Here's a thought. Let's eradicate all the financial benefits that come with straight marriages. Take away spousal social security, inheritance rights, co-ownership of property by virtue of marriage...outaw any financial gain that comes with government sanctioned marriage. Then call the ceremony whatever you want. It just won't come with anything but religious meaning.

Brady...Please "show us" where your comments "gay marriage...is a civil right protected by the Constitution" comes from. After that perhaps address David G's comments of 02/17/12 ?

and that he should veto it ! let the people vote on it ! it time to let the people speak out not the so called legislators.give the vote back to the people. we would all be better off.

Bill Ronci

That's the problem, Christie doesn't want to "own up" for his own responsibilities and take the blame when he vetoes it, and rather have the people put it down and say it wasn't his fault. He knows most Americans are still bigoted towards gay people and he'll have his scapegoat if it fails. We cannot let him get away with that kind of BS.

The taxpaying people of New Jersey are WHO our elected officials represent. So why would you have an issue with allowing NJ voters to decide ? We both know the answer.

i thought that has hysterical!!!! maybe before Christie starts telling people how they can live there lives he should jump on a treadmill!

How do you know what's natural? The only experience you, or anyone, can have is your own. Your ignorance is notable. So is your apparent bigotry. Do you seriously believe that so many "unnatural" people would choose to engage publicly in letting the world simply know who they are? Why would anyone choose to be something or someone in a society that daily tells them they are unnatural, repugnant, evil, diseased, deserving of physical abuse and violence to the point of death, and generally unworthy of living? You clearly have no idea what it means to grow up every day receiving messages from people like you that not being like you means you are a freak. Your opinion and attitude are very sad.

your have a very dirty mind, old man tom pervert.

JV, if this bill were to turn into law it will not change the way people view each other. All it will really do is change the definition of marriage from what it is now to something completely different.

Humans do perform many unnatural acts. Ones such a monogamy, wearing pants and driving cars.

Though I get you throw phrases such as bestiality out there solely to get a rise out of a group. The fact of the matter is that there is a fundamental flaw in your logic. An animal does not have the cognitive ability to consent. Two adults, however, do.

The way gay people are treated is like how one religious groups claims that others won't see god because there is only one way.

Stop wasting time debating this non-issue. You will experience first hand if your family member is gay. Until then, get off your high horse.

Does your logic also apply to heterosexual couple who suffer from infertility or just don't want kids? What about hetero couples who are past their reproductive years? I've never seen any stipulations to government approved hetero couples that they are required to reproduce.

Lets be frank, if many issues had been left up to the people to vote than women and minorities would not have equal rights. Would you be okay with the status quo placing restrictions on those groups of citizens?

""I have nothing against homosexual people at all""" ..well yes you do George, you don't want those born with that orientation to have the same legal rights. We heard this same argument decades ago in the deep south. You would hear whites say we have nothing against negro people but in our opinion there should be separate drinking fountains and separate boarding houses. Come'on George, if anything, the planet's environment is strained by over population and not having kids is the last thing we need to be bringing up concerning the homosexual union as unnatural.

The problem is that you define "natural" solely as having children.

If that's the case, then what of men and women who are married but biologically uncapable of having kids? Maybe the woman has a very bad case of fibroids. Maybe the man is sterile.

So if you take that man and woman who are a married couple, and compare them to two men who are married, the result is the same: neither couple can have kids.

That's the problem when you use narrow-minded thinking to define something.

As it pertains to relationships and marriage, the only "natural" thing is the love each person has for the other.

There are instances in nature where we observe same sex couples raising young. Therefore, allowing gay couple to adopt is completely ‘natural’. So, to allow same-sex couples to marry in order to provide a safe and stable environment for the children they raise, as we do with heterosexual couples, is completely natural.

A couple who marry in their 70's can't produce children. Should they be barred from marriage? What about couples who find they are infertile? Should their marriages be voided because they can't produce children? And couples who decide not to have children -- should their marriages be voided? Or are you saying you oppose contraception too?

George
Your words "It is unnatural because there is no biological future in the homosexual union. You simply cannot have kids... The same with nature and animals. Those that create a couple, family, pride, whatever you call it won't have kids and therefore won't have future."

Are you up for a trip to Fellowship village to shut down some Senior Citizen weddings? I think there are a few in their Golden Years that would take offence to their lack of a future.

