New Jersey Senate same-sex marriage bill halted.

[Monarchist]

Now, I first heard about this from Rush Limbaugh (who is just so nice and cuddly!), but I decided to find some "unbiased" (liberal) sources so people wouldn't complain that I'm an evil conservative who only uses sources that agree with my values. Thus, there is the Huffington Post and "Pinknews", the former run by a woman who married a super-rich gay man and the latter run by super-rich gay men. We know that these charming minorities must be totally unbiased, so here they are:

1. http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/01/08...jersey-senate/
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_414989.html

From Source 1:

A bill which would legalise gay marriage in New Jersey failed in the state Senate yesterday.

It was defeated by 20-14 votes.

The vote was a last-ditch bid to push the bill through before new governor Chris Christie takes office later this month. He has said he does not support marriage for same-sex couples.

A vote in December was delayed because supporting senators did not believe the bill had enough votes to pass.

Current governor Jim Corzine said he was "deeply disappointed" the bill did not pass.

Gay rights advocates are already planning a legal challenge against the decision.

etc.

Source 2:

TRENTON, N.J. — New Jersey's state Senate has defeated a bill to legalize gay marriage, leaving it unlikely the state will have a gay marriage law in the very near future.

The bill needed 21 votes to pass; only 14 senators approved the measure Thursday.

Gay rights advocates had pushed hard to get the bill passed before Jan. 19, when Republican Chris Christie becomes governor. Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine promised to sign the bill if approved by the Legislature but Christie has said he would veto it.

New Jersey offers civil unions that grant the legal rights of marriage to gay couples. Five states – Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont – allow gay marriage.

etc.

Now, isn't it funny that we always hear gay activists saying marriage is passed all over the place, when things like this are actually the norm? I'm quite sick of being informed that gay marriage is passed by legislative vote everywhere. When hypocrites who yell about "democracy" and "fairness" and "equality" lose their gay marriage vote, then they resort to "passing" it via lawsuits and Court rulings. If you can find a liberal court, your precious Democracy doesn't really matter anymore, does it? My view is reinforced by this:

Source 3: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_416124.html (Much longer)

TRENTON, N.J. — The ceremony was going to be at their home. Along with friends and family, Marty Finkle and Mike Plake were going to invite their state lawmakers who helped them win the right to be married

On Thursday, their wedding – never scheduled but certainly anticipated – was postponed indefinitely when the state Senate defeated a bill to legalize gay marriage by a 20-14 vote, a loss that has New Jersey gay rights advocates heading back to the state courts to try to win full marriage rights.

ETC.

"Boo hoo! We don't get our aberration legalised by a vote, so let's throw this garbage about Democracy out the window and just petition the Supreme Court!" I love Americans.

[sabaku_no_gaara]

Even tough I support gay mariage, I do believe that it's not propper to abuse the courts to press for gay marriage when the democratic system has proven that for now, the majority doesn't want it.

They should instead try to use the democratic system by changing the mindset of the majority

[Tiberios]

Even tough I support gay mariage, I do believe that it's not propper to abuse the courts to press for gay marriage when the democratic system has proven that for now, the majority doesn't want it.

They should instead try to use the democratic system by changing the mindset of the majority

completely agree.

[Giuliano Taverna]

No one would ever accuse Jersey of being progressive... If they want to lag behind India in civil rights that's there business, I believe in federalism and democracy. Although I think permitting people to vote on whether or not certain groups of people should have rights its a gross corruption of that. I wonder how the opponents would feel if the vote was on whether to allow opposite sex marriage and it was turned down...

[blackwatersix]

No one would ever accuse Jersey of being progressive... If they want to lag behind India in civil rights that's there business, I believe in federalism and democracy. Although I think permitting people to vote on whether or not certain groups of people should have rights its a gross corruption of that. I wonder how the opponents would feel if the vote was on whether to allow opposite sex marriage and it was turned down...

They'd feel terrible. But that's the case in a democracy, that's why it sucks. It's hard to find a balance to prevent tyranny of the minority and tyranny of the majority. Still, it's great that they've decided through democratic means. I'd hate it more if gay marriage was banned or allowed by use of arms or something.

[Giuliano Taverna]

They'd feel terrible. But that's the case in a democracy, that's why it sucks. It's hard to find a balance to prevent tyranny of the minority and tyranny of the majority. Still, it's great that they've decided through democratic means. I'd hate it more if gay marriage was banned or allowed by use of arms or something.

well if the opposition had it their way I'm sure banning would be the least of their repression. It wasn't that long ago that gay people were locked up. As for a gay rebellion, that actually did happen in the 70's, I believe its known as the stonewall riot.

I will never understand why some people care what other people do, seems to me a total betrayal of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, its certainly a betrayal of the first amendment. Homophobia is a religious concept and has no place in secular law, marriage itself probably shouldn't either but since it does you can either have equal marriage for everyone, or non at all as far as I'm concerned.

[blackwatersix]

well if the opposition had it their way I'm sure banning would be the least of their repression.

Well that would suck even more.

I will never understand why some people care what other people do, seems to me a total betrayal of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, its certainly a betrayal of the first amendment.

I don't think it's a betrayal of the first amendment, they're still free to express their being gay.

