[LWC]

Gov. Chris Christie has followed through on his promise to reject a bill allowing same-sex marriage in New Jersey by quickly vetoing the measure Friday.

http://news.yahoo.com/nj-gov-christie-ve...36132.html

[TheRealVille]

Everybody knew he would, it just sets up a vote, or a supreme court fight. The legislature can veto his veto, if they get 2/3 rd's vote, which isn't expected. Just another case of a republican stripping equal rights for some citizens.

[LWC]

^I do not know how they would be able to fight it in the Supreme Court. I guess it could be attempted.

[TheRealVille]

^I do not know how they would be able to fight it in the Supreme Court. I guess it could be attempted.

It could work it's way through the courts, up to the top.

[TheRealVille]

Hopefully, in the next few years, all the states will be in court having to defend their civil rights denials.

[Hoot Gibson]

Good for Governor Christie. I believe that he proposed putting the issue on the ballot, so that the people of New Jersey could decide but as usual, the Democrats did not trust their constituents to decide the issue. Another case of the minority attempting to oppress the majority in this country. Marriage, gay or hetero, is not a civil right.

[TheRealVille]

Good for Governor Christie. I believe that he proposed putting the issue on the ballot, so that the people of New Jersey could decide but as usual, the Democrats did not trust their constituents to decide the issue. Another case of the minority attempting to oppress the majority in this country. Marriage, gay or hetero, is not a civil right.

It is a civil right when you allow one and not the other, though. Do away with both, or allow both.

[Hoot Gibson]

It is a civil right when you allow one and not the other, though. Do away with both, or allow both.

No, gays and lesbians do not have a civil right to marry. If a state passes a law to allow them to marry, then they have that right within that state. The NJ law did not pass, so they have no such right. Until gays and lesbians can win the support of the majority of NJ voters, then they should not be allowed to marry there.

I have no civil right to food stamps, welfare checks, treatment in VA hospitals, a free cell phone, or a host of other government benefits that other people receive. We have the right to equal protection under the law, but the government can and does discriminate between individual based on criteria that our elected officials set. These are not civil rights. Marriage is no different - it is a legal institution that has a well defined historical definition in our society.

State governments cannot deny any of us a marriage in a church that ones to recognize our unions but they can decide which marriages should be recognized as legally binding upon the parties.

[TheRealVille]

No, gays and lesbians do not have a civil right to marry. If a state passes a law to allow them to marry, then they have that right within that state. The NJ law did not pass, so they have no such right. Until gays and lesbians can win the support of the majority of NJ voters, then they should not be allowed to marry there.

I have no civil right to food stamps, welfare checks, treatment in VA hospitals, a free cell phone, or a host of other government benefits that other people receive. We have the right to equal protection under the law, but the government can and does discriminate between individual based on criteria that our elected officials set. These are not civil rights. Marriage is no different - it is a legal institution that has a well defined historical definition in our society.

State governments cannot deny any of us a marriage in a church that ones to recognize our unions but they can decide which marriages should be recognized as legally binding upon the parties.

So any state that doesn't stipulate marriage has to be man and woman has to give marriage licenses to anybody of legal age?

[Hoot Gibson]

So any state that doesn't stipulate marriage has to be man and woman has to give marriage licenses to anybody of legal age?

I never said that. What I said is that I believe that states have the right to define marriage however they want (in the absence of a constitutional amendment) because the US Constitution does not define marriage. States should have the right to define the criteria for marriage unless and until the Constitution is amended to supersede states' rights on this issue.

It is not a civil rights issue. Does that mean that some federal court and perhaps the Supreme Court itself may someday reinterpret the Constitution and declare marriage a civil right? Of course not. Given enough liberal justices Supreme Court who are willing to consider public opinion and international laws when determining the "constitutionality" of American laws, anything is possible. That is what make jokers like Barack Obama so dangerous to the long term viability of our constitutional system.

[vundy33]

Just let the state vote on it. It'll pass...

[TheRealVille]

I never said that. What I said is that I believe that states have the right to define marriage however they want (in the absence of a constitutional amendment) because the US Constitution does not define marriage. States should have the right to define the criteria for marriage unless and until the Constitution is amended to supersede states' rights on this issue.

It is not a civil rights issue. Does that mean that some federal court and perhaps the Supreme Court itself may someday reinterpret the Constitution and declare marriage a civil right? Of course not. Given enough liberal justices Supreme Court who are willing to consider public opinion and international laws when determining the "constitutionality" of American laws, anything is possible. That is what make jokers like Barack Obama so dangerous to the long term viability of our constitutional system.

