to find the answer to this question anywhere. If you need 2/3 to overcome a veto and there are forty seats, do you need 26 or 27 votes to overcome the veto?
26, and I don't think they have the vote to override the veto. Christie needs to learn from the State of Washington.
What would snooki and the situation say? How would they advise Gov Christie veto this or agree with my libertarian view {yo whatever}.
Generally, I agree that rights issues should NOT be left to a majority. If we left black rights up to majority rule in the southern states and maintained a purely libertarian government, southern black people would still be second class citizens. So would all kinds of other minorities. Sometimes a 'activist government' is a good thing.
However, it would really be epic if old smartie pants Chris Christie put this to referendum and it WON. It would be a huge, embarrassing defeat for the social conservatives that have for so long arrogantly claimed that they are the majority. The 'silent majority'. HA.
I think that kind of victory might even be worth gambling for, but I would defer that decision to the fine people in question, the LGBT community of New Jersey.
We're a Constitutional Republic, it is a travesty that this issue has ever been voted on. Thank God, some places have voted for equality and equal protection, but in general, this is purely a matter of civil rights.
Whatever happened to GOP's "less government'?
Governor Krispy Creme, keep your stupid religious beliefs out of people's lives.
Christie will always be on the wrong side. He doesn't listen to his constituents or others; it's all about him. lol good luck being 2nd on the GOP ticket, with noose around your neck.
Buh-Bye Christie. You and your fellow troglodytes are a dying breed (fortunately for equality)! We will gladly watch your kind being rendered obsolete.
Why is so hard to understand
Marriage = Man + Woman
Civil Union = Man + Man or Woman + Woman
Pretend to change definitions is like to call orange to an apple. Man and woman are to diffrent sex and their sexual relationship are different, so why to insist , Cristy is right.
Another step forward in the LGBT/liberal agenda for world domination -- MUUUWWWWHAHAHAHA!!!!
Why must marriage be between a man and a woman? If the government grants rights with a marriage, every citizen should have those rights available to them, whether they are gay or straight.
This has nothing to do with religion. Religious institutions have the right to say what they want on their feelings about homosexuality. Don't like it? That's fine, you don't have to. Your church doesn't have to marry gay people if they don't want.
But marriage is not something that is granted by the church. It is granted by the state, by the government. If you get married in a church, you still need to get a marriage certificate from the government. And the government cannot show preference to one group of people over another.
And don't give me the "they have the right to get married to someone of the opposite gender." That's just crap. I have the right to marry someone I love... or someone I hate. I'm straight. I can just pick up a guy off the street if I want, go to Vegas, and get married instantly. So this has nothing to do with the sanctity of marriage.
Everyone should have the right to get married to anyone they want, as long as it is an adult capable of giving consent.
@redvirginia
I think that marriage should be a religious union only i.e. government should not be involved in it at all. IRS should not be giving special privileges to "married" people while denying the same to others.
You want to get married? Go to church or whatever and get married. You shouldn't have to register it with the county or state.
redvirginia - why is it so hard to understand that government-recognized, civil marriage, and church-sanctioned "holy matrimony" are two separate things?
You can get either one without the other. Is there any factual dispute about that?
Churches grant recognition of the sacredness of a marriage, using their own definitions of sacredness - and not every church uses the same definition. Government has no place in that process.
The government grants to partners in a civil marriage, civil rights and obligations and privileges, like joint tax filing, automatic power of attorney, inheritance rights, and about a thousand others. No church even has the authority to grant these things. Again, is there any factual dispute about this?
Christie can't get elected for Presidential nominee by red-faced radicals in his party if he doesn't veto this. Its a sad state of affairs.
Generally, I approve of him. But he is a giant dope for saying he will veto this.
At least the veto will make him say he is a moron on this issue.
Why is it I always have to pick between the person who makes fiscally smart decisions (usually Republicans) and those that have at least half a brain on moral issues (Democrats)? Apparently a moderate is an anathema for being a fiscal conservative and non-social moron!