There is no biological future in marrying a women past menopause...the biological argument holds no water in today's society. AND if heterosexuals were more sexually responsible, there would be no kids for gay couples to give a home.

Very well stated. And don't let people like George upset you. Even the great late Senator Strom Thurmond, a fierce stubborn politician if there ever was one, had a change of heart over the issue of 'separate but equal'.

What's disturbing about this is that Gov. Christie is placing both his own religion and what he sees as his political future above his obligations to ALL citizens of this state, gay and straight. As far as I'm concerned, that disqualifies him from the office he has now, let alone higher office.

Agreed Bob. I love watching those people fumble and stutter when I ask them about Britney Spears' 55-hour marriage, Kim Kardashian's 72-hour marriage, Newt Gingrich's affairs and then leaving his second wife while she was undergoing a cancer battle.

Bob. Do you think that the divorce rate will be different if it's two men or two women who are wedded VS a man and woman? What makes you believe so?

Oh, Ken brings the slippery slope argument. I know God told you that gays are the devil but it's time we start get real and realize that homosexuality is clearly a biological condition. People don't choose to be gay. As such, they should be free to marry someone of the same-sex. We are not talking polygamy or bestiality, we are talking about one person married to one person. If this is such a sacred institution, then why are 60% of marriages ending in divorce?

Yeah , that's almost as hypocritical as fighting for the right to kill fetuses while they are being born (partial birth abortion) but opposing capital punishment for convicted murderers.

Your comparing of two humans love for each other with weather makes abundantly clear how deranged your thought process is on this matter.

And no, Tom, it's not an exception in nature. Apparently, it's quite natural.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Read a book once in awhile.

So Tom, now you're considering anything outside an established 'norm' to be unnatural??? How can that be when we see anomalies in nature all the time? So let’s say we have two ‘little people’ (man and woman) who fall in love. Should we not allow them to marry since their height fallss outside the norm???

Do you mean "the norm" as "normal" (in which case homosexuality is as normal for some as your orientation is for you) or as "what most people are". I'm under five feet tall. I'm outside the norm. Should I not have the same rights as tall people? There was a time when being white was "the norm" in this country in that the majority of people were white. Does that mean everyone not white should not have the same rights? Please explain what you mean. As for "exceptions in nature", well, children with Down's Syndrome are "exceptions." So are children born with muscular dystrophy. Should they be banned because they are "outside the norm"? The idea of a society that bans everything that doesn't match someone's idea as "the norm" is terrifying. And more terrifying is that people like you advocate such a society.

If homosexuality was unnatural it wouldn't be observed in so may other species. The Bonobo's with whom we share 98% of our genes, practically only have "heterosexual" sex when the females are in heat, they have "homosexual" sex far more often.

So is being 7 footr, one inch not normal. What shall with we do with such abnormal people,besides forbidding them to play in the NBA?

It's not a marriage it is a civil union. Why do gays object so strongly to calling it something different when their relationship is something different.

I do not remember the last time I saw 2 male animals as life mates on the discovery channel. It is not natural, sorry, but it is not natural.

Well, seems to me as if you don't do it in religious ceremony, it should be a civil union even if it is a straight couple getting hitched. And if a religious organization is willing to perform ceremonies for gay couples, it should be called a marriage just like it is for straight couples. How about that for compromise b/c it seems pretty clear that the only real objection people have centers around religion.

My wife and I are friends with some gay couples, and I can say without a doubt the old standby, "It's a choice" is absolutely not true. That being said, I think I can say with confidence that given the chance, there are some who would prefer to be heterosexual for no other reason that it would just make thier lives easier living in a society that gives them such a hassle. As much as closeted gay-bashing types piss me off, I can't help but really feel sorry for them. Something so fundemental to human existance, sex, is such a problem for them. That must be awful to live with. Marriage itself is unnatural. Life mates in nature are an extreme exception to the rule. Even then, the only thing that makes them life mates is an evolved chemical reaction in their brain that ties them to that mate. Humans can't even make that claim, not all of us if the rates of divorce and infidelity are any indication.

Besides what difference does it make? The state calls it marriage doesn't it? Some gay people are religious, so perhaps marriage is important to them. I am sure some don't give a crap and just want the same rights no matter what you call it.