Homophobia is a religious concept and has no place in secular law, marriage itself probably shouldn't either but since it does you can either have equal marriage for everyone, or non at all as far as I'm concerned.

Well it's something that the people feel strongly about, and I support them in democratically making their laws. I'm not a fan of gay marriage though.

[Admiral Piett]

Its never going to happen until someone tries to go for the private contract argument or the equalized benefits clause which is the only way they could get it into a federal court or legislative discussion.

The state level? Forget it, they're wasting their time. State governments have never known to have a track record for promotion or protection of minority constituents.

[Arch-hereticK]

Some rights shouldn't be suject to the tyranny of the majority.

[Fiyenyaa]

Some rights shouldn't be suject to the tyranny of the majority.

This is the point here.

The USA is not a Democracy. It is a Federal Republic, which is a much better system of government as far as I'm concerned.
True democracy is just a popular dictatorship and this is why it has never been used in modern times. Under true democracy, any law - no matter how heinous - could be passed as long as 50.1% of the population support it.
Minority rights must be protected. People trying to acheive this are not "cheating the system" - they are acting within the system to use it correctly and as it was intended, because mob rule is not an effective system of government, nor is it a moral one.

[administrator of yackady]

though the US is a secular state
people are against gay marriage because it conflicts with their religous beliefs
these religous beliefs shouldnt be enforced on others

[Dayman]

"Boo hoo! We don't get our aberration legalised by a vote, so let's throw this garbage about Democracy out the window and just petition the Supreme Court!" I love Americans.

Lets just put this back fifty years: "Boo hoo! We can't get segregation ended by a vote, so let's throw this garbage about Democracy out the window and just petition the Supreme Court!" I love Americans.

Judicial review is part of American law, and has been essential in establishing civil rights where municipal and state governments have failed to protect equal rights.

[Boyar Son]

"Boo hoo! We don't get our aberration legalised by a vote, so let's throw this garbage about Democracy out the window and just petition the Supreme Court!" I love Americans.

you should be the last to complain MONARCHIST

am i the only one who saw that?

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Lets just put this back fifty years: "Boo hoo! We can't get segregation ended by a vote, so let's throw this garbage about Democracy out the window and just petition the Supreme Court!" I love Americans.

The fact that you'd compare gay marriage and segregation shows a lot about how highly you value the struggle of the homosexual for more rights or how little you think of the Civil Rights activist of the 60's in his struggle for actual Equality.

It is akin to comparing the Rodney King incident to the Holocaust.


Just go around quoting Martin Luther King, because Gay marriage and Segregation are the same issue.....pretty much.

[Dayman]

The fact that you'd compare gay marriage and segregation shows a lot about how highly you value the struggle of the homosexual for more rights or how little you think of the Civil Rights activist of the 60's in his struggle for actual Equality.

How very black and white the world must be to you.

It is akin to comparing the Rodney King incident to the Holocaust.

No.

Just go around quoting Martin Luther King, because Gay marriage and Segregation are the same issue.....pretty much.

No, it's using history to illustrate a point. They're both issues of civil rights, and there is analogous ground there. Certainly blacks had a much harder struggle to surmount, they opened the door for other minorities denied rights. And right now gays are denied the right to marry because some people care way too much what goes on in their neighbors houses. Don't even say the whole "forcing the churches to recognize gay marriage" because not only is that not possible constitutionally, no one is arguing that. Right now we have people denied rights simply because of moral or religious biases, and not because of logic or reason. That needs to be remedied.

Not to mention the same types in the fifties who argued against miscegenation argue against gay marriage today.

[Fiyenyaa]

The fact that you'd compare gay marriage and segregation shows a lot about how highly you value the struggle of the homosexual for more rights or how little you think of the Civil Rights activist of the 60's in his struggle for actual Equality.

It is akin to comparing the Rodney King incident to the Holocaust.


Just go around quoting Martin Luther King, because Gay marriage and Segregation are the same issue.....pretty much.

A group of consenting adults is being denyed rights that other groups have. What's the problem?

[blackwatersix]

A group of consenting adults is being denyed rights that other groups have. What's the problem?

On second thought, I'm no longer an opponent of Gay Marriage. As long as they don't force religious groups to provide marriage services to these people; contrary to their beliefs. there, everyone satisfied, right?

[xcorps]

A group of consenting adults is being denyed rights that other groups have. What's the problem?

What rights are they being denied?
Free speech? Religion? Gun Ownership? Habeus Corpus?


It isn't about rights, it's about benefits.

Same sex couples who enter into a non State sanctioned marriage aren't recognized legally as spouses for the purpose of health care, taxation, survivor benefits, ect.

[Fiyenyaa]

What rights are they being denied?
Free speech? Religion? Gun Ownership? Habeus Corpus?

It isn't about rights, it's about benefits.

Same sex couples who enter into a non State sanctioned marriage aren't recognized legally as spouses for the purpose of health care, taxation, survivor benefits, ect.

And yet one group is being given these benefits whilst another is not. It's still a disparity that exists for no good reason.

[xcorps]

And the correct way to resolve this is to limit the ability of the State to sanction marriage.

The State need only recognize the validity of the contract, and to do so need only witness the agreement.

Remove the State from marriage, and you have equality.