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

......

The heterosexual class also exhibit compulsive behaviors and are part of a protected class. In some instances they make it a disgusting class... ie: rape, adultery, abusive use of women as in prostitution, spousal abuse, murder, child endangerment, strip clubs, and porn. In many cases hetero husbands like to indulge in gay affairs with others that they can readily dump, but care nothing about possibly bringing disease into their home.

Heterosexual classes have been protected in all of this, and are still a protected class despite their horrendous divorce rates. Gay marriages may turn out this way also, but why would one class be protected while another requires a United States Supreme Court to extend marriage rights to gays?

I think we should give gays and lesbians an equal chance to f**k up the marriage contract. And they could possibly give the heteros some pointers on how to have a happy marriage.....

 

like how me being hetero sexual is just a preference a naturel preference i did not choose but just a preference you’re not born heterosexual its a choice any of us could just go gay at any time am i right?


Homosexual sex acts are not inherently harmful or oppressive so as long as homosexuals are not hurting people and controlling them in pursuit of marriage or sex or anything else we have no right to hurt or control them for being gay

they should be able to marry the consenting adult of their choice just like you that mostly avoids infringeing on your freedom except that you won’t be able to oppress them as you would like to

 

Christie made the right choice. He's leaving it up to the people and the court system. Something liberals should support.

 

no one else is going to marry because we let homosexuals marry one another maybe other groups will marry someday because we will decide its wrong to stop them but that decision will be based on the consequences of those kinds relationships themselves


a lot of gays just want to marry the person they love

Discrimination based on your own sense of disgust and fear is wrong for any one

Discrimination against something that harms peephole and controls them is good in my book

Your gay marriage leads to polygamy and polygamy in which a wife has no say in the matter is a use of the slippery slope fallacy its not necessarily true and doesn’t seem particularly likely


Your not the dullest of readers but you can’t seem to see how full of (*)(*)(*)(*) your slippery slope fear mongering is at all

 

The courts should uphold fairness not that they always have but right should not be taken away by the mob

its possible a majority of Americans could vote to outlaw Christianity for example it would not be right for the majority to do so

 

You're conflating a state issue with a national issue. Religious liberty is protected in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, so there is absolutely no lawful justification for letting the people vote it away; conversely, the legal institution of marriage is not a proper "right" but rather a state-sanctioned privilege, meaning it falls within the legitimate purview of the state's citizens and their courts.

 

i thick the right thing to do may not always be protected by the contusion and that the wrong thing is not always forbidden by it


to me the liberty to marry who you choose is a good thing as long as you’re not controlling and or harming someone to do it

Taking away marriage for any other reason to suit yourself and how you would like the world to be is wrong

if enough people wanted to they could amend religious freedom or any other liberty out of the constitution it would still be wrong to take that freedom away just like it would be wrong to deny homosexuals the freedom of marrying the consenting adult of their choice that some heterosexuals want to keep for themselves

 

Technically speaking, gays are not suing for the right to marry each other. They can marry each other whenever they like. What they're suing for is inclusion in a state-sanctioned legal institution that is synonymous with "marriage". In other words, they want a state-seal of approval on their relationship and all the benefits that come with it. Granted, if heterosexuals are going to have access to this institution, I don't see why all relationships shouldn't, but it's not my place to decide. The residents of New Jersey should decide how to define the legal institution of marriage in their state.

 

Maybe that’s the legal thing to do i cant bring myself to say it’s right for the majority to deny benefits from legal institutions at the state level to minority’s at will then you really could go back to limiting marriage and other state level legal institutions by whatever traits the majority wants to

If the people wanted then you cannot marry someone of another race a democrat cannot marry a republican a dog owner cannot marry a cat owner but both can marry someone with a parrot whatever you can get the masses to rally around at any one time would go


It’s not discrimination in any case it just the majority of a state deciding what state benefits you can get based on personal traits of you and in the case of marriage your prospective spouse

 

It's about as real as the slippery slope of women's suffrage leading to the right of criminals and children voting. You can invent a slippery slope for just about anything, this is nothing special. Go ahead, pick a topic. What civil rights discussion could NOT be compared to a slippery slope.

