Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I respect the rights of same-sex couples to pursue happiness. This is an issue best left up to states, but I am going to vote no because I think to re-define marriage in New Jersey would be the wrong thing for the state. I support civil unions and domestic partnership laws, but I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. From a constitutional standpoint, this is a state issue. Calling me a bigot hurts your argument because clearly, I am not a bigot.
Straight people have shown how to eff up marriage (divorce rates, Vegas chapels)' why should they have exclusive rights to this mockery called marriage?
someone is denying gays the right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness?
No one is denying them anything. They have the right to make a life with someone they love, the right to work, the right to own, they have the same rights as everyone else. Marriage is not a right, it is an institution between a man and a woman.
No one is denying them anything. They have the right to make a life with someone they love, the right to work, the right to own, they have the same rights as everyone else. Marriage is not a right, it is an institution between a man and a woman.
marriage is a right. how is it not discrimination when the government actually gives tax breaks, benefits and etc to married couples and widowers? just because you don't like gay people doesn't make it right for the government to discriminate against gay people.
There is no excuse for a republican to veto because our last gov in Connecticut happened to be a republican didnt veto. This is not fair for gay community in Jesery... I'm gay myself and that really made me angry
Gov Jodi Rell is conservative that felt it should be between a male and female but she didnt veto because she believes it is Constitutional for same sex marriage, though she dont agree with... now that is a Gov not for herself but for the people.
Governor Rell does not have national office aspirations, she was free to make the choice. There is a big difference in the stances between Northeast "moderate Republicans" and what plays well with the support base in the "Bible Belt".
Quote:
Originally Posted by oberon_1
I honestly dislike Christie and his policies. However, my impression is that by himself he wouldn't mind passing gay marriage. Unlike folks like Rick Santorum, he doesn't care one way or another. But probably after consulting with his supporters and donors, he concluded that he better veto it, if he wants to run for office in the future. Just my 2 cents.
I think you are absolutely correct. Christie has no issue with extending equal rights, which same-sex couples in NJ already have. His issue is using the word "marriage" to define that union. He couldn't support the measure and still expect to be a on a national Republican ticket. He needs/needed the referendum so he could say he was just "following the will of the people".
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorjef
This is my reading on Christie as well. It is a failure of personal honesty and true political leadership on his part. He wants to shift responsibility away from himself by encouraging the notion of a referendum, and supporting the consolation prize of establishing a civil unions ombudsman. He could have simply allowed the bill to become law without his signature. As it is, he's trying to have things both ways, vetoing the bill, whilst wanting to "move on" to other legislative topics asap.
Christie stated his opinion on the matter from day one during his campaign. He clearly stated that he would support no legislation to recongnize gay "marriage", however he fully supported equal rights under state law, which same-sex couples already have. I don't see it as a lack of personal honesty, if anything he has been incredibly honest and forthcoming on his position.
The referendum was his way out of being forced to be for or against it. If it went to referendum and passed he could just say it was "the will of the people". The Demcorats didn't want to do that, because despite polls showing a 55% approval for it, it was nowhere near a slam dunk if it actually went to referendum. Meaning no one is really sure if the people of NJ really agree with this or not.
As for civil unions, they already fully exist in NJ with all the same rights that "married" couples have and have since 2006. NJ also fully recognizes same-sex marriages from other states. A same-sex couple married in NY, that then moves to NJ maintains all of the same rights as NJ recognizes that union, but yes, as a "civil union", not as a "marriage". This is what bothers me the most with this debate is blurring the line into being about "rights", because it's not, it's about the use of a word.
Christie could have let the bill sit on his desk for 45 days and it would have passed, but that's essentially the same as signing it. He said all along he would veto it, by saying that he had no choice but to follow through.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanderling
But that's not true, over time. The more states that embrace marriage equality the more that eventually will. My dream is that SCOTUS or Congress (ha) makes it happen before it crawls across the country state by state, but I'm not optimistic.
In any event we are all Americans, bound and served by the same US Constitution. How is it remotely reasonable that a New York marriage can be rendered meaningless when the couple crosses the GWB? And that it's not recognized by the federal government? Married couples in New York should be married couples here, in KY and anywhere else they go in the USA.
So yes, what we do in NJ matters deeply. I'm embarrassed for our state today.
The fight is at the Federal level, always has been since the passing of DOMA which freed other states from having to recognize same-sex marriages in other states under the "Full Faith and Credit" clause. Basically without DOMA if any state granted same-sex marriages, then ALL states would have to legally recognize them. DOMA doesn't "control" marriage as much as it relieves states from the duty of recognizing same-sex unions in other states. It also sets the policy standard of how the Federal government treats it, which is that it doesn't recognize it. If DOMA was repealed, same-sex marriage would instantly become the "law of the land".
