Chris Christie on Friday vetoed a bill that would allow same-sex couples to wed

[bill1971]

Phew, what a relief. I'd hate to see gays able to marry.


Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

[PierzStyx]

I am relieved. And yes I'm being serious.

Now if we could just get someone to make the next step and get government out of heterosexual marriages we'd be set. The more government is out of the bedroom and personal lives the freer we become. The government has no lawful right in being involved in recognizing any type of relationship, gay or straight. Its unconstitutional and its immoral. Much better to trade the privileges government gives us to sell out our personal lives to its control, for our liberty.

[specsaregood]

Phew, what a relief. I'd hate to see gays able to marry.
Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

Who gives a crap? NJ already has civil unions that bring with it the same govt approval. Get a civil union and call it a marriage.

They discriminate against heteros as well, as heteros are not allowed to get a civil union in NJ. That's right, homosexuals have a privilege that heterosexuals don't have in NJ.

[bill1971]

Who gives a crap? NJ already has civil unions that bring with it the same govt approval. Get a civil union and call it a marriage.

They discriminate against heteros as well, as heteros are not allowed to get a civil union in NJ. That's right, homosexuals have a privilege that heterosexuals don't have in NJ.


Who gives a crap? Hmm, only those viewed as second class citizens, based on an ancient mythology.

[Keith and stuff]

He seems to want the people of NJ to vote on it. Let's see if that happens.

[kylejack]

Who gives a crap? NJ already has civil unions that bring with it the same govt approval. Get a civil union and call it a marriage.

They discriminate against heteros as well, as heteros are not allowed to get a civil union in NJ. That's right, homosexuals have a privilege that heterosexuals don't have in NJ.
Well if you want to make everything equal, what's wrong with the marriage bill? Then gay and hetero can both call it a marriage.

[specsaregood]

Who gives a crap? Hmm, only those viewed as second class citizens, based on an ancient mythology.

I'm not allowed to get a civil union in NJ, am I a second class citizen?

[bill1971]

I agree govt should be out of marriage, but until it is universally out of it, it is a shame to have the govt continue to discriminate.

[specsaregood]

//

[kylejack]

Well I'm against the whole idea of govt approved marriage status. My wife and I had a private ceremony with our families and have private contracts for goodies. To hell with govt marriage.
Okay, but since it exists, and since it confers tax benefits that allow people to have less money stolen from them, why not let gays have it too?

[ryanmkeisling]

Well I'm against the whole idea of govt approved marriage status. My wife and I had a private ceremony with our families and have private contracts for goodies. To hell with govt marriage.

To hell with government in general.

[RiseAgainst]

To hell with government in general.

+rep

[specsaregood]

//

[kylejack]

As far as new jersey is concerned (topic of thread) they already get that benefit. re: civil unions.
If you want to discuss federal level, well that has nothing to do with the OP.
Yes, but you have a complaint about these equal rights being named something different, do you not? So let's call them the same thing.

[specsaregood]

//

[Brett85]

Good for him. He stood up for limited government by vetoing this bill.

[kylejack]

Good for him. He stood up for limited government by vetoing this bill.
Chris Christie? Somehow I doubt that's why he stood up.

[GunnyFreedom]

I am relieved. And yes I'm being serious.

Now if we could just get someone to make the next step and get government out of heterosexual marriages we'd be set. The more government is out of the bedroom and personal lives the freer we become. The government has no lawful right in being involved in recognizing any type of relationship, gay or straight. Its unconstitutional and its immoral. Much better to trade the privileges government gives us to sell out our personal lives to its control, for our liberty.

http://ncleg.net/Applications/BillLookUp/LoadBillDocument.aspx?SessionCode=2011&DocNum=1481&SeqNum=0
(http://ncleg.net/Applications/BillLookUp/LoadBillDocument.aspx?SessionCode=2011&DocNum=1481&SeqNum=0)
http://ncleg.net/gascripts/voteHistory/RollCallVoteTranscript.pl?sSession=2011&sChamber=H&RCS=1293

;)

[RiseAgainst]

Good for him. He stood up for limited government by vetoing this bill.

Lol, yes, that's what he did.

:rolleyes:

[cindy25]

he was thinking his chances to be on the ticket. signing it would have ruled it out.

[Brett85]

Lol, yes, that's what he did.

:rolleyes:

He vetoed a bill that expanded government into what's a private, religious institution between a man and a woman. He took the small government position.