Committed, stable couples are better for the community regardless of their sexual preference. I say, let people be who they are and everyone will be better off in the long run.

Religion does not have the copyright to the term marriage.

If you think it does, I challenge you to prove it.

No one is making this a partisan issue except you by bringing up Dems.

You can choose to live in the past or in the present. Christie is Governor now. So it rests COMPLETELY on his well padded shoulders.

To occidentalist - you mean like the economy is obamas responsibility, not Bush's? Stop blaming the past and start taking responsibility for what hes done? Kinda like that?

Please tell me you're not serious Julia.

You're comparing a single issue - a civil right - that can be passed without affecting anything else...

...with the economy which is a dynamic thing that can't be changed with one single vote, which has far reaching implications and affects virtually every part of society.

Honestly how do some of you people come up with these asinine arguments and actually give voice to them without any shame at all?

I want the minute of my life back. It is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in that rambling, incoherent response was there even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Ok, I will simplify, because, I completely agree with you, spending extra minutes thinking is truly a waste.
1. Marriage has existed before governements and laws. This is why its definition should be give to a popular vote. Marriage, and couples having families, have always formed the building blocks of societies for which there are created goverments and laws to ensure peaceable existence. How a society is created should be decided by those who are creating it: the people. We can leave the questions of how it is governed to the legislatures that we elect.
2. What is the argument against me having two wives, if all three of us love each other truly and sincerely? How do we handle the children of said marriage if one of the non-biological mothers decides to divorce us? Does she get custody too? If two moms are ok, why not two moms and a dad?
I agree this scenario is absurd but give me a solid reason why we should limit marriage to just two (since we are changing the current definition) and I will be happy.
And thanks for your prayer for my soul.

"Same-sex marriage advocates have been unable to give an answer to the question "What is Marriage" that does not result in the collapse of all shape and form to the institution. That is to say, if men can marry men, and women can marry women, we no longer know what the institution is, or what it is for, or what the boundaries are, or who is to be ruled out as eligible to participate in it."

How about; two consenting adults who are of sound mind? Gee, that wasn't so hard!

The definition of 'sound mind' might be a tricky one to nail down...
And why only two consenting adults?

You do realize that if you just got the signatures necessary to get this on the ballot, it would be law by year end, right? Seems more productive than bitching & moaning or banging your head against a wall trying to override a veto. Seriously folks, people actually want to vote for this. It will pass. Just do it already!

Red don't kid yourself - if a vote occurs it will be voted down. There are lot of voting Catholics out there and there are a lot of old school elderly who think that this type of relationship is not a marriage.

I am a voting Catholic and I'll be voting for it.

RedRider765, it is a LITTLE more complicated than that.

Firstly, the idea of a state-wide referendum on gay marriage doesn't really have any precedent. Anyone could easily make the case that we should have referendums on pretty much everything, because it is hard to argue against the idea of one-person-one-vote. But we don't have a system where we vote directly on anything above the local level. They do that in Europe, not in the US.

Second, how much would this unprecedented state-wide referendum cost? I don't generally make those sorts of arguments, but how I doubt it would be anything less-than several hundred million dollars, which would be a ridiculous waste of money.

But most importantly, there is a principle at work here: we don't vote on human rights, for extremely obvious reasons, in my opinion. When a group asserts their rights it really doesn't matter what anyone else thinks about it.

Bottom line is the anti gay marriage crowd just keeps upping the ante. For years it was "those darn activist judges don't make laws, legislatures do." Well now that the state legislatures are coming around, suddenly it's all "let's put it up to a referendum". It's a severe case of Sore Loser-osity.

Jeez, RedRider, you could've responded to me without being such an jerk. Take it down a notch, tough guy.

Have we had a statewide referendum on human rights? Have we had statewide referendums on anything?

@Red - if you are a catholic then you also recognize that it is a sin.

Sure it is a sin for a Catholic.

I'm not a Catholic, why should your religious believes dictate how I live my life. I would not demand that mine dictate yours.

Let's just say, for sake of argument that, in fact, homosexuality IS a learned outcome, that being gay is 100% choice. So what? How does that change anything? It doesn't. In this country, one that holds itself as the pinnacle the land of individual freedoms, and has buffaloed the entire world with their "land of the free" stuff (and we KNOW that's not entirely true), needs to put up or shut up. We do not live in a theology (yet) so there is no valid argument that should stop EQUALITY for gays and lesbians who want to marry - born that way or choice.