Womans suffereage
Interracial marriage
Slavery

It would be easy enough to apply a slippery slope to any of those scenarios.

Red herring. For one it would mean a wife could have two husbands as well. For two, you assume that such a law would give the wife no choice in the matter that the man could marry again - a scenario which is obviously quite different and not similarly situated to a scenario of a couple marrying.

 

.....

No, Gov. Christie is protecting his plan for his 2016 run for the presidency, and he cannot have a Constitutional fight go on and on and finally end up in the USSC so he vetoed it. If he was too cowardly to sign it, then the issue belongs in the Supreme Court, not in the votes of lay people that cannot even understand the legal language involved in the making of the bill, thus voting the wrong way...we all remember Prop. 8 in California, don't we?

 

Voting the wrong way? People in California voted how they wanted to.

So democracy is "the wrong way"? This is why regulating behaviors in states is GOING TO wind up in front of SCOTUS... Because of the misconception that homosexuals are a "race". Homosexuals are a very narrow group of sexual-fetish practitioners, [in a sea of them BTW] who have a very loud political voice. They make no secret of theirs being a bid to usurp mainstream cultural values:

From GLAAD. [Powerful gay and lesbian media group in Los Angeles]

Perhaps instead of all the speculation about Gov. Christie's motivations, maybe he just went to the GLAAD website and read that. As the governor of his state, he felt it necessary for those millions unaware of what the gay lobbiests are up to, should have the chance to put it to a vote, have commercials run on things like this statement from GLAAD, the fact that as part of that "expansion of cultural influence" in California includes FORCING children to emulate a pedophile and to learn that:

1. Gay sex is intrinsic to a person's identity [by reinforcing the fallicy of "gays" and "lesbians' referring to themselves by their sexual behaviors and

2. Men who sodomize vulnerable minor boys under the influence of drugs are "to be admired".

I'm thinking Governor Christie may be up on these things and have concerns for the citizens he was elected to govern. It may be as simple as that.

 

We have limits on what the government can do in this nation that doesn’t make sense unless you believe that some things are unjust even by popular vote

i don’t believe homosexuals are a race i believe there peephole that are sexually attracted to the same gender in the way im horny for the opposite gender

if being hetero sexual is just a fetish that works out well for lots of people ok

if you would be so kind as to show me links from the glad website where they tell kids to act like pedophiles….. well come to thick of it your not with them because your gay so im still pro-gay marriage but I will hate glad then

Being hetero sexual is an important thing about me so i imagine it is a big deal for homosexuals and even bigger if they have people giving them trouble over it

 

I'm going to leave this here.

 

Yeah, but have the Canooks mandated that Harvey Milk be taught to kids in school as a "gay hero"?

That pretty much qualifies as a disaster.

Harvey Milk was an admitted felonious pedophile who took advantage of substance-addicted minors in order to coerce them into being his sodomy victims. Did you know that it is against the law to have sex with anyone you knew was heavily under the influence of drugs, at any age? Harvey liked 'em young though. From the book The Mayor of Castro Street: "Harvey..had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems."

He doubles as the premier "gay hero" in history books soon to be released in California schools.

What about the civil rights of children to be free from undue influence? To not be within the reach of a pedophile, psychologically or otherwise? What about this segment of the human population who only gets considered as an afterthought...unless they're talking about "gay teen suicide", then all of a sudden it's not OK to hurt or take advantage of teens..

Hypocrisy sucks..

 

I like how you used a straw man.

 

is the book online anywhere? Regardless if that’s in the book and if the book is telling the truth i don’t see how it would make legal gay marriage in Canada or nay where else a bad thing

on the other hand the accuracy of and content of the book may be grounds for a change in some Canadian curriculums

 

It isn't a strawman. Governor Christie cited his reasons for vetoing the Bill that he believes his entire constituency should weigh in on such a profound societal change as "gay marraige".

