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.
Wrong, this is def a Federal issue if gays need to be treated equally in every State and on a Federal level.
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.
Last edited by Retriever; 02-17-2012 at 08:15 PM..
It is often said that sarcasm is a tool of the weak minded. I don't believe that but I do think it's a common fallback for someone without a reasonable argument to a valid point.
the sad thing about this whole gay marriage mess was that about almost 50 years ago, this country had the same sentiment about interracial marriage. it was illegal in half of the states. the same points were made about how it was unnatural, how marriage was not intended to be whites intermingling with nonwhites, and religion was used just as how it with gay marriage where "god didn't want whites to get married to blacks". if you think that gay marriage isn't protected by the constitution, then you pretty much are okay with interracial marriage being illegal, slavery being legal, women being treated like second class citizens and etc. you are against civil rights for yourself and others. it doesn't matter who you are. you can be white, black, asian, man, woman, child, or whatever. just keep in mind, when someone in society is being discriminated for their characteristics that they have no control over such as sexual orientation, you are also at risk of being discriminated against for who you are. if they say its okay for gays not to get married, they can legally take away the right for straight people to get married for whatever reason. people don't think. the bill of rights were made to protect all of us. why would you justify losing your rights? do you realize that you're basically making the bill of rights inoperative? if the 14th amendment has no use, then what about all the other amendments? it's sad that some of you don't realize this. it never occurred to you that you're allowing the government to become a tyranny when it's not supposed to. you might as well start stacking up on some can foods, guns and ammo.
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.
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.
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 is a leader of conviction, I wish more elected leaders were like him. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are appropriate, and I support them. As a society, we must treat homosexuals with dignity and respect. But, we must also treat straight couples with that same respect and that means protecting marriage between one man and one woman. That being said, it is a state issue, and so each state should decide. For me, I want my state's status-quo to remain the same. Despite the fact that New Jersey has added 60,000 new jobs thanks to the Governor's economic policies, plenty of people are still hurting and the legislature should be focused on that. We need to pass the Governor's tax cut package and begin investing in our people through tax cuts, not government intervention like that of the policies from the Obama administration.
Christie is a leader of conviction, I wish more elected leaders were like him. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are appropriate, and I support them. As a society, we must treat homosexuals with dignity and respect. But, we must also treat straight couples with that same respect and that means protecting marriage between one man and one woman. That being said, it is a state issue, and so each state should decide. For me, I want my state's status-quo to remain the same. Despite the fact that New Jersey has added 60,000 new jobs thanks to the Governor's economic policies, plenty of people are still hurting and the legislature should be focused on that. We need to pass the Governor's tax cut package and begin investing in our people through tax cuts, not government intervention like that of the policies from the Obama administration.
So--You still have no response to my two posts reacting to your previous statements?
Gov. Christie is right on this one. While same-sex couples have protection under our laws, marriage is an institution, both religious and legal, between one man and one woman. To change this would be to defy religious law and our legal system. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are fine, but marriage is simply an institution between two people of different sexes. I am glad this is a state issue, because the federal government's only role should be to defend DOMA.
"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.
"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.
someone is denying gays the right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness?
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.