Do you think gays should be able to marry in states that are not stipulated man and woman? If it's not stated otherwise, should gay couples be allowed to marry in states that allow a man and woman to marry?

[Hoot Gibson]

Do you think gays should be able to marry in states that are not stipulated man and woman? If it's not stated otherwise, should gay couples be allowed to marry in states that allow a man and woman to marry?

To my knowledge, all states have guidelines concerning who can and cannot marry. If they had no such law, then I am sure that a gay or lesbian couple would have attempted to obtain a marriage there long ago. Instead of asking me a series of leading questions, why don't you just tell us if there is such a state? Is there a state that performs marriages and fails to define eligibility requirements for such marriages?

[TheRealVille]

To my knowledge, all states have guidelines concerning who can and cannot marry. If they had no such law, then I am sure that a gay or lesbian couple would have attempted to obtain a marriage there long ago. Instead of asking me a series of leading questions, why don't you just tell us if there is such a state? Is there a state that performs marriages and fails to define eligibility requirements for such marriages?

No leading. But, no, a lot of states have no marriage criteria, other than being of legal age. Do you think gays should be allowed to marry in such states that have no laws concerning that a marriage is between a man and woman only?

[Hoot Gibson]

No leading. But, no, a lot of states have no marriage criteria, other than being of legal age. Do you think gays should be allowed to marry in such states that have no laws concerning that a marriage is between a man and woman only?

Please give me an example of such a state. I am skeptical that what you are saying is true.

[TheRealVille]

Please give me an example of such a state. I am skeptical that what you are saying is true.

Hoot, any state that doesn't stipulate that marriage is between a man and woman. It isn't that hard of a question.

[Hoot Gibson]

Hoot, any state that doesn't stipulate that marriage is between a man and woman. It isn't that hard of a question.

If this is true in many states, then you should have no trouble in citing one example. I doubt that such a state exists, besides those that have recently redefined marriage explicitly to allow homosexual couples to marry, and I have already said that voters or their elected representatives - not courts - should define marriage as their citizens see fit.

I am just asking for an example of a state that fits your description because i have no intention of becoming an expert on marriage laws in all 50 states, nor do I intend to answer your question if you cannot demonstrate that you are correctly framing your question. Give me a single example of a state that does not allow homosexual couples to marry and does not define marriage between a man and a woman. (Hint: failing to include the definition of marriage in a state constitution does not mean that it is not defined by statute.)

[TidesHoss32]

I will say that although I dont condone homosexuality, its not fair to keep gay people from getting married. The divorce rate is something like 50% for first time marriage, 70% for second time marriage and 75% for third time marriage, so in my opinion, the whole "marriage is a sacred bond" is just bullshit. Nothing about marriage is sacred anymore. Therefore, it should be for everyone.

[SKINNYPIG]

I will say that although I dont condone homosexuality, its not fair to keep gay people from getting married. The divorce rate is something like 50% for first time marriage, 70% for second time marriage and 75% for third time marriage, so in my opinion, the whole "marriage is a sacred bond" is just bullshit. Nothing about marriage is sacred anymore. Therefore, it should be for everyone.

If you think marriage is such "bullshit", why shovel it at gays?

I've been debating this issue with a couple of friends that live in Seattle. Both are straight, have children and are living out of wedlock. They constantly degrade marriage and talk about all the infidelity and unhappiness that goes along with it. They just can't figure out why men and women get married. I wonder why they are so adamant about gays being able to do something they want no part of.

[TheRealThing]

I never said that. What I said is that I believe that states have the right to define marriage however they want (in the absence of a constitutional amendment) because the US Constitution does not define marriage. States should have the right to define the criteria for marriage unless and until the Constitution is amended to supersede states' rights on this issue.

It is not a civil rights issue. Does that mean that some federal court and perhaps the Supreme Court itself may someday reinterpret the Constitution and declare marriage a civil right? Of course not. Given enough liberal justices Supreme Court who are willing to consider public opinion and international laws when determining the "constitutionality" of American laws, anything is possible. That is what make jokers like Barack Obama so dangerous to the long term viability of our constitutional system.

I sincerely doubt the founding fathers could have concieved an issue like this as being within the realm of possibility. Therefore, the need to define marriage as between one man and one woman didn't seem neccessary at the time due to the fact that marriage was clearly defined in the scriptures.