Because you have to be stupid about something, therefore, moderates never make it....
Red,
You're the one changing definitions. You're changing marriage into Holy Matrimony. Marriage is a contractual property agreement, predating organized religion. It had nothing to do with man + woman, until we went out of our way to specify. It began as Father (in possession of daughter) + Man (in possesion of aligned interests with Father). Then, when women were no longer property it became, Legal adult with capacity + legal adult with capacity.
Holy Matrimize(???) all you want in your church. Marriage is a legal issue.
I'll second that! I have the same problem. It's hard to find a candidate that is a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.
Cirnobyl,
It *would* be hilarious if the referendum passed homosexual marriage, but churches love to flood the campaigns.
Magnolia and Derek - I tend to be more liberal, but I totally agree with you both about the politicians only going for the vote of very left or very right. No moderate. I wouldn't have voted for him, but I think John McCain would have been OK if he had stuck with his ideals and not tried focusing only on the conservative votes. I really believe that if there was a candidate that was a true moderate and didn't try to change his beliefs to appeal to just one side, that person would win the election. I don't understand how our country became so divided. Why can't a conservative have a liberal viewpoint on some issues (or visa versa) without the far right (or left) crying that he is agreeing with the "enemy"?
I think a moderate does win the general election. The problem is do they make it to the general election? And if they do, do they have to fool people to get there by pretending to be a radical?
Part of the problem is districting and you won't get Democrats or Republicans to retreat on that. When you decide you don't want voting districts with mixed voters, you get insane districts, and then elections decided only by Ohio and Florida.
So if you want a voice in politics, you have to move to the few districts in Ohio and Florida that are battleground districts. Then you might get your voice heard. Meanwhile, moderates have to be held hostage to this nonsense way of voting.
So... Christie says he will veto. Yet 54% of voters agree with gay marriages, and it was voted on by a majority in the NJ legislature? In other words, Christie is stalling. Knowing he's going to lose, he's going to veto "just because" he can? If he wants a vote, yet he knows that a majority wants to allow marriage equality? This doesn't make sense. Of course, when have any politicians made sense?
They just Voted their souls into Hell as God has final vote and it is a sin God says -so May he have Mercy on your souls-
Which god? There are over 300 million gods worshipped throughout the world (this includes Hindus). Which one is this correct god you speak of?
" ... it is a sin God says ... "
What? When? How did I miss that. Did he say that on Bill's or Sean's show? Damn, how did I miss it.
We all know that it can't be true if it wasn't on Fox News.
God is imaginary. Hell is imaginary. Souls are imaginary. Gay people, to the great chagrin of bigots, are very much real.
What else ya got? :P
" ... as God has final vote ... "
Huh, how can that be? Seeing how as you just condemned them yourself. With this ...
" ... They just Voted their souls into Hell ... "
So are you God? Or do you just speak for him? And if you do speak for him, does he know that you do? Because if not, boy is he going to be pissed off at you for doing it.
Take you Bible, you hate and your hateful God and go away.
Considering the word SOUL means TO RESPIRE (breathe) I fail to see how 'it' can end up in Heaven or Hell.
Remember, Adam BECAME a living soul when he was given breath, he was not GIVEN a soul, he IS a soul (read Genesis again because it seems you don't know your religion that well). In fact, the Bible refers to any living things as souls, not just man.
We don't have souls, we are souls.
Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Now explain Heaven and Hell in this context.
Gwarth2, how can your god say what is a sin for people that don't believe in him? He has no right over them, and if you say he does, that just makes it seem like your god is more in line with the devil then free will.
Your kind is a abomination to this world. Keep your religion to yourself, since no one asked for it, we don't care about it.
I think it's sad that vermin like you still breathe the same oxygen we do. Go put your mouth around a tailpipe, you hateful piece of crap.
Meh, I was already going. I've eaten one too many crab legs.