I understand the argument that if more states recognized it, it would gain traction and pressure the Federal government further. However, in the case of NJ, nothing is being gained or lost, other than use of a word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retriever
There is nothing in the US Constitution that mentions Federal jurisdiction over the institution of marriage. (That, of course, makes DOMA of questionable legality, but that is an issue for another day.)
The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to The United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". (As I had stated earlier--a "reserved power".)
Ergo--since the Constitution does not grant the federal government any jurisdiction over the institution of marriage, legalites relating to marriage are within the purview of each state. If you don't like this reality, please don't argue with me, as I did not write the Constitution. All I can do is to try to explain the Constitution to people who don't understand what is contained in it, as well as what is not contained in it.
DOMA didn't "define" marriage for the nation per se. DOMA defined what the Federal government considered marriage and removed the requirement of all states to recognize same-sex marriages through the "Full Faith and Credit" clause. If DOMA had become an Amendment to the Constitution, then it would have made same-sex marriage illegal throughout the country since all states are required to recognize all Consitutional Amendments and rights. Similarly if an Amendment was passed to recognize and/or define marriage, then all states would be required to adapt it.
The authority for DOMA comes from the inter-state commerce clause, the grounds of authority that the Federal government draws most of its power from. Since marriage is at its most basic form a legal contract between two parties, the Federal government has the authority to define what that contract means between the states in the interest of inter-state commerce. DOMA basically said, that in regards to the "contract of marriage" a state does not need to recognize said contract between same-sex couples unless it chooses to do so.
Without DOMA, the moment any state recognized same-sex marriage, it would have instantly become fully enforceable in all states through the "Full Faith and Credit" clause which requires that all states recognize the "public acts, records and judicial proceedings of all other states." This is why a CA birth certificate is valid in NJ and the reason a "regular" marriage in OH is recognized in TX.
If DOMA was overturned then all of this would essentially go away as every state would be forced to recognize same-sex marriages even if that particular state did not grant them or chose, as is the case in NJ, to call them "civil unions".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilovethecommunity
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I couldn't find the "Everybody but Gays" part. I don't think it's there.
Of course, at the time that was written, it meant that all white property owners are created equal. It's a nice thesis statement, but the Declaration of Independence has no legal bearing on the country.
marriage is a right. how is it not discrimination when the government actually gives tax breaks, benefits and etc to married couples and widowers? just because you don't like gay people doesn't make it right for the government to discriminate against gay people.
You are correct that marriage is a "right". The Supreme Court in 1967 deciding on the Virginia ban of inter-racial marriage used the language of the 14th Amendment to define marriage as a civil right.
This is the relevent part of the passage:
Quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Cheif Justice Earl Warren wrote the decision and he agreed that the "right to marry" is a fundamental civil right and cannot be restricted based solely on race.
On the topic of same-sex marriage, it is doubtful the Supreme Courts view of marriage as a civil right would change. The SCOTUS has yet to rule on same-sex marriage, but the decisions of lower courts have hinged on what is the definition of "marriage"? In the cases on inter-racial marriage, the definition of "marriage" was never questioned. What was questioned was the right to prevent someone from marrying based solely on race. In those decisions the SCOTUS openly stated the "right of a man and woman to marry", so there is some legal pretext to what the definition is.
Following that, lower courts have settled on the ambiguous language of states regarding what they define marriage as and that such a definition is acceptable. They have also relied on the establishment of "civil unions" as part of that decision making process. Where if we grant the same rights, just under a different name, are we really denying someone their rights?
Again, I personally support same-sex marriage, I just feel compelled to provide the actual legal basis these decisions are being based on and what the various reality of the laws are.
You are correct that marriage is a "right". The Supreme Court in 1967 deciding on the Virginia ban of inter-racial marriage used the language of the 14th Amendment to define marriage as a civil right.
This is the relevent part of the passage:
Cheif Justice Earl Warren wrote the decision and he agreed that the "right to marry" is a fundamental civil right and cannot be restricted based solely on race.
On the topic of same-sex marriage, it is doubtful the Supreme Courts view of marriage as a civil right would change. The SCOTUS has yet to rule on same-sex marriage, but the decisions of lower courts have hinged on what is the definition of "marriage"? In the cases on inter-racial marriage, the definition of "marriage" was never questioned. What was questioned was the right to prevent someone from marrying based solely on race. In those decisions the SCOTUS openly stated the "right of a man and woman to marry", so there is some legal pretext to what the definition is.
Following that, lower courts have settled on the ambiguous language of states regarding what they define marriage as and that such a definition is acceptable. They have also relied on the establishment of "civil unions" as part of that decision making process. Where if we grant the same rights, just under a different name, are we really denying someone their rights?
