N.J. Gov. Christie Vetoes Gay Marriage Bill as Vowed

Interracial marriage? Why stop there? According to these numbskulls, slavery and discrimination should have been left to a vote!

Those (*)(*)(*)(*) liberal activist judges decided Brown v. Board of Education, you know...

 

Race is a proven genetic factor. Homosexuality is not. Where do you get the audacity putting both of them even in the same sentence?

 

A man does not have th right to marry me, but a woman does. That is a gender issue. There must be a legitimate state interest for the distinction.

 

There is. Just like a state setting qualifications for who may enter the ladies public toilet and the mens'. I remember back a couple of years ago when the big push for repealing DADT was in full swing. Suddenly you began hearing how all public restrooms should be coed. I thought it odd at the time but looking back, the gay lobby is very fiercely strategic and coordinated. They knew the question of having someone in military barracks who was sexually attracted to you would be the same as having the opposite gender share the bunks and showers. So to "nullify" that, they proposed that public restrooms be unisex. Didn't go over, but they won the temporary overturn of DADT until a republican or other person of conservative convictions, or someone merely informed of the California situation becomes president again.

Well you haven't given the polygamists enough time. That's all they're waiting for...enough time. And after them, it will be lowering the age of consent.. [or maybe before them, who knows?]. A repeal of laws against child molesting looks like it's on the horizon too, since the "gay [fill in the blank next political agenda] ambassador to kids in California is a known pedophlie.

Odd choice, that..

I like the young woman in Seattle who recently "gay married" the building to keep it from being condemned. I guess she determined the building was a girl? Or maybe the building was built a boy but decided it wanted to get reconstruction, and so became a transgender "girl building"? The rumor is that the building is having second thoughts but instead of going boy again she quickly agreed to the lesbian wedding so that she wouldn't be tempted to switch back again.

It all gets so confusing. But oddly that all clears up when the solid and inflexible terms "gay" and "lesbian" make their legal bids for "official class distinction" at the Constitutional level..lol...

And that folks is what I'm talking about when you make a behavior a class. If they want their behavior to get Constitutional protection, it's time to start applying for that federal-recognition of religion. I've always thought it qualifies there in spades more than making "sex" be a noun when really it's a verb in their case..

...and a very muddy and poorly understood verb at that...

 

How funny, it took a war for the slavery issue to be finally settled and the kicking out of the Democrats that had a strangle hold in the South got rid of most Segregation within the South.

 

In all of that, you never actually gave a reason why there should be a distinction in marriage.

 

Its not their job. You want to change the law the burden is on you.

 

Wrong again. Both genders can marry so there is no gender discrimination. This is sexual preference. Nice try though.

And no there is no law that states a judge's idea of what should be considered "legitimate" should ever be a basis for denying people their right to vote.

 

Lol, that's ridiculous. So people can create laws for whatever reason they like, giving certain groups and classes special rights... and then we have to prove that we're similarly situated, but we don't even have the benefit of knowing why they have those rights in the first place? It's REQUIRED to know why the other group has those rights in the first place if you are going to be arguing for similar situation. And if the other group can't even produce reasons, then the law creating the different rights is illegitimate.

 

Then I suppose you see nothing wrong with this form of equality then either:
Everyone has the right to marry someone of the same race.

Blacks had the right to marry too - they just didn't have the right to marry someone of the race of their preference.
Just like men and women today do not have the right to marry someone of the gender of their preference.

 

Yes, they do. That has already been determined. Texmaster has already pointed out the noun/verb issue, and well done too I might add. Both genders already may marry. It's when they want to marry their own gender where we object to that behavior as setting a de facto new societal norm through marraige. And that is why gays aren't happy with civil unions. They want what they do to shine in the eyes of children as "good, to be revered, honorable", to be emulated instead of lived with in toleration. They want promotion of it through marraige.

And how am I qualified to say so? By who they've chosen to head up their ambassadorship to children in their "desegregation" program now in swing in California. A pedophile. A known and "celebrated" "gay-rights" pedophile. A serial child-date-raper, a felonious child sodomizer who used his position with youth at risk from drug use to glean their ranks, sodomize them while they were under the influence and then dump them when they aged beyond his 'preference'.

This guy is the one they chose to teach kids that who they are [actually, confused with what they do] is "normal"... And they're out to use marraige as that same vehicle. What is the number one sexual pairing that society puts its approval stamp on? What is the ceremony that personifies "community approval of sexual couplings? Marraige. And they know it...

Study up on pedophiles and the grooming process when you get a chance..

Yes, we decide if men can use the women's bathroom and vice versa. Or if minors can marry or drive cars, and at what age. Or if brothers and sisters, parents and children or polygamists may marry...if we as a collective want to put our stamp of approval on those situations.

Yes, that's called testing the law. It's how we do things in the US.

I have just told you why there are discriminations in marraige that aren't limited to men and women who are sexually oriented towards their same gender. So, I've produced reasons.