Matthew 19:4-6 (KJV)

The Lord Jesus speaking;
4" And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."


Permitting gays to marry legally, legitimizes the lifestyle. If the court system rolls over on this one I don't know how there could be any restriction on marriage whatever. Any two, or for that matter any group, of people would have to be extended the legal right to marry. What will be the new guideline for what is to be considered a legal marriage? Anything at all as long as the participants are human?

Nobody is stopping gays from being together. This isn't about rights, it's about legitimizing the lifestyle. Let them live together if they want, it's not up to anyone of us to judge them but passing laws in support of gay marriage is another blunder.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Kudos to My Christie.
Thanks God there is still someone with sense running an office up North.

Live, be happy, and live us alone with all of this gay crap. It has no place here.

[vundy33]

TheRealThing, you are passing the exact judgement that your claim you aren't, and that you say is only reserved for YOUR God.

[Hoot Gibson]

I sincerely doubt the founding fathers could have concieved an issue like this as being within the realm of possibility. Therefore, the need to define marriage as between one man and one woman didn't seem neccessary at the time due to the fact that marriage was clearly defined in the scriptures.

Matthew 19:4-6 (KJV)

The Lord Jesus speaking;
4" And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."


Permitting gays to marry legally, legitimizes the lifestyle. If the court system rolls over on this one I don't know how there could be any restriction on marriage whatever. Any two, or for that matter any group, of people would have to be extended the legal right to marry. What will be the new guideline for what is to be considered a legal marriage? Anything at all as long as the participants are human?

Nobody is stopping gays from being together. This isn't about rights, it's about legitimizing the lifestyle. Let them live together if they want, it's not up to anyone of us to judge them but passing laws in support of gay marriage is another blunder.

I agree with most of what you said above. My point about the Constitution is that if it is silent on marriage, for whatever reason, then it is a matter for state governments to address, which they hav been doing for more than 200 years. If, as a conservative, I were to advocate a federal solution short of a constitutional amendment, then I would b a hypocrite. I don't want the Supreme Court meddling in areas that the founders left to the states to legislate, regardless of my personal opinion.

As for voting, I would vote against legalizing gay marriage and against anti-sodomy laws that would apply to adults. Consenting adults should be able to do what they want to each other but they have no right to force government to endorse their lifestyle decision by recognizing their unions. If the majority disagrees with me on this issue, then I can live with their decision. It's not a major issue to me. Federal courts trampling on individual and state rights is a huge issue to me.

[LWC]

I heard one man put the issue this way: Since when did it become popular to do in public, what used to be done behind closed doors?

I think this is a good statement. Public acts of gayness (I do not have a better term, I apologize for that, but it is what it is) and also men and women flat out making it in public. There was a time in very recent history people didn't do that.

I was sitting on the couch with my wife and she was flipping through channels at 9:30 PM, there was a channel that had two completely naked people having sex, I'm not joking. They did not show the lower-region-private-parts, but the woman's upstairs was dangling for all to see. AT 9:30 on a non-subscription channel. When I was younger that stuff used to be only on stuff like HBO and Playboy after midnight. ARG!

Also, there are shows like Glee that are making obvious attempts to make gay the norm. Constantly talking about it, hiring gay actors and actresses to play the gay characters but also the straight ones. The last episode had a "God-squad" that were openly discussing the gay issue, and somehow they came to a biblical agreement that its okay because "love is love". Really? They didn't quote any scripture. One person quoted about how the Bible says it is an abomination, but another person went on to list other things that are called abominations in that chapter but are normal today, like eating lobster. They completely glossed over the New Testament, etc...

Even though the Bible is my main authority in life, I am not trying to make a political argument with it. A good one can be made for no gay marriage, or even what Hoot is talking about with allowing the states to choose if need be. I have always said that if left up to the states, there would be no more than 12 that would allow it.

[TheRealThing]

TheRealThing, you are passing the exact judgement that your claim you aren't, and that you say is only reserved for YOUR God.

If that's the way you see it then so be it. I don't agree with you though. All I am guilty of is to point out that God Himself has in fact, clearly stated in His Holy, inerrant Word the following; first, marriage between a man and a woman for life is His devinely appointed, and sanctioned, natural order of things, (SOURCE POSTED ABOVE) and second, the fact the He is equally clear in His condemnation of those who choose the gay lifestyle and any who would aid and comfort gays to that end.