(weird, my previous comment seems to have gone missing)

Gay men are no more attracted to little boys than you are to little girls. Adults are attracted to other adults because of the secondary sexual traits that kids don't possess. You may think your wife or girlfriend was really cute in her 5th grade school photos, but that doesn't mean you get turned on sexually by the image of her back then, even though it's someone you have sexual desire for here and now.

Tom, please go back and re-read the molestation thread. She or he was FAT because of being molested, not gay.

Occidentalist --Perhaps rather than 2 books by Jon N. Katz on his thoughts, we might better be served by the following 2 books- The US Constitution and The Bible (or other as you wish ). Does Jon Ned Katz agree or disagree ? Just wondering.

Why would you even use the bible and the Constitution in the same sentence? The Constitution specifically states that the bible has no place in politics. Attempting to use the Constitution as a reference in defense of anti-equality is the pinnacle of idiocy. The Constitution was used as a basis for the ruling of Loving v. Virginia, and all other sorts of Civil Rights that ruled against oppression of civil liberties and human rights.

As for the bible, well, the only use for it is when one runs out of toilet paper.

Clothing, shelter, food, water........ Two dudes dancing the horizontal limbo---put the round peg in square hole.....how does it fit properly?

Your comment proves that you have absolutely no idea what the book is about.

Seriously. Read something that has more words than pictures.

Deadeye - very funny. True. They can justify the lifestyle as being natural, but the last i checked, a same sex couple can't reproduce without a surrogate.

Neither can some heterosexual couples. Should every infertile couple be forced to divorce because they can't conceive? What about a man and woman want to get married but plan to have no children (I know a few and after more than 20 years I don't think they are changing their minds anytime soon).

Yes there are drives to continue the species through reproduction, but maybe with over population being what it is, maybe we don't need every single woman to be a baby factory?

That does seem to be the argument the knuckleheads who use the procreation is the purpose of marriage argument seem to be using.

honestly some of you people are pathetic!

Some guys like petite redheads, some blonds w/ a big rack, some like big girls that are a whole lot to hold onto, some like feisty Italian girls who are real tiny and have a huge personality and some guys like salami. Everyone's mast rises to a a different flag. Why should people be forced to pick a different name for what is essentially the same institution?

Sorry but it is not essentially the same thing.

"insist that a cherished heterosexual institution be redefined"
It's already been redefined countless times, Tom. What's a little more redefinition between friends?

The decline of the institution of marriage had (and has) nothing to do with gay people. We went from seeing marriage as a financial/real estate transaction to something we do for love and companionship, with the partners fancying themselves equals rather than a man controlling a woman. These are strictly modern conceits. That redefinition has ALREADY TAKEN PLACE in the US. Considering this, gay marriage is no redefinition at all.

"Sorry but it is not essentially the same thing."

Says you. Others disagree.

It is exactly the same thing if 2 consenting adults choose to enter into a long term til death or divorce do they part union. You just refuse to acknowledge it is the same b/c of your prejudices.

I have said it before that I have no problem with with gays having the same rights under law. Don't throw around accusations that are unfounded.

They just don't have the right to call it the same thing everyone else calls it b/c of your prejudices. Got it.

Not to mention the issues surrounding child custody, spousal support, marital property, estate planning, etc.. All the rights, responsibilities and headaches of being married. HA HA

Visiting rights at hospitals. I know folks are already talking about gay/lesbian friendly nursing homes.

""I know folks are already talking about gay/lesbian friendly nursing homes.""" no that doesn't solve anything. We should be talking about a gay/lesbian friendly society where everyone born differently whether having been born with green eyes instead of blue eyes, whether having been born with red hair instead of blonde hair, whether having been born with darker skin instead of lighter skin, and most of all whether being born with homosexual orientation instead of heterosexuality, to have an accepting society would be much more important than a gay/lesbian friendly nursing home.

Ricky, i can't comment on what you wrote directly as there is no reply button for a reply BUT:
BETTER WORDS WERE NEVER SPOKEN!

Gay literature?

Jonathan Ned Katz is a human sexuality historian. You know, an actual scholar on the subject. He's taught at Yale and headed faculty seminars at Princeton. And yes, is he homosexual.