[GunnyFreedom]

Well if you want to make everything equal, what's wrong with the marriage bill? Then gay and hetero can both call it a marriage.

I want to make everyone pay an equal share of Federal Income Tax: zero. Even though that is unlikely to happen I am not about to advocate that every American pay an equal 50% just to 'make everything equal.' Government needs to get out of ALL marriage, period. Expanding the government's role in marriage from current status quo just to make everything equal is going the wrong direction.

[GunnyFreedom]

He vetoed a bill that expanded government into what's a private, religious institution between a man and a woman. He took the small government position.

Oh come on, you know good and well that's not why he did it. He did it to satisfy the social cons who want government to force their understanding of morality onto the general public. Whether it accords with your and my understanding is irrelevant, government has no role claiming authority over the dominion of God.

Liberals have tweaked on the tax code until nearly 50% of Americans pay no Federal Income Tax. Pretending that Christie vetoed this bill to take a 'small government position' is like claiming that progressive liberals made 48% of the population pay zero income taxes because they oppose income taxes.

Let's be realistic here.

[ryanmkeisling]

He seems to want the people of NJ to vote on it. Let's see if that happens.
There was a video somewhere around the other day where he says it should be put to a referendum. I don't see him as a true conservative.

[bill1971]

Good for him. He stood up for limited government by vetoing this bill.

How is preventing someone from getting married, small govt? Govt is still in the marriage business.

[JohnGalt1225]

He vetoed a bill that expanded government into what's a private, religious institution between a man and a woman. He took the small government position.
So by using the force of the government to tell a group of people they can't get married, somehow this is a win for limited government? No offense but that's the biggest load of BS I've heard all day.

[Drex]

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/4069/50054570.jpg

[RiseAgainst]

He vetoed a bill that expanded government into what's a private, religious institution between a man and a woman. He took the small government position.

Yes, we wouldn't want filthy gays with the same rights as decent and pure people, right?

And you're all about limited government, except when it benefits your personal viewpoint...


The pro life movement has to pass laws like this, because the Supreme Court prohibits the states from actually banning abortion. Laws that make it harder to get an abortion are necessary until the time that the states have the legal right to ban it outright.

[Brett85]

Oh come on, you know good and well that's not why he did it. He did it to satisfy the social cons who want government to force their understanding of morality onto the general public. Whether it accords with your and my understanding is irrelevant, government has no role claiming authority over the dominion of God.

Liberals have tweaked on the tax code until nearly 50% of Americans pay no Federal Income Tax. Pretending that Christie vetoed this bill to take a 'small government position' is like claiming that progressive liberals made 48% of the population pay zero income taxes because they oppose income taxes.

Let's be realistic here.

I consider myself to be a paleo-conservative rather than a libertarian, so I'm not fully on board with libertarians on issues like this. I was just making the case that defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not a big government position in my opinion, because it just stops the government from expanding marriage beyond what it is now. This also isn't an issue that has anything to do with law enforcement. It's not like drug prohibition, which is an issue where the government is actually putting people in jail. Gays aren't actually getting thrown in jail for attempting to get married. But I really don't see the need to redefine the definition of marriage to please a special interest group.

[Brett85]

Yes, we wouldn't want filthy gays with the same rights as decent and pure people, right?

And you're all about limited government, except when it benefits your personal viewpoint...

Um, I took the same position on that issue that Ron Paul took.

[RiseAgainst]

I consider myself to be a paleo-conservative rather than a libertarian, so I'm not fully on board with libertarians on issues like this. I was just making the case that defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not a big government position in my opinion, because it just stops the government from expanding marriage beyond what it is now. This also isn't an issue that has anything to do with law enforcement. It's not like drug prohibition, which is an issue where the government is actually putting people in jail. Gays aren't actually getting thrown in jail for attempting to get married. But I really don't see the need to redefine the definition of marriage to please a special interest group.

Lol. "I want freedom for everyone....except those I don't agree with."

[RiseAgainst]

Um, I took the same position on that issue that Ron Paul took.

Your point? You made an appeal here to limited government, to mask your real reason for wanting it, because you don't want gays getting married. You have no problem with big government so long as it suits your needs.

[Brett85]

Lol. "I want freedom for everyone....except those I don't agree with."

Gays already have freedom here in America. If you want an example of a country that actually discriminates against gays, just look at Iran.

[RiseAgainst]

Gays already have freedom here in America. If you want an example of a country that actually discriminates against gays, just look at Iran.