Part and parcel to the gay steamroller crushing our value system, as it utilzes the oil of blind PC public sympathy to lubricate the structures in front of it for easier crushing, is the leg of that journey known as "desegretation" for their "race" [behavior really, but who's counting technicalities? Certainly not the kneejerk PC crowd]. That's part of the "culture change influence...expanding"...

I'm just saying that Governor Christie comes across as a smart and pragmatic guy, interested in representing the entirety of his constituency instead of just a few gay judges and GLAAD. Speaking of GLAAD [one of the most powerful influential groups in what you see/learn in media, film and the internet], let's talk about that potential profundity. While the legal strategy is for gays to chant "civil rights for the downtrodden"..here's what's really going on with trying to retool the language of marraige:

And maybe as part of that "cultural change influence" expanding is the very disturbing fact of the overwhelming numbers of organized gay groups promoting Harvey Milk, a known child-sex predator, to children in California schools...

They celebrate and defend his sodomizing of a drug-addicted 16 year old. They must because every time I bring it up, they reply with "they were in love" or "16 is old enough!" [in spite of clear laws on the CA books saying that a 33 year old like Milk sodomizing 16 year old drug-addicted Jack M. is a violation of two sex-offenses rendering him eligible for the registry].

Maybe Governor Christie [and the legislature in Idaho and more to come] is looking at California like a petri dish, to see what the gay culture will grow in an unchecked environment? To see what that "cultural change influence" expansion will actually bear fruit as? And maybe Governor Christie sees that as a poor fit for New Jersey, and doesn't want to ram that down their throats? Call me cautious but I think a governor would be remiss in his or her duties to not consider mandating a pedophile to be taught to children as "a hero" as too profound a "cultural change expansion" for his state to absorb and be able to cope with..

 

Govt does NOT belong in social issues. The proper course is to get the state govts to stop issuing marriage licenses. These matters should be handled through estate lawyers. Marriage is a Church tradition. The real problem is that govts have no right to issue marriage licenses.

Given that the above proper course isn't gonna happen, let the people decide, not the govt. It's what our Constitution and country is all about.

 

Yes, government DOES belong in social issues since government = people. Popular vote. It's funny how with a political agenda, "government" = tyranny when that group cannot get it's way, like teaching kids to emulate a pedophile for example... but then "government" becomes sublime when it's "the People excersing their voice in our great democracy"..

The people who stand to be affected by this purposeful and calculated "cultural change influence" expanding have every right to vote on a culture that they must live in.

We aren't talking about race, creed, ethnic background or gender/sex [n.] We're talking about a very limited group of compulsive sexual behaviors. At the very least, giving just them special status would be discriminating against all other compulsive sexual behaviors which run the gamut, let me tell you..

One of those is pedophilia.

 

There is no gay agenda there may be people who are gay with a common agenda there could be a few of those but being homosexual doesn’t come with political instructions built in same with heterosexuals

I want gay marriage to be legal because its unfair to stop citizens from enjoying the benefits of marriage based on nothing more than the set of genitals and chromosomes in the couple it’s no better than denying marriage based on pigmentation in the skin or ethnicity not because those things can’t be helped (whit the possible exception of pigmentation they can’t) but because these things don’t matter when it comes to people being together in this kind of contract

It helps no one to ban it it harms some. The mob should not be able to inflict this pointless harm based on their own prejudices and fears

no one forced this opinion on me i have thought about it for years and that’s what i think

if anyone is promoting pedophilia or rape they should be stopped those things are harmful and unfair that’s why I will not support those

But there is nothing wrong with gay marriage gay marriage will not force anything that’s unfair or harmful on us as a society

If nay one is so stupid as to try and legalize something that is unfair or harmful and sites gay marriage as why they are right

Then we baring an outbreak of mass idiocy will point out why that must not be done to prevent the mistreatment of people there will be many homosexuals who will stand with us on this not every heterosexual will

 

Being hetero sexual is compulsive hetero sexual sex is often compulsive sexual behavior whenever people have hetero sexual sex because they want to

We may as well be voting on the right of different races and genders and ethnicities if you want are great democracy to control the society we live in if you don’t want that then I must assume you feel there are some things that are wrong even if democratic

and unless they make gay marriage compulsory it primarily effects people who would decide to get married to someone of the same gender

 

....

