Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie pledged to veto a same-sex marriage bill, even as Democrats in the Legislature said they have enough votes to pass it.

Christie, a first-term Republican, said he wants voters to consider a constitutional amendment on the issue in November. The debate should happen “in homes, schools, synagogues, churches and ballfields across New Jersey,” Christie, 49, told reporters in Bridgewater today.

“The institution of marriage is too serious to be treated like a political issue,” he said.

The Senate Judiciary Committee passed the measure today, sending it to the full Senate. Lawmakers in Washington state said yesterday they have the votes to legalize gay marriage and Governor Christine Gregoire, a Democrat, has said she’ll sign the bill. Six U.S. states -- New York, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut -- allow gay marriage.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-0 ... rward.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Christie wants every voting person in the State of New Jersey to decide through a referendum.

What exactly is wrong with that?

I don't understand why marriage is considered a serious institution? Shit, you can get divorced and remarried as many times as you want. Kind of ruins any seriousness.

bluehenbillk wrote:Christie wants every voting person in the State of New Jersey to decide through a referendum.

What exactly is wrong with that?

Can I vote on YOUR civil liberties?

Why shouldn't gays be as miserable as the rest of us?

ASUG8 wrote:Why shouldn't gays be as miserable as the rest of us?

Bitter divorces, pre-nups, alimony, child support and the whole nine yards.

Amen, Jon and Eagle.

Christie is one of Romney's top advisors too

Gil Dobie wrote:Christie is one of Romney's top advisors too

And Romney has donated millions to anti-gay marriage associations.

We give Asian women a driver's license which can kill people, so what's the harm here?

ASUG8 wrote:We give Asian women a driver's license which can kill people, so what's the harm here?

Vidav wrote:I don't understand why marriage is considered a serious institution? Shit, you can get divorced and remarried as many times as you want. Kind of ruins any seriousness.

As far as the State is concerned, yes.
But for some of us it's a Sacrament.

Were the Democrats in the Legislature voted in because of this issue? I doubt it. Let the people vote. Don't get hung up on the issue. Focus on the procedure. If I vote a guy in office because of his stance on 4 or 5 issues, I would love the opportunity to override his/her position on something that I oppose. Are you guys saying that you wouldn't?

andy7171 wrote:

Vidav wrote:I don't understand why marriage is considered a serious institution? Shit, you can get divorced and remarried as many times as you want. Kind of ruins any seriousness.

As far as the State is concerned, yes.
But for some of us it's a Sacrament.

There is civil marriage and religious marriage. No one wants to force a church to marry someone they don't believe is worthy of marriage. Just like a straight couple can't force the Catholic Church to marry them if they are not both Catholic.


Gov O'Malley is introducing a CIVIL marriage bill into the Maryland legislature today, that clearly states that it is civil only, and allows reliigoius organizations like Knights of Columbus, etc the right to not rent their hall, etc.

I hope you will fully support this bill in your state

CAA Flagship wrote:Were the Democrats in the Legislature voted in because of this issue? I doubt it. Let the people vote. Don't get hung up on the issue. Focus on the procedure. If I vote a guy in office because of his stance on 4 or 5 issues, I would love the opportunity to override his/her position on something that I oppose. Are you guys saying that you wouldn't?

We don't live in a true Democracy. We live in a republic - we elect people to vote on these issues. Should EVERY issue be voted on? Budgets? Where do you draw the line?

dbackjon wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:Were the Democrats in the Legislature voted in because of this issue? I doubt it. Let the people vote. Don't get hung up on the issue. Focus on the procedure. If I vote a guy in office because of his stance on 4 or 5 issues, I would love the opportunity to override his/her position on something that I oppose. Are you guys saying that you wouldn't?

We don't live in a true Democracy. We live in a republic - we elect people to vote on these issues. Should EVERY issue be voted on? Budgets? Where do you draw the line?

Budgets? No. There is too much detail involved for the public to be educated about.
Same sex marriage, on the other hand, is a black and white, emotionally charged issue. This is exactly the type of referendum that should be brought to the people. Christie could have said that he will veto it and that's it. He said it needs to go to the people. That is good governing right there.

Matters that occur between the ears are not subject to the whim and the fancy of the majority, thus minorities are protected. No referendum.

Shall we vote out churches?

Cap'n Cat wrote:Matters that occur between the ears are not subject to the whim and the fancy of the majority, thus minorities are protected. No referendum.

Shall we vote out churches?

First, is this a matter affecting minorities?
Second, what, about churches, would you like to vote out?

dbackjon wrote:

andy7171 wrote: As far as the State is concerned, yes.
But for some of us it's a Sacrament.

There is civil marriage and religious marriage. No one wants to force a church to marry someone they don't believe is worthy of marriage. Just like a straight couple can't force the Catholic Church to marry them if they are not both Catholic.


Gov O'Malley is introducing a CIVIL marriage bill into the Maryland legislature today, that clearly states that it is civil only, and allows reliigoius organizations like Knights of Columbus, etc the right to not rent their hall, etc.

I hope you will fully support this bill in your state

Last year, O'Malley refused to change "Civil Marriage" to "Civil Union" and it died due to lack of support of Catholic legislators who shockingly made a stand. The Catholic Church doesn't recognise my brother's marriage, why would it care about two gay people do the same? I know the answer of course. But the government has no place involving itself in marriages in the first place. It's too late to go back and rename everything Civil Union License.
Semantics. But if that's the case, why wouldn't O'malley reword it?
I'm all for gay people having the same rights I do.

CAA Flagship wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Matters that occur between the ears are not subject to the whim and the fancy of the majority, thus minorities are protected. No referendum.

Shall we vote out churches?

First, is this a matter affecting minorities?
Second, what, about churches, would you like to vote out?

What happens if Christians become a minority in your town, your state, or your country? If the new majority votes to take away their rights, you'll be ok with it?

Christie did also just nominate the first openly gay State Supreme Court nominee in New Jersey and he is in favor of approving a civil union bill that would be the same as marriage without calling it marriage. You can disagree with the guy, and he's certainly being political about the legislation here (of course, so are those who are pushing it), but he's hardly a cretin trying to deny people civil rights. He is fat though, no doubt about that.

GannonFan wrote:Christie did also just nominate the first openly gay State Supreme Court nominee in New Jersey and he is in favor of approving a civil union bill that would be the same as marriage without calling it marriage. You can disagree with the guy, and he's certainly being political about the legislation here (of course, so are those who are pushing it), but he's hardly a cretin trying to deny people civil rights. He is fat though, no doubt about that.

So fat people should be treated differently than thin people?

grizzaholic wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Christie did also just nominate the first openly gay State Supreme Court nominee in New Jersey and he is in favor of approving a civil union bill that would be the same as marriage without calling it marriage. You can disagree with the guy, and he's certainly being political about the legislation here (of course, so are those who are pushing it), but he's hardly a cretin trying to deny people civil rights. He is fat though, no doubt about that.

So fat people should be treated differently than thin people?

I didn't say anything about that. I just said he was fat. Do you disagree?