:rolleyes:

Nothing better than a self-justified hatemonger. Come on, let's hear 'em. Spill your list of justifications for treating one subset of humanity different from another, and how that is oh-so-congruent with individual liberty and limited government.

[Brett85]

Your point? You made an appeal here to limited government, to mask your real reason for wanting it, because you don't want gays getting married. You have no problem with big government so long as it suits your needs.

It isn't "big government" to simply keep marriage the way it's been for the last 2,000 years. This particular issue really has nothing to do with "big government." It's not like I'm advocating sodomy laws.

[bill1971]

Private, religious institution??? Since when? Ever try to get a marriage licence at a church. It is now a govt institution.

[RiseAgainst]

It isn't "big government" to simply keep marriage the way it's been for the last 2,000 years. This particular issue really has nothing to do with "big government." It's not like I'm advocating sodomy laws.

You're using a copout. You don't give a damn about the size of government on this issue, you give a damn about your personal religious view and seeing to it that gays don't have the same rights as you do.

[Brett85]

:rolleyes:

Nothing better than a self-justified hatemonger. Come on, let's hear 'em. Spill your list of justifications for treating one subset of humanity different from another, and how that is oh-so-congruent with individual liberty and limited government.

-Rep. You don't need to personally attack me for having different political views than you.

[specsaregood]

//

[RiseAgainst]

-Rep. You don't need to personally attack me for having different political views than you.

Lol, beautiful. You can tell gays they can't have the same rights as you, but get your panties in a wad when someone calls you on it? Oh noes, you're being discriminated against!

[Brett85]

You're using a copout. You don't give a damn about the size of government on this issue, you give a damn about your personal religious view and seeing to it that gays don't have the same rights as you do.

It has nothing to do with my "religious views." Marriage is what it's been for the last 2,000 years. It's a union between a man and a woman. But gays can still do whatever they want to do in their own personal lives. I don't care if gays want to live together, sleep together, or even serve in the military. But it's not necessary at all for the government to actually recognize their relationship.

[Brett85]

Lol, beautiful. You can tell gays they can't have the same rights as you, but get your panties in a wad when someone calls you on it? Oh noes, you're being discriminated against!

Gays already have the same rights as everyone else. You promote extra rights, not equal rights.

[RiseAgainst]

It has nothing to do with my "religious views." Marriage is what it's been for the last 2,000 years. It's a union between a man and a woman. But gays can still do whatever they want to do in their own personal lives. I don't care if gays want to live together, sleep together, or even serve in the military. But it's not necessary at all for the government to actually recognize their relationship.

Yes, that's straights only, damnit! It's like those damn Negroes trying to eat at whites only joints back in the 70's. They just don't understand, it's the way it's been for a long time, just leave it be!

[Brett85]

Yes, that's straights only, damnit! It's like those damn Negroes trying to eat at whites only joints back in the 70's. They just don't understand, it's the way it's been for a long time, just leave it be!

Race and homosexuality are two entirely different issues. People are born black, but homosexuality is simply a behavior, not something that people are born with.

[RiseAgainst]

Gays already have the same rights as everyone else. You promote extra rights, not equal rights.

:rolleyes:

Separate but equal. Did you perhaps work on the George Wallace campaign?

[Brett85]

But is there really any doubt why Ron has so much trouble with Republicans, when some of his supporters bash anybody who dares to have a conservative political ideology?

[RiseAgainst]

Race and homosexuality are two entirely different issues. People are born black, but homosexuality is simply a behavior, not something that people are born with.

Lol, now we're getting to it. They're just hethens who need you to save them, right? They need to be 're-educated' to get the gay out?

[RiseAgainst]

But is there really any doubt why Ron has so much trouble with Republicans, when some of his supporters bash anybody who dares to have a conservative political ideology?

If by conservative political ideology you mean hating gays and brown people, or wanting to wage war, then nope, not at all.

[PierzStyx]

Well if you want to make everything equal, what's wrong with the marriage bill? Then gay and hetero can both call it a marriage.

Because it closes government's fist over our rights. Why do you think giving the government the power to regulate who you have a relationship with, how many you have a relationship with, when you have that relationship, and what you do within that relationship, is a good thing? Gay marriage is just the liberal argument to finalize its power over your personal life.

[Brett85]

If by conservative political ideology you mean hating gays and brown people, or wanting to wage war, then nope, not at all.

I don't support waging war, and I don't "hate" anybody.