But by your logic, if gay literature is anything that is written by a gay guy, does that mean computers which are largely based on the work of Alan Turing, who was gay and is considered the father of computer science and artificial intelligence, gay too? Are you typing on a gay computer and does that make you gay?

By all means don't let facts and logic interfere. Keep proving my point by showing your ignorance.

Alan Turing is great and proof that being gay was not a risk to national security, because when someone tried to blackmail him, he came out, ruining his career.

You heard it here first, gay marriage proponents! Pack up your gear and head home, cv says it's all a waste of time!

Well it is a complete waste of time if the proponents of gay marriage are just going to sit around and bitch and moan about a veto they know is coming instead of getting the signatures they need to get the measure on the ballot or try to get the legislature itself to put the measure on the ballot as a constitutional amendment. Complaining nonstop = waste of time.

Awesome
"I'm not the least bit anti-gay"
followed by
"isn't it your turn in the glory hole"

How is this different than:
"I am not in the least bit racist"
"Now get back to eating watermelon and gub'mint cheese."

Consequences... Such as?

The state of Massachusetts has had legalized same-sex marriage for 8 years now. Please show me what unintended consequences have come about because of it.

Tom ... you say
"Homosexuals insist they are different from heterosexuals on the one hand, while on the other hand they insist that heterosexuals may not have a different institution for their union."
..
SO blacks say they are different from whites should they have 'different institutions' too?
--
sorry ignorance is ignorance... and racism is still racism ...
-- does no one remember the EQUALITY FOR ALL part of our constitution?

I'll raise you 1 article that has 10 reasons why gay marriage is bad.....good article for those who care to read it:

http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/homosexuality/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed.html

Marriage including homosexual partners does not offend my Goddess. I don't need to care about your God, not my religion, not my concern.

In fact Townie, not one of those reasons would motivate me or many others.

Sure my friends with abusive fathers felt real fortunate that they had both a mother and father. What about those children who lose a parent to cancer or disaster and the other parent never remarries? Let lock them up for denieing their child parents, one of each gender.

Since the linked article puts a Biblical emphesis on LGBT, show me where the Bible demonstrates God's wrath against lesbianism. Only male sodomy is depicted as an abomination, but it is in the context of rape, not a consensual relationship of adults.

And if you Christians are so into the literal words from the Old Testament, why don't you eat kosher anymore? It's all spelled out, plain as day. When did God say it was OK to eat pork exactly?

The problem with your article Townie is that it largely uses the bible for it's arguments against. So to compare it to my article which was completely secular is comparing apples to oranges.

Unfortunately for Christians, our Constitution demands that the bible have no place in politics.

I frankly don't care if people believe in the scrawlings of a 2,000 year old book. Don't care what hallucinations or delusions people build their lives around. Do it at home where, ironically, your book says to keep it (Matthew 6:5). It has no place in government or US law. It should have no more bearing than the Lord of the Rings.

10: It Offends God.

Give me a break. So arbitrary. How about your resistance to same-sex marriage offends Poseidon, and Dionysus, and Thor, and Mithra, and any other number of farcical deities humans have flatulated from the weakest parts of their brains.

Honestly, the employment of superstition and imagination is not very persuasive in debates regarding issues that are actually real.

I read more of that site HobokenTownie linked to. I am going to go take a shower asap, but in the meantime here are some other highlights:

"Praised until recently as dogma, Darwin’s theory of evolution is now fading away, discredited by the same science that bore its poisoned fruit. Instead, the Christian vision of a supernatural design is being increasingly affirmed."

"In our dark days, homosexuality, a shameful vice ever abhorred by the Christian conscience, finds prominent apologists within the very bosom of Holy Mother Church."

"Also, during wartime, men are in continual contact with each other’s blood. Therefore, the well documented increased disease rates of homosexuals would cause them to be perceived as a risk rather than an asset to unit survival."

Good stuff.

Occidentalist - many thanks for sharing this great article. Eric Shepard's boys are lucky to have him as a father.

like
-- okay LOVE it

Thanks for posting the bill. Interesting read. If I read it correctly, religious institutions, organizations can, if they choose deny access for gay marriages and I suppose anniversaries etc. Thus if a faith deems a gay relationship wrong it can deny access. This would hold true I suppose for country clubs and other private associations. So this is far from over even if this becomes law as court challenges will continue to try to force 100% equality. In short, this does not make gay marriage equal to a traditional marriage. The separation of church and state will protect religious institutions from embracing homosexuality.