Again, I personally support same-sex marriage, I just feel compelled to provide the actual legal basis these decisions are being based on and what the various reality of the laws are.
i think when the SCOTUS handles this matter. they will have to strike down doma, prop 8, and any law that only allows gays and lesbians to have civil unions due to the 14th amendment. civil unions are basically a "separate but equal" version of marriage for gays and lesbians. a civil union is NOT the same thing as a marriage.
i'm surprised that the wheels haven't been grinding hard enough in terms of gay rights in america. seriously, let's get this whole thing over and done with. if you ask me, this is taking a bit too long. what disturbs me even more is how people in this country are disgusted when they hear about discrimination against nonwhites, women, people for their religions and yet this is tolerated and justified. this is just wrong. no way should the right to marriage be denied because someone's sexual orientation. as a gay man, i don't see how i'm denied that right. i pay my taxes, i'm a law abiding citizen, i don't bother anybody but because i'm not attracted to women to the point where i can pass for as bisexual or straight, i'm not allowed to get married if i wanted to to a man that i love. so my marriage supposedly ruins another person's marriage because i'm a man that's married to another man and the next person marriage doesn't ruin my marriage if that man cheats on his wife, gets divorced to her and marries another woman, and anything you can think of. supposedly, people think that this is right? it just amazes me how fortunate people are. when you're in the position of being discriminated against, you start to look at the world in a different way than if you were on the "other" side. i've been in the process of self acceptance and i didn't chose to be who i am. i didn't chose to be a gay black male born in america. if i knew the world that i was going to be born into where people were that screwed up where you were pretty much belittled discriminated against if you aren't a tall white heterosexual male, then i think i would have tried to kill myself in my mother's womb. people in general are just SICK and they think they're normal but they're SICK. how do you live with yourself by hating on someone else over nothing that is hurting or affecting you? your opinion is not factual. keep your bigotry and opinions to yourself and quick ruining the world and the human race because of it.
Last edited by the nation is still angry; 02-20-2012 at 03:12 PM..
i think when the SCOTUS handles this matter. they will have to strike down doma, prop 8, and any law that only allows gays and lesbians to have civil unions due to the 14th amendment. civil unions are basically a "separate but equal" version of marriage for gays and lesbians. a civil union is NOT the same thing as a marriage.
That is a sticky issue legally. The "separate but equal" laws were found unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment because they were largely not equal in many factors including intangible ones such as networking. The first cases that struck down the laws were about graduate studies in universities, followed by the famous Brown vs. BOE that ruled all separated educational institutions are inherently unequal. However, this was largely based on physical separation and access.
On the issue of same-sex marriage it would be hard to argue that a system of civil unions that conferred all of the same rights as marriage, but under a different term are actually unequal. This has generally been the position of the lower courts on the issue and many people feel the SCOTUS would lean the same way. Basically, you have to extend the same rights, but you don't have to call it "marriage".
I'm curious, let's say the Federal government repeals DOMA and replaces it with a law allowing same-sex couples to engage in civil unions with all the same rights as marriage, but reserves the term marriage only for unions between a man and a woman. Such an act would force all states to accept and recongnize civil-unions, even if that individual state would not grant them. Why do you see this as being "NOT" the same thing as marriage? Is there really that much riding on the use of the word, assuming that all else is equal? I'm only curious because the few committed same-sex couples that I know personally say they would perfectly fine simply having the same rights regardless of what term was used to describe their union.
That is a sticky issue legally. The "separate but equal" laws were found unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment because they were largely not equal in many factors including intangible ones such as networking. The first cases that struck down the laws were about graduate studies in universities, followed by the famous Brown vs. BOE that ruled all separated educational institutions are inherently unequal. However, this was largely based on physical separation and access.
On the issue of same-sex marriage it would be hard to argue that a system of civil unions that conferred all of the same rights as marriage, but under a different term are actually unequal. This has generally been the position of the lower courts on the issue and many people feel the SCOTUS would lean the same way. Basically, you have to extend the same rights, but you don't have to call it "marriage".
I'm curious, let's say the Federal government repeals DOMA and replaces it with a law allowing same-sex couples to engage in civil unions with all the same rights as marriage, but reserves the term marriage only for unions between a man and a woman. Such an act would force all states to accept and recongnize civil-unions, even if that individual state would not grant them. Why do you see this as being "NOT" the same thing as marriage? Is there really that much riding on the use of the word, assuming that all else is equal? I'm only curious because the few committed same-sex couples that I know personally say they would perfectly fine simply having the same rights regardless of what term was used to describe their union.
There are 2 things at play here. 1.) The word marriage. Yes it is just a word, but it's a strong word with lots of meaning that everyone understands. Many people believe the use of this word is worth fighting for. Anytime you use different words to define the same thing you will end up with confusion as well as opening the doors to discriminate. Why? Because of 2.) People are not brought up to know and understand the definition of a "Civil Union". It's all well and good that on paper people should have all the same rights but unless there is a uniformed understanding by everyone, everywhere about what this means then the written law/amendment is essentially not worth the paper it's printed on. That is why Christie went with the ombudsman, although the fact that you need one only strengthens the point that just because the legal rights are supposed to be there doesn't mean that they actually are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