You on the other hand, are a vicious smear merchant who personally attacks anybody who dares to have a different political opinion than you do. There's no point in having a conversation with someone who can't debate an issue, but simply launches into hateful personal attacks. I'm out.

[RiseAgainst]

I don't support waging war, and I don't "hate" anybody.

You on the other hand, are a vicious smear merchant who personally attacks anybody who dares to have a different political opinion than you do. There's no point in having a conversation with someone who can't debate an issue, but simply launches into hateful personal attacks. I'm out.

You're denying an entire group of HUMANS rights afforded to another group of humans with NO justification whatsoever, and anyone who questions you is a vicious smear merchant who personally attacks you?

My heart bleeds for you.

[Dianne]

The country going to hell in a hand basket... Peeps homes and property being stolen by the United Nationa, aka the United State of America.. and all the lard ass has to focus on... is fear of two people committing to a relationship and loving each other.

I say outlaw fat people Christie.. You can kiss my ass tub boat.. I believe tomorrow, we need a new law to watch what tubby eats... And that fat bastard said he was "tea party" lmao... funny as shit.. bann gay people today, bann fat people tomorrow.

Goodbye Christie...

[specsaregood]

You're denying an entire group of HUMANS rights afforded to another group of humans with NO justification whatsoever, and anyone who questions you is a vicious smear merchant who personally attacks you?


Are you talking about the heteros that are denied the right to have a civil union in NJ?

[RiseAgainst]

Are you talking about the heteros that are denied the right to have a civil union in NJ?

Yes, I'm with you on that too specs. I completely agree that government should be wholesale out of the marriage business, but so long as it is there is no reason to discriminate. If straights can marry, gays can marry. If gays can get civil union, straigts can get civil union.

[James Madison]

Yes, we wouldn't want filthy gays with the same rights as decent and pure people, right?

And you're all about limited government, except when it benefits your personal viewpoint...

For the last time government does not grant rights. Rights are inherent to you as a human being. Government exists to protect our rights from people who wish to infringe upon them.

[Yoddle]

Why do Christians pick and choose from the bible? They aren't trying to ban divorce, adultery, polyester, tattoos or associating with women on there period.... Yet things like gay marriage, which isn't even mentioned in the bible, they try so hard to keep illegal.

[RiseAgainst]

For the last time government does not grant rights. Rights are inherent to you as a human being. Government exists to protect our rights from people who wish to infringe upon them.

For the last time the State, by it's very existence, violates natural rights, self ownership and individual sovereignty. The notion that a body that destroys rights (government) exists only to protect rights is beyond ludicrous.

[James Madison]

For the last time the State, by it's very existence, violates natural rights, self ownership and individual sovereignty. The notion that a body that destroys rights (government) exists only to protect rights is beyond ludicrous.

Then have fun in your make-believe world where government doesn't exist.

[RiseAgainst]

Then have fun in your make-believe world where government doesn't exist.

Ad-hominem fail.

[bill1971]

For the last time government does not grant rights. Rights are inherent to you as a human being. Government exists to protect our rights from people who wish to infringe upon them.

Yes, like Chris Christie and those who voted yes on prop 8.

[GunnyFreedom]

Ad-hominem fail.

pot, meet kettle.

[PaleoPaul]

Chris Christie lost any chance of winning the Presidency.

I have a feeling the GOP will be socially and culturally evolving within the next 8-10 years.

[wannaberocker]

When there was no civil union in my state. The gay lobby would say "we want the same rights". Then my state passed civil unions giving gays the same rights as hetro marriage. Now the gay lobby is complaining that civil unions arnt good enough.

So im not surprised the same thing happened in NJ. they passed civil unions and now civil unions arnt good enough they want it to be called marriage. And when that happens, they will say "the church cannot refuze to perform our marriage ceremony" if they do we will sue.

[wannaberocker]

Why do Christians pick and choose from the bible? They aren't trying to ban divorce, adultery, polyester, tattoos or associating with women on there period.... Yet things like gay marriage, which isn't even mentioned in the bible, they try so hard to keep illegal.

Your understanding of biblical teachings is clearly very limited. So my suggestion would be to study the bible before going into a debate saying "Why arnt christians doing xyz".

[wannaberocker]

:rolleyes:

Separate but equal.

What the gay lobby is demanding is redefination to match a small minority of society. It would be like gay's saying "when we adopt a child. We want the gay parents to be called Biological parents. Why? because saying adopted parents is saparate but equal".

Again the saparate but equal argument does not work here.

[RiseAgainst]

pot, meet kettle.

Care to elaborate?