So....and just where did god say it was a sin??? And, if it is, in all the new testatment why didn't his son call it a sin? Nowhere in the new testament does jesus say anything at all about it being a sin...he did, however, call out all the self-righteous pharisees and let them know where THEY stood in the matter of their judging others~
God says voting is a sin? Oh man, are we all in trouble!
your imaginary "god" was created to control weak minded people into submission.
NONSENSE! Your bigotry is an embarrassment to that which you claim to revere.
Dr. Laura Schlesinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice
to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as
an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according
to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The
following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident,
which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as
informative.........
Dear Dr. Laura
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share thatknowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defendthe homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them thatLeviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the otherspecific laws and how to follow them.
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates apleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned inExodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fairprice for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is inher period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is,how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male andfemale, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friendof mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Canyou clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligatedto kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is anabomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination thanhomosexuality. I don.t agree. Can you settle this?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if Ihave a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear readingglasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle roomhere?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hairaround their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makesme unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting twodifferent crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearinggarments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyesterblend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it reallynecessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole towntogether to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn.t we just burn them todeath at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep withtheir in-laws? (Lev.20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confidentyou can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word iseternal and unchanging.
Who would Jesus discriminate against?
ab,
Here's a link to the letter. That's just too funny! (I added two spaces so it comes through, please remove)
http:// www .humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html
gwarth2 Don't blame God for your stupidity. No one is forcing you to do anything. Although I'm not gay I love people having their liberty. Freedom is the greatest asset of man. Animals are not free thinkers, that's why they're still where they are.
Animals aren't free thinkers? I guess you've never lived with a cat.
>^.,.^< <3
SCOTUS has already determine that 'separate but equal' is not a valid solution to discrimination. This will eventually have to be decided by them. The sooner the better. We have many other more pressing issues to deal with than continuing to deprive a subset of our population with their rights under the Constitution.
It never ceases to amaze me that people who supposedly love our country and the freedoms it provides continue to try to prevent those same freedoms to some of our own citizens. How can they wrap themselves in the flag on other issues and then deny the Constitution on the other hand?
I bet Christie would sign a bill allowing marriage between a man and a donut!
Hey dave-735909, Of all the comments made here in my opinion yours makes the most sense and is the most truthful.
no, I think he has a donut as his mistress. First he makes love and than he eats it.
Thats rediculous, only people with the brain capacity of a donut thinks that comment makes sense.
If men can marry men and women can marry women and we are changing the Webster dictionary meaning of marriage, then I want to marry 2 men and endorse polygamy!! If we are going to have several definitions, then lets create equality for ALL types of marriage!!!
dave-735909,
Your assertion fails on a number of logical grounds, the most important being that bagels clearly exceed doughnuts in both degree (cohesiveness) and kind (flour base). Quite clearly Governor Christie would recognize (as his past actions indefatigably show) that the marriage between a man and a doughnut would ultimately be an abomination, as the doughnut couldn't survive even the first consummative encounter. I can't put it any more delicately than that, unless you want me to come right out and describe Governor Christie boinking a doughnut, a description that I delicately refrain from framing.
The bagel, on the other hand, is much more durable. In fact, if Governor Christie insisted that the Bagel Free Marriage Law include a rider mandating cream cheese, the issue of feminine dryness would go away. Once again I trust that you won't insist that I describe Governor Christie in bed with his bagel and cream cheese avoiding feminine dryness, as that description would try my delicate sensibilities.
Lune
To tell the truth, I wish you hadn't mentioned the cream cheese!
dave-735909,
I endured quite a struggle to do so, my delicate sensibilities and all that. I finally had to go get some jelly to help me with the moment. I don't even want to imagine what some politicians might do with jelly, and (not to ruin your morning) what they might do with a jelly-filled doughnut.
Lune
Great and excellent decision by Gov. Chris Christie. Gay marriage has always been a very serious threat to human reproduction and social stability.
I can't decide whether you should serve as an example to live by, or as a terrible warning to others.
No, marriage has been threatened by the likes of Kim Kardashian, Brittney Spears, Newt Gingrich and bigots like you who try and hold it away from loving couples who deserve equal rights. Nice try but your kind is more in the minority every day, thank goodness!