Also, "race" is an easily-identifiable physical presentation reflecting an ethnic origin. "Gender" is the set of reproductive organs one is born with, not what they do with them. "Creed" is a set of religious practices, limited and must be federally-recognized, else I could make up the "church of the stale breadcrumbs" and demand tax-exempt status. So far sexual orientation/behavior [thank you texmaster], falls under none of those categories.

Why not apply for a religion? You know gays qualify based on:

1. Dogmatic refusal to examine science as it applies to your behaviors and

2. Evangelizing/recruiting going on in a California school near you..

3. Using powerful psychological tools to dissuade defection. "Anne Heching" is like wearing the scarlet letter.

All in all the only thing GLBTQs are lacking is the building and the pews.

 

Because this kind of discrimination is wrong for both groups I get the audacity and because letting homosexuals marry is the right thing to do the fair thing to do and a harmless thing to do that is also where i get the audacity

Genetic or not i never chose my sexuality as a heterosexual and I can’t change it i just tuned out that way homosexuals iv spoken to and who have spoken to me say the same and i believe them so I guess you cant chose to be either black or attracted to the same sex you are or you are not

 

its unfair senseless and cruel and therefore wrong and should therefore be changed there you go

 

Discriminating against people who want to marry someone of the same gender is not better then mistreating someone who wants to marry someone of another race

its discrimination even if hetero sexuals can’t marry the same gender and homosexuals can marry the opposite gender just as its discrimination towards black and white people who want to marry one another even though people of both races are punished the same

Please listen to yourself and listen to the tyrannical lies of the past that you echo in pursuit of getting what you want



Pace v. Alabama (1883):

In November of 1881, Tony Pace (a black man) and Mary J. Cox (a white woman) were indicted under Section 4189 of the Alabama Code, which read:

If any white person and any negro, or the descendant of any negro to the third generation, inclusive, though one ancestor of each generation was a white person, intermarry or live in adultery or fornication with each other, each of them must, on conviction, be imprisoned in the penitentiary or sentenced to hard labor for the county for not less than two nor more than seven years.


The Court unanimously upheld the conviction of Pace and Cox, ruling that the law was not discriminatory because:

Whatever discrimination is made in the punishment prescribed in the two sections is directed against the offense designated and not against the person of any particular color or race. The punishment of each offending person, whether white or black, is the same.

 

it’s like if saying out lawing hetero sexual marriage and having only homosexual marriage would not be discrimination towards hetero sexuals because every one regardless of what they want is treated the same way

its not true

 

Fine, let's test the law. I'll do so by supposing some of the reasons heterosexuals were given special rights, since you guys don't seem to know why.

1: Marriage creates a support network. Society benefits, financially, from the fact that people in a loving, committed relationship take care of each other financially and emotionally. If your husband is ill, who takes care of him? His wife. Marriage creates and supports the first line of defense before someone becomes a burden on society.

2: Marriage supports the reduction of promiscuity. This has many benefits, from the reduction of the spread of STD's, helping create more stable homes for children raised in the family unit. Marriages serve as examples for others which (one would hope) would further reduce the propensity for promiscuity.

3: Marriage recognizes the role of the "homemaker", and helps ensure that the homemaker has rights and is protected in the event of a possible divorce. (i.e. eligible for things like alimony, inheritance, and entitlement to the social security benefits of the surviving souse).

4: Marriage enables "join custody", where both partners can have custody of a child. This is particularly important if the couple wishes to adopt a child. You're just asking for legal complication if one "parental figure" doesn't actually have any legal rights over the child.

5: Marriage helps enable adoption. Society benefits from adopting children, getting them off the budget of the state and putting them into loving, supportive homes. Deny marriage, and you deny a stable/functioning home.

6: Marriage simplifies and strengthens legal contracts, creating a powerful Power of Attorney, enabling the partners to act on behalf of their partner on financial and medical decisions with little concern for legal complication or challenges. Example: Consider what happens when a "civil unioned" couple has someone injured in their own state, requiring the other to make medical decisions. What happens to that couple if they were instead on vacation in texas?

7: Marriage enables many rights that might simply be seen as niceties... like the ability to be buried next to your partner in a veterans cemetery.

So that's off the top of my head. Under most regards, same-sex couples and society benefit the same way as if it was an opposite sex couple... benefiting from reduced spread of STD's and financial/emotional stability.

Married same-sex couples also increases the pool of people who qualify to adopt, and grantes them financial and legal support to to help build that nest.


Now obviously I don't anticipate any support on this form you guys, because regardless of what I say, you guys probably don't consider a same-sex household a good household for children. You consider the STD's they have as their own problem. You don't think they should be gay to begin with, so why would you support an institution that supports it? This is a question for psychological study, but sadly, we don't answer to the likes of scientific study in our laws.

 

Gosh, that's some crappy, yet sadly familiar logic we see in that justification for a discriminatory ruling

 

I get it:

If you use (*) instead of just *, your post won't get deleted.

OR JUST AGREE WITH THE MODERATOR VIEWING IT, right?

 

....