[PierzStyx]

Yes, like Chris Christie and those who voted yes on prop 8.

Privileges handed out by the government for doing what is tells you to is not a "right".

[RiseAgainst]

What the gay lobby is demanding is redefination to match a small minority of society. It would be like gay's saying "when we adopt a child. We want the gay parents to be called Biological parents. Why? because saying adopted parents is saparate but equal".

Again the saparate but equal argument does not work here.

Um, no.

Gays are asking to be afforded the same rights as hetero couples, to marry each other leagally and be afforded the same rights. So long as the government is in the marriage business denying them the same classification is clearly discriminatory.

If you'd like to get government completely OUT of marriage, gay OR hetero, I'm right by your side.

[wannaberocker]

Um, no.

Gays are asking to be afforded the same rights as hetero couples, to marry each other leagally and be afforded the same rights. So long as the government is in the marriage business denying them the same classification is clearly discriminatory.

If you'd like to get government completely OUT of marriage, gay OR hetero, I'm right by your side.

I would like to get govt completely out of marriage. However, under civil unions gay couples are awarded the same legal rights as hetro couples are. Again what gay's want is a redefination ie like asking that they be called "biological parents" because calling them adoptive parents is not equal.

[GunnyFreedom]

Care to elaborate?

I found it quite ironic to hear you talking about ad-hominems is all. :)

[RiseAgainst]

I would like to get govt completely out of marriage.

Good, then we're in agreement.


However, under civil unions gay couples are awarded the same legal rights as hetro couples are. Again what gay's want is a redefination ie like asking that they be called "biological parents" because calling them adoptive parents is not equal.

No, this is separate but equal. Again, a southerner during Jim Crow would gladly tell you that blacks were not being discriminated against, they could eat at the restaurant, use the restroom and drink from the fountain, they just had to do it over there at the 'blacks only' line.

[RiseAgainst]

I found it quite ironic to hear you talking about ad-hominems is all. :)

Again, care to expand?

[specsaregood]

No, this is separate but equal. Again, a southerner during Jim Crow would gladly tell you that blacks were not being discriminated against, they could eat at the restaurant, use the restroom and drink from the fountain, they just had to do it over there at the 'blacks only' line.

I think the suggestion that it is similar to "seperate but equal" is insulting to blacks. It is nothing like the same thing. There is nothing that gays can't do that heteros can with the current arrangement. They get the exact same legal rights, hell they can even tell people they are married -- there isn't any laws against it. To compare this to the laws the prevented blacks from eating, shopping, drinking, living their life is reaching beyond anything remotely reasonable.

[wannaberocker]

Good, then we're in agreement.



No, this is separate but equal. Again, a southerner during Jim Crow would gladly tell you that blacks were not being discriminated against, they could eat at the restaurant, use the restroom and drink from the fountain, they just had to do it over there at the 'blacks only' line.

Again your argument about blacks and Jim Crow laws does not add up. Blacks and whites are the same physically and biologically. Denying blacks access to a water fountain was like denying a redhead access to a brunette water fountain. Gay couples on the other hand are actually different from hetro couples. Marriage in of itself has been between men and women by its very definition. When you add that two men are also now married and two women are also married. YOu are indeed redefining the term marriage.


It would be like a boy demanding that he be given the opportunity to attend an all girls high school. But when he is denied that opportunity and told that he is allowed to attend the all boys school. Him saying "Oh thats equal but separate". You see it does not work because unlike blacks and whites, there is an actual difference between gay and straight couples.

[Anti Federalist]

I am relieved. And yes I'm being serious.

Now if we could just get someone to make the next step and get government out of heterosexual marriages we'd be set. The more government is out of the bedroom and personal lives the freer we become. The government has no lawful right in being involved in recognizing any type of relationship, gay or straight. Its unconstitutional and its immoral. Much better to trade the privileges government gives us to sell out our personal lives to its control, for our liberty.

That ^^^

Ridiculous "tempest in teapot" in ridiculous.

The best possible outcome here is that you will no longer have to petition government for a "permit" to marry somebody.

[phill4paul]

There is nothing that gays can't do that heteros can with the current arrangement. They get the exact same legal rights, hell they can even tell people they are married -- there isn't any laws against it.

Actually there are laws against it in some states. Federally, many 'granted' rights are not recognized as hetro unions would be. You are a Glen Bradley supporter.. listen to what he has to say about it. Gays under the law are not 'seperate but equal.' As N.C.s Amendment one proves.