Yes, because all those gay people are going to keep the straight people from having sex and kids.
God damn, ban me if you want, but this guy is dumb as hell.
Since unbridled human reproduction is a very serious threat to the planet, I'm thinking gay marriages can only help. And given the 60% divorce rate among heterosexuals, I have to ask, what social stability?
Serious threat to reproduction? REALLY? Got facts?
<shaking head in disbelief>
1) 7 billion and rising
2) You mean the stable human race that's been killing each other for 10,000 years to see who has the best sky fairy friend???
RH ... I'm glad you said that. Now, tell us HOW it is a threat to human reproduction and social stability? I really want to know because everytime I ask for details on all the terrible things that opponents say will result from same-sex marriage, I'm met with silence. Since you've made such a bold statement, perhaps you'd be willing to support it.
Oh, wow, I thought RH was being sarcastic. Looking at this other comments I was wrong. Someone who calls himself a Christian with so much hatred is just sad.
hey nfil, what about all the personal attacks on the gov? Do you think that is ok?
I'm O.K. with it.
There are three things wrong with your argument.
The human race hasn't died off yet. Looking at the 7 billion people alive today, we are not in any danger.
But would you be OK with attacks on a liberal? NO you would not and dont make a lier out of yourself you would. Typical lefty and your double standards.
It's OK to attack folks who are trying to deny basic civil rights with facts.
How come the same people who claim anger when a panel of judges goes against the people, are so joyful when a single governor does it?
Gosh, the earth is so underpopulated I'm afraid we're going to die out! And you know having people in committed relationships will destroy our entire society.
RH, thanks for showing me the kind of things people were saying a few decades ago about marriages like mine, just because my husband and I have different pigment levels.
Another vote here, RH, for you to lay out a bit of support for your assertion. Specifically, a clear *mechanistic* description - a valid *theory* - as to *how* recognition of same-sex marriage would cause anything at all to happen to human reproduction. 'Cos I haven't heard a single theory that's even plausible.
Such a theory would possibly meet the low bar requirement of a "rational basis" for anti-SSM discrimination in law - but none of the people who would be the most rabidly in support of proving something like it, have succeeded. I personally think you're also blowing hot air and nothing else - but you have the platform here to give some actual support for your bald assertion. Have at it.
Ranman87,
"God damn, ban me if you want, but this guy is dumb as hell."
Hahahahhahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahah!
What a marvelous confluence of words. Sometimes (not all that often) the language works perfectly. Wish I'd written that.
Hahahhahahahhahahhahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahhahahaha! God damn, ban me if you want. Hahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahahahhahahahahah! This guy is dumb as hell. Hahhahahhahahahhahahahhahahhahahahahhahahhahahahahhahahahahahaha!
I haven't had such a belly laugh since Cain snapped, Am I my brother's keeper?
Lune
The governor can take it. He has issued his share of personal attacks against his opponents, including the teachers union and members of the legislature.
Provisions for minority groups are ridiculous, next battle will be all the lawsuits filed from smokers who are being discrimminated against for smoking, yet it IS their right to smoke...where lies the end to this nonsense?
Yeah, we should have never let those blacks move up to sit with the rest of us, or women vote. I mean just look what's happened to our society since then. All those old white men have had to compete and actually prove they're worth something. So sad for them.
Ah, the 18th &19th, early 20th centuries, those were the days, when a white man was the king of his castle and everyone else was subservient.
RBknows -
Smoking in all states is legal. Same sex marriage or civil unions are not. My reply may be as asinine as is your comment. Shall we discuss the "rights" of booze, too? Shall we discuss the "rights" of ... this is tiresome. You pick one.
Let me guess, you also whine about how much smokers cost you by driving up insurance premiums.
Seriously? Smoking? Listen to yourself when you try to compare the decision to smoke a cigarette (forcing the fumes onto others, as your post insinuates), and the inherent desire to share one's life with the person they love with the same rights as a heterosexual person.