First we need to decide what equality is, and how it is to be bestowed. Regardless of your color, gender, place in society, equality is theoretically a right given to every person, but we all know that in 2012, true equality is still very much a fallacy.

Equality, is legally meted out in accordance to exactly the criteria listed above. Color, gender, affluence, by visuals, and all are taken into consideration by courts, people walking down the street, sitting in a restaurant, and talking with a sales clerk. Different degrees of equality are given to each of these people according to visually 'interpreting' each person.

If a black man enters a courtroom on a charge of murder; has a public defender and winds up with an all white jury, one can successfully theorize that the result will have a racist connotation. If a white man enters the same courtroom on the same charge of murder; has a high priced, successful atty dressed in an expensive suit, he will get an all white jury....but both men will get vastly different degrees of equality under the law in the judge and jury's ruling.

Men, women, children, aunts, uncles, grandfathers and grandmothers are all treated differently by society and the courts. Discrimination for many is a daily event both in everyday life and the courts. Equality is a fleeting, sometimes indiscernable thing for many people.

Now we add differences from the established mainstream, such as an impoverished background, limited education, color, gender, sexual preference, language barriers, and you see equality vanish and discrimination appear. Our society and our government have not yet learned how to administer equality based on our Constitution, and practice unconscious discrimination through years of practice that has become their law.

To have one's right to secure happiness being subject to citizens' votes is wrong. This is a monumental and important factor to a person's happiness, is established in the Constitution and should never be left up to citizens to decide what happiness another person is entitled to based solely on their sexual preferences.

The United States Supreme Court should rule on it for all states, making one rule for all states to follow. It is not fair for gays or lesbians who want to marry, who must travel to states where same sex marriages are legal, when hetero marriages take place anywhere the couple wants.

Equality is just another word for the transfering of Constitutional rights from one person to another person based on the mixture of equality versus modern day hardly discernable discrimination.

 

Answer me something, Agent. You talk about "equal protection under the law." Suppose Christie did everything you just suggested and same sex marriage became recognized by the state. Even with this new law in place, other groups such as polygamists still do not have equal marriage protection. Do you continue your crusade to redefine marriage once again, or do you just not worry about it?

Here's why I ask this. The most common justification I hear for same sex marriage is "equal rights." And while many of these people might pay lip service to the idea of state recognized polygamist marriage when it is brought up in conversation, very few of them are actually doing anything to get the law changed to encompass it. So technically speaking, if the law is only changed to allow same sex marriage, then the law still does not recognize "equal marriage rights." It will still be just as discriminatory as it is now. The only difference will be that one group (homosexuals) now get to become the exception to the traditional definition.

If the same sex marriage crusade is really about equal rights, then don't you have an obligation to demand a legal definition of marriage that encompasses EVERY possibility? Because if you are satisfied with the law only being altered to include same sex marriage, then it was never really about equality at all, was it? It was only about self-interest. Because there are still groups being denied what you were being denied, and their inequality does not seem to bother you. Or at least not enough to fight for their marriage recognition with the same ferocity that you fought for gay marriage.

 

Bingo! And Bravo too!

Every time I bring this point up with the gay lobbiests, their retort is "so what, let other people worry about their rights". Which is the same as their saying "we don't care that other adults in love still won't be able to marry".

Which is very bigoted and discriminatory. And they never see it that way, ever. I cannot think of one exception where they agreed that partial-retooling of marraige description wasn't fair to some others who wanted marraige rights too..

In fact, if you want to shut down a gay person lobbying hard for "gay marraige rights", simply bring up that they should increase their numbers for "civil rights" by standing shoulder to shoulder with polygamists and incest groups who want the same rights. Then the conversation gets changed fast enough to spin your head, or gets quiet enough [disappears] to hear a pin drop.

 

Thats exactly right and what liberals refuse to acknowledge by their careless arguments that are so general you cannot leave anyone out for marriage whatever their sexual preference.

 

Which is, of course, a false argument dispelled numerous times.

Now I realize that your fallback argument is to equate pedophilia to gay marriage. However, once again, pedophilia does not consist wholly as groups of consenting adults.

As we as a society have determined that children are not consenting adults, there already exists laws that bar children from marrying adults.

Why you extrapolate that those laws do not count to perpetuate your utterly failed argument is a bit of a mystery. Is it because you want to legalize pedophilia and bestiality? Or simply lower the age of consent for marriage?

 

So if there are 50 beached whales somewhere, and we only have time to push 30 of them back into the ocean, we shouldn't bother, because we can't save them all?

Anyway, I can't answer for Agent, but I have stated my position very clearly - any consenting adults should be allowed to marry, period. My logic is 100% consistent.

 

That's right. You cannot leave consenting adults out.

However, you can easily draw a distinction between consenting adults and other beings which cannot consent.

My question, still unanswered, is this: How do people like you and Silouette, who are apparently incapable of understanding the word "consent", function as adults in contractual society? Items which require mutual consent of the parties are all around us - how does one function as an adult when one is incapable of understanding a difference between consent and non-consent?