[phill4paul]

That ^^^

Ridiculous "tempest in teapot" in ridiculous.

The best possible outcome here is that you will no longer have to petition government for a "permit" to marry somebody.

For some that approach would be too offending of their personal beliefs that they are correct and damned those not in agreement.

[specsaregood]

Actually there are laws against it in some states. Federally, many 'granted' rights are not recognized as hetro unions would be. You are a Glen Bradley supporter.. listen to what he has to say about it. Gays under the law are not 'seperate but equal.' As N.C.s Amendment one proves.

Yes, but you see this thread was/is specifically about NJ. In NJ, gays with their civil unions have the exact same legal status and privileges as any married couples.

[GunnyFreedom]

Again, care to expand?

If you don't get it already, then there isn't much point. Seems blatant to me. Perspective, of course, is entirely subjective.

[pcgame]

I disagree with everyone. It is good he vetoed the bill because if he didn't, it just encourages statism. This bill is a positive right.

The Bill of Rights are a list of negative rights. Those are things the government can not do to you. Infact, this is the libertarian position. Now, if we could only get the government out of straight marriage.

[phill4paul]

Yes, but you see this thread was/is specifically about NJ. In NJ, gays with their civil unions have the exact same legal status and privileges as any married couples.

If that is the case then why even a worded separation?

[Dianne]

I think it's great.. Believe me, I lay in horror every night in fear some lesbian in love with another lesbian will invade my home and victimize... murder my family... or steal my home..

Believe me... it's the gays you need to watch out for.. think I saw a case on Judge Judy three years ago about that. Watch out for the gay people.. don't worry about the Obama's, Romney's, Christie's... Palin's... Santorum's....McCain's.. just a handful of pricks who are ready to really stick it up your ass; filming it at the same time...

[specsaregood]

If that is the case then why even a worded separation?
Are you suggesting we remove the gender label from all govt documentation as well then?

[RiseAgainst]

I think the suggestion that it is similar to "seperate but equal" is insulting to blacks. It is nothing like the same thing. There is nothing that gays can't do that heteros can with the current arrangement. They get the exact same legal rights, hell they can even tell people they are married -- there isn't any laws against it. To compare this to the laws the prevented blacks from eating, shopping, drinking, living their life is reaching beyond anything remotely reasonable.

A difference of degrees yes, but still separate but equal, and still the same arguments supporting it as were supporting Jim Crow. A Jim Crow advocate wasn't advocating that Blacks not be allowed to eat, just that they not be allowed to eat at Whites Only areas. You are not arguing that gays not be able to marry, just that they not be allowed to call it marriage. It is the same argument.


Again your argument about blacks and Jim Crow laws does not add up. Blacks and whites are the same physically and biologically. Denying blacks access to a water fountain was like denying a redhead access to a brunette water fountain. Gay couples on the other hand are actually different from hetro couples. Marriage in of itself has been between men and women by its very definition. When you add that two men are also now married and two women are also married. YOu are indeed redefining the term marriage.

It would be like a boy demanding that he be given the opportunity to attend an all girls high school. But when he is denied that opportunity and told that he is allowed to attend the all boys school. Him saying "Oh thats equal but separate". You see it does not work because unlike blacks and whites, there is an actual difference between gay and straight couples.

So just to clarify, you think that gay people are biologically different than hetero people?

[WilliamShrugged]

Inflation??? WTF! Didn't ya hear? ******S ARE GETTIN MARRIED!!!!

[Zap!]

Good. They can already marry in every state. All they have to do is find someone of the opposite sex that's willing.

[Bonnieblue]

Of course, people of the same gender cannot marry. Now, they can pressure a state to give a license which bears the title "marriage" and like two mice in a cookie jar, live in the cookie jar as if they were cookies, said mice having even perhaps pressured the Keebler elves into giving them a certificate that they are "cookies." But cookies they ain't, and cookies they will never be.

It is so utterly disingenuous of faux conservatives to give gays all of the "rights" of marriage under the title of "civil union" but to deny them the use of the term "marriage." I do not agree with any hate crime laws; but if I did, I would say that to give all of the rights of marriage under "civil union" and then to deny the use of the term "marriage" would be worthy of a hate crime.

Historically, across cultures of all ages, with some of those cultures fostering and reveling in Sodomy, marriage, nevertheless has been the melding of two families with their traditions, customs and habits along with their wealth through a male of the one family and the female of another family to produce offspring which could ensure the continuation of those melded traditions, customs and habits along with the wealth, unless of course a Hobbesian state arises to steal the latter. In the historical context, gay "marriages" or gay "unions" are counterfeit and biological dead ends: merely another phase in the steady march of the anti-culture of death which the West in her latter days has embraced.