Addiction that millions are trying to quit = Sharing a commitment to the person you love? Really?
OK RBknows, how about this: We let any adult marry any (1 only) other consenting adult. There, no provisions for any minority group, no discrimination. Everyone is treated equally. Does that fit your requirements?
And by the way, I think the sale of tobacco should be made illegal. Ask a person if known carcinogens should be sold in grocery stores and see how they respond. I'm betting most would say no.
hmmmthey have a right to smoke but not be gay? What sky fairy tale book is that from anyway?
RBKnows, America PROTECTS minorities, a category that YOU might end up in one day. We have no tyranny of the masses here. The majority isn't always right, and if it had been left to a vote BY the "majority", we would have no laws allowing women to vote, banning slavery, banning child labor, etc. Equating the right of fellow CITIZENS to pursue happiness and equality to "NONSENSE" shows how small minded you are. Gays and lesbians may be a "minority", but they are also part of the HUMAN RACE, a rather large MAJORITY. I wish that you could be deprived of every good thing that a teacher, friend, politician, minister, doctor, soldier, scientist, paramedic, or entertainer - who happened to be gay - ever gave you. Tell me then that extending the SAME RIGHTS that you enjoy to people who have been of benefit to you is a matter of "nonsense".
Not to worry... good old Christie is a one term Governor... so far he hasn't done squat for NJ other than say he balanced the budget... but oops... he forgot to make Pension Payments!!!! But then he has money (but isn't he covered under the same pension?).
don't forget he takes police helicopters to his kids baseball game.
Wiz, you mean it took a helicopter to 'install' him at the game?
Well, of course. Because anyone who knows history knows how well majority rule on rights issues worked in Southern states during the 1960's. Gov. Christie Wallace, anyone?
Gimme a break, same argument ALWAYS, blacks equality, women voting. Facts are, the 1st slaves in America were white men with a black man owning them. Women voting and the bra burning women have created political correctness that was the beginning of Americas demise. Smoking IS legal in all 50 states BUT can you smoke ANYWHERE?
RBknows -
Sex is legal in all 50 states, BUT can you have sex ANYWHERE?
Next.
I almost spit my coffee on my keyboard. 'women voting and bra burning women have created political correctness that was the beginning of American demise'???
Well, I'll give you this, at least you are admitting that you're a bigot and chauvinist.
Oh, and 'political correctness' is just another way of saying 'being civil'. Perhaps something you aren't familiar with.
Or, perhaps you're just a troll.
Yes Charles, I CAN have sex in more places than I could smoke...if I did smoke. dsb I am not a bigot or chauvinist...just a realist and call them as I see them. Damn, if I could only understand the mentallity of the gay population, but I guess I never will understand the attraction to the same sex, talk about major rejection from the opposite sex.
obvious troll is obvious
Well fiddlesticks... Why would I want to vote and worry my pretty little head over it???
Get real, he's a troll. Don't feed the trolls.
not a troll, just a hetero sexually animal but doesn't mean I want to marry an animal.
Rb really white people were the first slaves. Lmao that is the craziest thing I have ever heard. Try picking up a history book and you will see the first slave came from the carribean.
RBknows, you are are not required to understand homosexuals. We are required to provide equal rights to them. I don't understand how people can eat cilantro, but I support their right to consume that horrendous herb. It's not all about you.
RBknows is one of those super ignorant people who is really afraid of anything he doesn't understand. Just ignore him and he'll go away.
Oh come now, Sarah-3043284,
Pocket the fiddlesticks. Just because RBknows is a realist and calls them as he sees them is no reason to pummel him with fiddlesticks. No matter that we don't know who "them" are, no matter that we have no idea what reality affords RBknows the right to be a realist. For heaven's sake, he's a hetero sexually animal that doesn't marry animals, so give the guy a break. He CAN, after all, have sex in more places than he can smoke, if he smoked and if anyone else would have sex with him. Will you have sex with him? I won't either. Looks like the poor guy is smokeless and sexless in Seattle, or whatever other alternate reality he's a realist in.