1) Prop 8 has since been overturned as unconstitutional.

2) "Regulating behaviors" of citizens because of their sexual preferences is "the wrong way" just as the first Prop 8 was written in a way to confuse the citizens' vote the first time. The system is set up so that the duties of the states are ceded to the further articulation of a severely partisan USSC.

3) Just as rabid anti-gay bashers get certain slang pseudonyms attached to them... gays and lesbians are in the same class as you and me...American citizens entitled to the same rights as every other citizen.

4) Unsure of the motivations concerning that unacceptable remark but I expect it to include heterosexual men also.

5) If you feel your theoretical statement about Gov. Christie may be true, then you are wrong. Gov. Christie gave up his duty as governor to right a wrong and then passed it on to the public to decide on the constitutionality of why some men and women were being denied the right to marry while others automatically had easy access to it.

A theoretical statement of my own, as we are now in the realm of theorizing Christie's actions...he may just be another big, fat, caving-in republican governor when equal rights was at issue and decided that in order to be a candidate in the 2016 presidential election, he must deny equality to some according to the republican mantra.

 

.....

1) Wrong: Government is necessary to ensure the equality of each of its citizens according to the Constitution. A legal marriage contract ensures the rights of beneficiaries in the event of the husband or wife's deaths, regarding their offspring.

2) Marriage is a legal tradition and best left to the states to discern if there are other wives or husbands in the applicant's history, and to make sure everything is legal and binding for the protection of the wife and any future children. She will never get this affirmation by a church, which demands a state license to perform the wedding. A church wedding is just a socialized affair to announce two people that are undertaking the task of marriage.

3) To let mobs of people decide over a Constitution and a consortium of judges, what is right and wrong is foolhardy. We have already found the Articles of Confederation for the first 13 states was a failure, with conflicting laws, declaration of wars, etc. We now have 50 states and numerous territories in our current Democracy and a Constitution to uphold to provide unity, prosperity, and legality to everything our government undertakes. Mobs of people can never accomplish that without guns, militias, and pitchforks. We are simply too large to have a smaller government and using a simple 'Articles of Confederation' to undertake the tasks confronting America today.

 

1. Prop 8 is on its way to the Supreme Court, not solidly overturned. Nice try though..

2. Penal and civil codes are at their foundation a regulation of human behaviors. To delegate behavioral groups outside organized religion to special protections and priveleges under the Constitution would need an Amendment. In this case a very limited compulsive sexual behavior group only known so far as practitioners of "gay" and "lesbian" sex, leaving out [discriminating against] all other compulsive sexual behavioral groups.

3. Sorry, see #2.

4. Gay groups across the US are [as you know full well http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...y-milk-have-been-registered-sex-offender.html ] promoting Harvey Milk as their hero and representative embodied. Harvey Milk has been documented to have had sexual relations [sodomy to be specific] with a minor under the influence of drugs, in the States of New York and California, and possibly in other states travelled between those two in the 1960s. Those laws forbidding that are still on the books today in California, the same place where Harvey Milk is mandated to be taught to children as "a gay hero" via SB 48 while at the same time if he were alive, would be eligible for the sex-offender's registry for sex crimes against children.

5. Governor Christie I assume also knows about gays promoting Harvey Milk. It may just be simply that he doesn't want that for the children in his state. He has wisely chosen to allow the people in his state to decide on if part of "legitimizing gays via marraige" also means teaching their heros to kids in school. This may be hard to wrap your head around but do try. Some people aren't cool with the idea of the gay culture's strategic plan to usurp and replace mainstream sexual values with the manifest values of their own going on in experiment form in California right now..

I notice you made disparaging comments alluding to the Governor's weight problem. It's OK for gays to bash others who cordially disagree with them. Apparently. You're mad that one guy used his power to give power back to the people he governs, meanwhile you celebrate one guy's power [the judge in CA who usurped the Will of the People there by retooling the legal description of marraige].