[bill1971]

Biological dead ends? I didn't know in order to get married you had to agree to have offspring. My best friend got married and him and his wife have zero intent to have kids. Other married couples may be infertile, sterile or simply too old. Maybe we should not allow them to marry either.

[wannaberocker]

So just to clarify, you think that gay people are biologically different than hetero people?

Dont put words in my mouth. What i said is clear, a gay couple is different from a hetro couple physically and biologically. YOur equal but separate argument fails because you try to present a homosexual couple to be the same as a hetro couple. That is obviously false and the fact you fail to recognize it, tells me that your not being honest in this discussion. Based on those grounds and the examples i provided your separate but equal argument also fails.

Like i said before what the gay lobby is demanding is a redefination and special treatment based on their world view.

[nbhadja]

I agree govt should be out of marriage, but until it is universally out of it, it is a shame to have the govt continue to discriminate.

The people who favor discrimination against homosexuals will hide behind the "good, keep it illegal for homosexuals to get married and just get the government out of marriage" despite the fact that common sense says that as long as government is in marriage it should not discriminate against homosexuals.....though those with a burn desire against homosexuals will use any excuse to try and keep it illegal.

[nbhadja]

It isn't "big government" to simply keep marriage the way it's been for the last 2,000 years. This particular issue really has nothing to do with "big government." It's not like I'm advocating sodomy laws.

Typical close minded Christian view point. Marriages have been happening LONG before Christianity ever formed and yes, that includes homosexual marriages that easily predate the formation of Christianity.

Christianity's definition of marriage is just ONE newer definition of marriage.

Christianity did NOT create the concept of marriage.

[wannaberocker]

Typical close minded Christian view point. Marriages have been happening LONG before Christianity ever formed and yes, that includes homosexual marriages that easily predate the formation of Christianity.

Christianity's definition of marriage is just ONE newer definition of marriage.

Christianity did NOT create the concept of marriage.

That is an utterly ignorant statement. YOu confuse homosexual acts with "Homosexual marriage". Homosexual acts have been part of the world for as long as religion has existed, any religion Christianity, Judaism or Islam. "Homosexual Marriage" however, is a concept of this century. Don’t confuse homosexual behavior with marriage.

[osan]

Phew, what a relief. I'd hate to see gays able to marry.


Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

The only way that tub of lard would have been right on this is if the same stroke of the pen repealed the state's nose being in the private business of marriage.

Government sucks.

[Brett85]

The people who favor discrimination against homosexuals will hide behind the "good, keep it illegal for homosexuals to get married and just get the government out of marriage" despite the fact that common sense says that as long as government is in marriage it should not discriminate against homosexuals.....though those with a burn desire against homosexuals will use any excuse to try and keep it illegal.

What exactly is "illegal?" Gay marriage is decriminalized now, as it always has been. We don't have laws that imprison homosexuals for having their own private marriage ceremony.

[RiseAgainst]

What exactly is "illegal?" Gay marriage is decriminalized now, as it always has been. We don't have laws that imprison homosexuals for having their own private marriage ceremony.

No, you just use the entire force of government to discriminate against them.

[Brett85]

No, you just use the entire force of government to discriminate against them.

Does the government "discriminate" against a woman by preventing her from going into a men's restroom?

[kylejack]

Does the government "discriminate" against a woman by preventing her from going into a men's restroom?
Does a men's restroom provide tax benefits, power of attorney, hospital visitation rights? Or is it basically the same as a women's restroom?

[RiseAgainst]

Does the government "discriminate" against a woman by preventing her from going into a men's restroom?

Lol, keep grasping at straws man.

Let's just get government out of EVERYONES lives, instead of using it to impose our view on others, mmmmmkay?

[Southron]

Lol, keep grasping at straws man.

Let's just get government out of EVERYONES lives, instead of using it to impose our view on others, mmmmmkay?

Trend is imposing homosexual marriage on the population through the imperial courts.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Does a men's restroom provide tax benefits, power of attorney, hospital visitation rights? Or is it basically the same as a women's restroom?

Exactly. If the government is going to do heterosexual marriage with benefits, it might as well do homosexual marriage with benefits. But ultimately I'd like to see them GTFO of the marriage business all together!