Quit picking on him.
Lune
Well, fiddle-dee-dee, who cares who I marry as long as he's a southernor and thinks like me, right??? Seriously, RB has to win the biggest troll award. And trust me, I'm not burning any bras, those things are expensive.
"Facts are, the 1st slaves in America were white men with a black man owning them."
..huh??
you people need to get your facts straight instead of always being so happy do some reading about slavery in America and learn about Anthony Johnson the 1st "slave owner"...stop being so ignorant to facts !!
RB once again you are wrong Anthony Johnson first slave John Casor was not white unless he came from that part of white africa. (rolling eyes) Also Chistopher Columbus was the first one to have slaves as far as recent history is concerned.
They meant "wake up and smell the mentality of people, These people cannot muster the Normal Mental state of a human to love and have sex with the oppisite sex.
Of course, You can say they can love of course they can. They can love all they want, but guess what No family for you same sex people!! Sorry no can do.
You can blab all you want about how couple (some) cant have children, or blab about they can be loving parents, yeah they can but explain that to a child. When it ask you where to babies come from, a Male and Female. You going to explain them oh sometime they dont get along, but we still love you though. poor child will be confused, oh dont forgert Single parents, yea i got you guys too.
Have a nice day!
Well, Sloppy, I am surprised, given your age, that you still don't get it. On the other hand, given your sentence structure, punctuation, and use (dis-use) of capitalization, I can only assume you are very, very young. To clear "things" up, you might want to ask your parents to explain it all to you.
if you don't want to get married you don't get married , if you want to marry some one of a different sex marry them , so why not let people marry some one of the same sex as them ? because your god told you let me talk to him /her because my god said it's ok with them . they said it was cool to marry who i love because all you need is love not a church leave the church . it's a false god
the ONLY way to stop the gay train from rolling is to VOTE OUT ALL GAY POLITICIANS. me a troll, hahahaha talk about calling the kettle black.
I doubt anyone can stop the train. Too many of us 'straight' people still believe in our founding principles. And in order to protect ourselves we protect everyone.
Oh, I grew up in the 50s and 60s in the south. I know what a society looks like when some are not treated as equals. It's not a pretty sight and doesn't describe our country. We're not going back to those days.
yup and next you will all be fighting for freedom for illegal aliens....when does it stop? We are here to create a better society for future humans, I don't see that happening ANYWHERE I go and I travel alot.
It doesn't, so you might want to grow up and get used to it by catching up with the rest of human evolution.
thats NOT human evolution, that is a step back in time...waaaaay back in time. maybe you should catch up to me in the evolution part, stop thinking like our ancestors who were pigs.
Such an evolved response on your part.
Slippery slope argument fail by RBknows.
Troll fail given the percentages of homosexual politicians.
I remember the last Governor who voted against gay rights. 2 years later he was caught boning the help in the mansion.
This continued assault on marriage needs to be stopped! When are people going wake up and confront this attack on our standards?
Being that your standards are rather low....like a 52 percent divorce rate.
What you say is pure BS, much like your "standards"
If the idea of gay marriage somehow threatens your own marriage, it's probably not much of a marriage to begin with.
I agree i'm happily married so i dont care if gays want to get married let em its not like gov. can make religions say they r marriages only have to be legal. People act like if u allow gays to marry that it makes us straight peoples marriage something less it wont. We already allow same sex couples to adopt kids together so whats the big deal?
Tell us, what exactly is being attacked? What awful things will happen if same-sex couples can marry in NJ?
Homosexuality is not a normal behavior and one that I would not encourage in any individual.
Neither is irrational bigotry.
Please explain to me how my statement is bigoted, or are you the guy who calls me racist when I say I don't like the president. My statement was not irrational and does not pass judgement. It simply states where I stand on this issue,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is irrational because the 2 largest and most respected psychiatric organizations do not recognize homosexuality as abnormal.
It is judgemental because you use your irrationality to deny civil rights to a group of fellow Americans who deserve all the protections under the constitution that you have been enjoying all your life.