The law has never required religious organizations to conduct marriages that they object to even w/ heterosexual couples.

As it should be, if you don't like what your church does, start another one. Why do you think there are 500 varietiesof every religion on the planet? ESPECIALLY Christianity.

"""This is not about genuine bigotry or discrimination.""" oh? Glad you let me know this Tom. For a minute, participating in this thread I almost forgot about that. """" It's about poking a finger in the eye of everyone for whom marriage is a sacred heterosexual union.""" for everyone? for everyone who when they entered into their marriage or will in the future, somehow half of them decided that it might not be that sacred that they wanted out of it and separated or divorced? I just didn't know just how sacred marriage was until you just reminded me lol?

You know, I'm not one of Christie's biggest fans out here but I sure think posting like that doesn't get readers to consider your points of view. You then get his supporters who agree with his position on this issue even more on the defensive.

The Governor finds himself in a situation where he doesn't want to inflame social conservatives and derail any chances of running for higher office in the future if he had signed this bill into law. My gut says he would have signed it had he been near the end of his political career and had no further plans for national office.

@GA---OMG!!!! What kind of God do you believe in? You're free to believe in what you want, but get a grip. The bible is a man made book of stories-----believe what you want in your home and in your church...in AMERICA God has no say in anything, America is a country, not a person...god doesn't live in abstract boundaries set by man, God lives in all of us...ALL of us. YOU do not know what it ''of God'', you don't get to tell anyone what is ''moral'' or ''ethical'' and concerning the physical body , what the hell are you talking about not safe. You make absolutely no sense.

If the church is right, ga, then why isn't divorce illegal?

Superstition needs to stop being incited on this issue. This country was founded on secular principles, not Christian principles. It doesn't matter what you WANT to believe, no amount of historical airbrushing is going to change that fact.

As the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli said:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The word "god" doesn't appear in our Constitution and the very First Amendment refers to a wall of separation.

Your god has no place in this issue.

I know you've been brought up in a very religious family and stick to your teachings...and I certainly respect that and do not in anyway question your beliefs in God and the Bible. My only criticism for you and other social conservatives regarding this specific issue is that you no doubt are staunch supporters for the 'rights' of the unborn but then you reverse course when some of these unborn are born with same-gender orientation. Then you abandon your support for these humans you saved and no longer want them to have the same 'rights' as you do.

totally ridiculous...in the fact that people do not become homosexual anymore than people become heterosexual...besides, with all the advances in science in creating life outside the human body, not much to worry about there either...evolve my friend, your comment is short sighted and antiquated.

Amen!

Your position would hold water if religion had a copyright to the term "marriage".

It doesn't.

There is absolutely no rational and legitimate non-secular nor secular argument that can be made to deny gays the right to do marry when everyone else can do it freely and without government obstruction.

Any anti-same sex marriage arguments boil down to personal opinions or superstitious beliefs. The "not natural" argument is as hollow and vapid as the people who make it and also boils down to what that individual thinks is "natural". Opinions and superstitions.

If anyone can come up with a legitimate argument, not based on personal opinion or superstition, as to why gays should not be allowed to marry, I'd love to hear it. I won't hold my breath.

"""It's about using the machinery of the State to re-define social norms"""" ...you put yourself back at square one by saying gay individuals are not a normal segment of society. You can try to explain that away but your words say exactly that. You are saying here that Neil Patrick Harris, Ricky Martin, Lance Bass, Ellen DeGeneres are not part of the social norms of society and that we should not use the legislature to say that they are.

incorrect....civil unions are not recognized by the federal government, therefore we are not afforded the same rights when paying into SSI and Federal income taxes...all government recognition of a union between two consenting adults should be civil unions...marriage should take place in the church of your choice...not the other way around.

those who demean a baby in the womb are as barbaric as your logic. so you're against conception done through fertility clinics?? that's not a 'natural act' either..why don't people with thought patterns as yourself finish the thought process and come to a point of recognizing logic.