[VBRonPaulFan]

Does a men's restroom provide tax benefits, power of attorney, hospital visitation rights? Or is it basically the same as a women's restroom?

i've seen the tax benefits thing thrown around a couple of times, and I can't think of a single tax break that applies specifically to married couples. there are a few things that you're specifically not allowed to take if you file married filing separately, but you get no bonus for filing jointly. all filing jointly does is let you combine your standard deductions and double the limits for certain things over a single filing status. the tax brackets aren't even as good for joint families (the top of the 25% rate isn't double the top of the single bracket)... so you fall into a higher tax bracket sooner.

am i missing something? or is this just a talking point that people like to use?

[kylejack]

i've seen the tax benefits thing thrown around a couple of times, and I can't think of a single tax break that applies specifically to married couples
They are different brackets.

Tax Brackets 2011 Single | Married Filing Jointly
10% Bracket $0 – $8,500 | $0 – $17,000
15% Bracket $8,500 – $34,500 | $17,000 – $69,000
25% Bracket $34,500 – $83,600 | $69,000 – $139,350
28% Bracket $83,600 – $174,400 | $139,350 – $212,300
33% Bracket $174,400 – $379,150 | $212,300 – $379,150
35% Bracket $379,150+ | $379,150+

the tax brackets aren't even as good for joint families (the top of the 25% rate isn't double the top of the single bracket)... so you fall into a higher tax bracket sooner.
Filing joint helps some who are married, and not others. It depends how much money they make, but they have the choice, that's the important part.

If you want an example, what if spouse 1 makes $60K and spouse 2 makes 0? Filing individual, one is taxed at the 25% rate on the top portion of his/her income and the other is taxed nothing. Filing joint, they're taxed no higher than 15% on top portion of income.

[VBRonPaulFan]

you don't have a choice if you're married. you either file joint or separate, and you get screwed filing separately.

8500 * 2 = 17000
34500 * 2 = 69000
83600 * 2 = 167200 > 139350 = that's where joint couples start to get shafted.

the only way it is beneficial for a couple is if it's a one income family. if they both have jobs, chances are they'd be better off filing single.

[Brett85]

Does a men's restroom provide tax benefits, power of attorney, hospital visitation rights? Or is it basically the same as a women's restroom?

Nope. Women's restrooms don't have urinals. Women's rights are being violated because they don't have urinals in their restrooms. ;)

[kylejack]

Nope. Women's restrooms don't have urinals. Women's rights are being violated because they don't have urinals in their restrooms. ;)
Not really seeing the functional utility there.

[kylejack]

the only way it is beneficial for a couple is if it's a one income family. if they both have jobs, chances are they'd be better off filing single.
Note that's the example I provided.

[VBRonPaulFan]

Note that's the example I provided.

note that if that is the only tax 'benefit' you can list.... there really aren't tax benefits that married couples have over homosexual couples. generally they'd be better off staying single or filing HOH if they had a kid.

[otherone]

Libertarianism is a big tent! From Timothy Leary to Ted Kaczynski!

[kylejack]

note that if that is the only tax 'benefit' you can list.... there really aren't tax benefits that married couples have over homosexual couples. generally they'd be better off staying single or filing HOH if they had a kid.
Who cares about 'generally'? We are all individuals. We should each have the same individual rights. Marriage provides tax benefits to some, depending on income. That potential tax benefit should be available to all without regard to sexuality.

Or maybe we should generally follow habeas corpus, or generally allow people to exercise their First Amendment rights.

[Danke]

Yes, but you see this thread was/is specifically about NJ. In NJ, gays with their civil unions have the exact same legal status and privileges as any married couples.

I still see nothing in this for me and my sisters...:(

[VBRonPaulFan]

Who cares about 'generally'? We are all individuals. We should each have the same individual rights. Marriage provides tax benefits to some, depending on income. That potential tax benefit should be available to all without regard to sexuality.

Or maybe we should generally follow habeas corpus, or generally allow people to exercise their First Amendment rights.

i'm glad you're starting to see it my way. tax returns should be individually based, but joint filing couples get no benefit that homosexual couples dont get. name one credit/deduction/exemption that a joint couple can claim that a homosexual couple cant. don't throw stuff out if you can't back it up.

[Cabal]

Then have fun in your make-believe world where government doesn't exist.

Sure thing. And you have fun in your make-believe world where the State 'respects' and 'protects' your rights--just because you believe them when they call it rain doesn't mean they're not actually pissing all over your face.