If it walks like a duck.............
Where in my words have I denied them anything? Your two "largest and most respected" organizations that "don't recognize homosexuality as abnormal" were forced to change their stance four decades ago through coercion from the federal government. " Homosexuality was diagnosed and treated as a psychiatric illness -- abnormal behavior -- until 1973, when it was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in psychiatry because of political pressure." http:/ /www.personal.psu.edu/glm7/m160. htm Take a brief look at this link and you will understand(remove the spaces)
Gee, it's called progress, do you still think the world is flat???
Here is the CORRECT statement. " Homosexuality was diagnosed and treated as a psychiatric illness -- abnormal behavior -- until 1973, when it was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in psychiatry because of political pressure."
Wow, you must be a speed reader. There is a great deal of info there and you may want to consider the studies cited as they are pertinent today. The article is only 8 years old.
Homosexual relations are deviant behavior, plain and simple.
Freedom- links to an opinion page is not evidence of the facts. Did you just pull that out randomly from a google search? Funny.
AirThief - That quote is from an article written by a Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons, who "...is an adjunct professor at the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at Catholic University", and "...is also a consultant to the Congregation for Clergy at the Vatican."
In other words, yes, it's an opinion page. This guy might as well be a priest - all he's missing is the collar. His Catholic slant and anti-gay agenda renders anything he says as a Dr. completely meaningless.
Homosexuality is normal. It just is not the majority. We owe equal rights to all, not just what is considered normal. That's why we have wheelchair stalls in bathrooms and other accomodations for the "abnormal". If your genetic makeup is such that you are honosexual, and you force yourself to act as a heterosexual, that would not be normal.
Freedom: It's like an earlier post here: It's not about YOU!
Freedom ... your first statement makes no sense here. How does same-sex marriage encourage homosexuality?
The results from the studies cited can be found everywhere. I'm not going to do the research for you. If you want to bury your head in the sand, that's your choice. On the flip side show me the psychological and physiological studies that support your position and how wonderful, healthy and beneficial these "lifestyles" are. When an individual cites studies, but you don't like who he is or what he represents, well, it doesn't make his evidence any less real or valid. Like our politicians, so many of you want to tear someone down with inflammatory derision instead of voicing an opinion and backing it with facts.
Sorry, but it is about me to some degree, isn't it, as these are my words and I get to vocalize them or write and type them as I see fit, and base them with facts. You don't like my facts so you attack me. Yeah, that doesn't fly. It's about you, also. as you have the opportunity to share your beliefs and ideas whether I appreciate them or not. That's what this is all about. Not mob mentality. I won't be intimidated.
Barry, please, same sex marriage and homosexuality? They are intertwined.
The civil and constitutional rights of American citizens to be treated fairly and equally under the law should NEVER be put up for popular vote. Those rights are not anyone else's to give or take. It's a travesty that people like Christie even think that.
We are a republic with a representative democracy. Too many Americans don't seem to understand that we are not a true democracy which can effectively be called 'mob rule'. Those who say "let the people decide" are either gravely misinformed or willfully ignorant about our form of government. They need to go back to elementary school where they should have learned these things.
I know the loving tolerant christians who have a direct line to God say He disapproves of gay marriage but how do Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny feel about it??
if you can't understand why 2 different types of humans were placed on earth then you have issues.
Hey, William, instead of throwing stones how about gathering a few, take a look at them and tell us what you see. My point being, what is it that you believe?
I believe that you cannot deny civil rights to any group based on some ridiculous interpretation of a 10 times translated, 3 times voted on book written between 2 and 4 thousand years ago by many men who supposedly were hearing God's own words.
OK???
santa and the easter bunny would also be disgusted !!!!the tooth FAIRY,on the other hand......