I don't agree with that. I really think it's their ingrained beliefs and principles that doesn't allow for change in view even tho society changes over time. Some conservatives do change but you're dealing with many who never will. I feel the Governor's view has changed in recent years but he is still a young guy looking forward to one day running for national office. He knows signing this into law derails any chance of getting the nomination one day. Look what's happened to Romney and so he said to everyone, let's put this on a referendum, wording that means 'let me off the hook on this one'

more than health benefits, it's about federal income tax and SSI benefits ... last year had my partner and I been able to file as a married couple we would have gotten a return of $14,576.00......I had my accountant do it as a married couple and the way we're forced to do it....we got $72.00 back...how's that fair?

Hey Derek,

There is usually a 'marriage penalty' in terms of taxes when couples file as a married. Meaning, that, all else being equal, if you and your partner file as 'married filing jointly', you would pay more in taxes than if both of you were to both file as 'single'. Are you sure your accountant is on the up and up?

I agree. They fight so hard for the 'rights' of the unborn, for the right to life and to discourage the use of birth control, for the right to life so badly that even are against embryonic stem-cell research. It's all so much for the right to life...UNTIL some of those unborn were born with same gender orientation...then they are against their 'rights' and classify them as not the social norm of society and should be treated differently.

The man can not be commander in chief as president of the United States: HE WON'T PASS THE PHYSICAL...HOW MANY TIMES DOES THAT HAVE TO BE POINTED OUT???????

Derek what nonsense about the physical to be president. Did Roosevelt pass a physical as he was in a wheel chair due to polio? Christy will make great president.

"HE WON'T PASS THE PHYSICAL" .....I often take part in these on-line discussions but cringe when reading these kinds of comments which makes a joke of the comments section. Hopefully anyone reading out there knows enough to by-pass these types of posts and read some of the others with an open mind.

Foreclosures, high crime rates, high taxes, failing school systems, high unemployment..............when will our government address the real issues? This should not even be of any concern, Let the people do as they like, not be governed by a bunch of morons

WHO ARE YOU? DONNA SUMMER? That was a joke of hers that ruined her career....stop it.

Race is predetermined by ones DNA and thus provided civil rights. Is ones sexual orientation supported by ones' DNA? I do not know the answer to my question. If DNA supports one being homosexual it could be argued that it's a predetermined gender and thus afforded civil rights. On the other hand sexual behaviors are not the same as race.

Christy- how can two gays promote survival? They cannot procreate. Your argument makes no sense, a gay man has the right to marry some of the opposit sex. Thus, they are not deprived of anything. This is how the conservative supreme court will rule. Thank you George for putting young conservative justices in the system to keep our country on the right path.

I've heard before that elections have consequences. When you elect someone, you are electing the political philosophy of that person on the issues of the day. Hence conservative Presidents nominate conservative judges to the Supreme Court. But along with it, you elect their personal strategy into the mix and how they use it. I understand his politics. I just post to point it out though you sure didn't need my help to figure it out.

""Is ones sexual orientation supported by ones' DNA?""" absolutely yes.

Being gay, I have read, is determined by the SRY gene's development. If this is true then being gay is who a person is just like being straight is who a person is. As such a gay person must be afforded civil rights just like a straight person. People who are gay, I am sure, will read this and say "duh!" and rightly so, as they have known this in their heart of hearts since they were in the womb and actualized when they developed awareness of who they were as a person.

What a pointless drivel. Gays already have exactly the same right as straights: they have the right to choose a consenting adult of opposite sex and marry him or her. Fact is, they want to be granted a privilege that no straight would ever ask for.

Who's slinging the pointless drivel here Max??? You are stating that gays want "special privileges" because they want to be able to marry the person with whom they are in love with and want to spend their life with... the same as what heterosexuals are allowed. That's as much a special privilege as allowing blacks to use the same restrooms as whites are.

Hookerman, even if marriage is a Constitutional right - which I doubt - nowhere in the Constitution there is a mention of the right to marry HAPPILY, or to marry someone you LOVE.

Max,
I will overlook your pointless drivel comment. Gay people do not have the same rights as straight people. Your point that they do by virtue of being able to marry the opposite sex like everyone else is flawed. I have the right to marry whom I love and I did 34 years ago. Yes she was the opposite sex. Gays want the right to marry whom they love and it cannot be the opposite sex as they are not attracted to the opposite sex. So they cannotbget a marriage license at their town hall, like I can. Now the bill that was vetoed correctly protected religious institutions from having to marry, celebrate whatever a gay marriage as it conflicts with their beliefs. It's the same thing that happened this last week whereby Obama tried to force the Catholic Church to pay for contraception. He was wrong. Just like it would be an abomination to force a Christian who by definition should be pro life, to participate in killing a baby by abortion. So we should have civil marriages that should be the right of all people including gay folks and then based a persons faith, the freedom to marriage in our churches without the interference of our government thankfully due to the separation of church and state.