Here is my source for my second point---
Romans 1:23-32 (KJV)

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

I didn't say it, God said it. I understand a lot of folks would shoot the messenger but, as LWC just said, "it is what it is." In my view, I could hardly say I care about others if I am not willing to reveal the truth to them. I don't want to hit anybody over the head with this stuff, but, knowing the truth, I am charged by Him to tell others.

I see your point Hoot, and I think you are exactly right in saying the states, and only the states have the authority to make their own laws regarding this matter. It's unfortunate that things have come to this juncture, but this is the kind of thing we can expect as the direct result of the liberal's chosen tactic of using the courts to legislate those with views contrary to theirs into submission.

[TheRealVille]

If that's the way you see it then so be it. I don't agree with you though. All I am guilty of is to point out that God Himself has in fact, clearly stated in His Holy, inerrant Word the following; first, marriage between a man and a woman for life is His devinely appointed, and sanctioned, natural order of things, and second, the fact the He is equally clear in His condemnation of those who choose the gay lifestyle and any who would aid and comfort gays to that end.

Here is my source for my second point---
Romans 1:23-32 (KJV)

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

I didn't say it, God said it. I understand a lot of folks would shoot the messenger but, as LWC just said, "it is what it is." In my view, I could hardly say I care about others if I am not willing to reveal the truth to them. I don't want to hit anybody over the head with this stuff, but, knowing the truth, I am charged by Him to tell others.

I see your point Hoot, and I think you are exactly right in saying the states, and only the states have the authority to make their own laws regarding this matter. It's unfortunate that things have come to this juncture, but this is the kind of thing we can expect as the direct result of the liberal's chosen tactic of using the courts to legislate those with views contrary to theirs into submission.

If the bible were true, all that might mean something.

[TheRealThing]

If the bible were true, all that might mean something.

Can't argue with you there.

[TidesHoss32]

If you think marriage is such "bullshit", why shovel it at gays?

I've been debating this issue with a couple of friends that live in Seattle. Both are straight, have children and are living out of wedlock. They constantly degrade marriage and talk about all the infidelity and unhappiness that goes along with it. They just can't figure out why men and women get married. I wonder why they are so adamant about gays being able to do something they want no part of.

No. Marriage isnt bullshit, the people that make a mockery out of it by divorcing and remarrying seven friggin times, all the while continuously throw the "marriage is such a sacred bond" line at you, are bullshit. I'll throw a couple of honest examples at you. I know a girl, who lived in Hazard, now lives in Harlan, is four months older than I am (I am 36), and has been married SIX TIMES. She has been divorced SIX TIMES, and is engaged to be married AGAIN (she is a beautiful woman, but like most of them, her wiring is a mess). She has three kids from three of those men. There is a couple close to where I live, who had two kids out of wedlock, and didnt get married, yet lived together because of drawing more out of taxes or some crap, but went to church almost every Sunday, and never failed to tell me at how wrong I was living my life. So they spent 9 years living together (not married), praising God for this, and praising God for that, and they get married this past summer. And guess what? They are divorcing. Those "sacred vows" dont mean shit to about 80% of the people that take them. So if straight people can make a mockery out of it, then so should the gays.

[TheRealVille]

No. Marriage isnt bullshit, the people that make a mockery out of it by divorcing and remarrying seven friggin times, all the while continuously throw the "marriage is such a sacred bond" line at you, are bullshit. I'll throw a couple of honest examples at you. I know a girl, who lived in Hazard, now lives in Harlan, is four months older than I am (I am 36), and has been married SIX TIMES. She has been divorced SIX TIMES, and is engaged to be married AGAIN (she is a beautiful woman, but like most of them, her wiring is a mess). She has three kids from three of those men. There is a couple close to where I live, who had two kids out of wedlock, and didnt get married, yet lived together because of drawing more out of taxes or some crap, but went to church almost every Sunday, and never failed to tell me at how wrong I was living my life. So they spent 9 years living together (not married), praising God for this, and praising God for that, and they get married this past summer. And guess what? They are divorcing. Those "sacred vows" dont mean shit to about 80% of the people that take them. So if straight people can make a mockery out of it, then so should the gays.

I'd say there are people on this very board fighting against gay marriage, citing "the sanctity of marriage", that have been married multiple times. 1 out of 2 straight marriages end in divorce. Why would the straights care if the gays give it a try?

[Walleye]

If the current rate of divorce in the "straight community" stands at 50%, then maybe it should more difficult to get married.