If I were to deny them anything, which I have not, it would be based on the facts associated with the dangers of an "alternative sexual orientation". Let me give you just one small example in the real world. I want insurance. The insurance company asks me if I smoke. Why do they need to know? So they know what lifestyle they are insuring. Now, you don't want the insurance company asking if you are gay 'cuz it's none of their business and based within a homophobic world. Obviously not case. The question is asked in order to identify the risks associated with the insured. It has been demonstrated in studies throughout the world the many medical and psychological risks associated with homosexuality. Overall, it is not a healthy lifestyle and is not something I would encourage.
Looking at the facts, heterosexual lifestyles and homosexual lifestyles are not on the same playing field. Efforts to convince people that they are equal? It would be through coercion and lies. Kind of like what I read here in so many posts deriding someone for having a stance or belief different from one's own.
double post, sorry!
Freedom then why do i not have to pay anymore for insurance than any of my straight friends.
You should.
There are many things that alter risk profiles that are not considered for insurance. Here is a short list: age (usually, except for life insurance), gender (usually), race, weight, genetic history, family medical history, driving habits, recreational activities, occupation, etc.
Smoking is an easily quantifiable measure that has a HUGE impact upon health care costs. Additionally, it is entirely the choice of the individual to engage in it. As such, it is often considered in risk profiles.
One more reason to have left Jersey. Are they going to approve adultery next? Oh, I'm sorry, it's common law in Jersey.
lol, in which states are adulterer's thrown into prison? I think the answer is none. Not sure if you'd call it "approved", but unless you live in iran, adultery is a moot point these days legally. did you leave new jersey for saudi arabia or iran? you would feel comfortable there, they have all kinds of strict morality laws. :)
Good job Governor, keep these sickos in the closet where they belong!!!
sickos? lol, I think that applies nicely to gay haters who rant and rave about what other people do in the privacy of their own bedroom. Why are you obsessed with other people's sex lives? wow that is truly sicko. :)
I get the feeling you constantly want gay porn because you are "keeping up" with the latest tactics of these "sickos". :)
Cliff you seem to have alot of interest in gay sex. Hmmm.......how interesting
Fear not...You are allowed to stay in your closet this will not change. It's called freedom.
I'm surprised that ol' Gov Bully will be in NJ to actually sign or veto anything....isn't he too busy out there on TV and the road, beating the drum for Mittens Romney? Oh, Bubble Butt, you can almost smell the slot for VP can't you? Is it as appealing to you as a dozon donuts (AKA Christie's midmorning snack)?
Christie can basically forget any presidential aspirations he may have had if he perpetuates the exclusion of gays from the basic civil rights granted under the Constitution to ALL citizens, not just the ones he likes.
At least NJ has a governor with a brain willing to stand up to the union thugs and perverts.
Common, your personal insults aside, what makes you think that your rights as a US citizen are somehow greater than those "perverts" (as if heteroesexuals aren't also in many cases convicted "perverts")?
Because Mark from what I can see gay men seem to have a greater % of sexual predators than heteroesexual men. Prison is full of gay men who prey on young boys.
Square, that gays are more likely to be sexual predators (which may or may not be the case, if you have a link I'd like you to share it with us) doesn't mean that they can't marry each other, does it?
Some heterosexuals are sexual predators as well (not to mention murderers, thieves, etc.) but that doesn't mean heterosexuals as a group are denied a marriage license.
How about gay women? Also sexual predators?
Got that link Square, or were you just making it up?
square dude,
Here, go educate yourself :
Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation
lmao...what an enlightened person...back to your biblical fairy tales now
Voters consistently vote down the politician's when they try to pass these laws, so why do the politician's keep trying to pass these laws? The gay lobby buys these votes which goes to show who the politician's really represent is the almighty dollar. Our representatives dont represent us the voter, they represent political action groups who can deliver the most cash to their reelection fund.
Mostly, but sometimes they do the right thing. Obviously not in Christie's case though.
As even Christie finally admitted, not everything can be put up for a vote. If equal rights for blacks had been on the ballot in the South, there'd still be a lot of states where discrimination would be legal.
Civil rights are not subject to popular approval. In fact, they're not rights at all if they exist only at the whim of the majority.