Here's a better analogy. In the case that spawned Loving v Virginia, Richard Perry Loving and his wife were not allowed to live Virginia, since he was white and she was black, and that was illegal in those days. He was not legally allowed to marry the woman he loved in the state of VA. Someone could have made a similar argument that you are now making, that he had the right to marry any white woman he wanted, and for him to marry a black woman would be a special privilege. The problem is that he wasn't in love with a white woman, he was in love with a black woman.

This is the same backwards argument you are making about gay couples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

@ Concerned:
Since you made a point of ignoring my argument, I'll repeat it. Nowhere in the Constitution there's a guarantee for anyone to marry one's true love or sexual preference. It's not a matter of gays being "equal but separate" - it's a matter of them asking for entirely new rights.

@Hookerman:
I wish we could have a debate on Constitutional law here or in private, but to put it briefly I maintain that the SCOTUS erred in Loving v Virginia, just like Roberts Court erred in Citizens United. I do remind you that Thurgood Marshall, the judge who openly thumbed his nose at the law when blacks were involved, was a very active party to that court.

Once again Tom, this has nothing to do with religion, we're discussing LEGAL marriage. Christian principles are irrelevant to the argument.

:)

Please note posts here using offensive language will be removed.

we have to agree to disagree, my mom is black, i'm 'white' identified only because of people's stupid assumptions..and while you find it hurtful in any situation, I've lived it, and I can use whatever words, at any time, to describe MYSELF.

cause you're not aware enough Tom...it doesn't...there are still marriage laws granted and protections because of the word not given to civil unions. and because it's mighty white of you to ''give me enough''...wow.

FDR never would have passed the physical either.

In what way does allowing gays to marriage adversely affect you at all?

Max, inam responding here to you post directed to me. The constitution gaurantees that all people have the right to pursue happiness in their lives. Of course it does not prescribe what happiness is like marriage or any other decision people make. But if a person is gay or straight they can pursue happiness and it's a right.
Now you believe the court erred on it's decision regarding inter racial marriage in Virginia!? Are you serious and on what basis?

@ Concerned: As I said before, this is not the right forum to discuss the fine details of the Constitutional law. Just FYI, I'm a strict originalist, and the gay marriage is neither a religious (nothing in the law should ever be) nor a civil-right matter to me.

The IRS laws regarding who can file as a married couple are based on having a legal marriage certificate, not a civil union certificate. Individual states are not waiting for that to happen. Maybe I'm mistaken on this, didn't really research it, but states are not waiting because a Constitutional amendment would need to be ratified for same-sex marriage, a very very long drawn out process. But states have the right not to wait for that.

methinks if you were entitled to 14,000$ back from the government and got $72 because of the discriminatory tax codes you may be a little frustrated too. There are laws whereby the word ''spouse'' is used....in Civil Union, the word ''spouse'' is replaced by ''partner'', and crafty bigots have loopholed the word to deny anything afforded by the word ''spouse"..again Government license of 2 people that want to form a union should be ALL civil unions, as it's a civil matter. Marriage on the other hand should be performed in the church of your choice. If you don't want to change your marriage to ''civil union'' than I must turn the question back onto you and ask ''why?". because of ''that's the way it's always been?". Seriously. Corruption in the State of NJ is ''the way it's always been" too, and I think we're all fed up with that...but that a whole other conversation:)

Agree...simple & we can be done with all the never-ending bull...t on this topic.

the big deal is people in this country do not even directly elect their president, why should people vote on my equal rights? That's the big deal. The people ''with the power'' and who are afraid they will have something to lose should they let go of the oppression they impose are most likely going to vote no on such a question, and that's not how this country works. Civil Rights aren't voted on, they're given when the consciousness of the nation catches up to what's going on, and they see how inappropriate the oppression is. It will be Nationalized during Obama's second term, he will not have to worry about kissing ass anymore. He'll be able to do what he set out to do and won't have an obstructionist congress, and the mess he was left with for the first 2 years of office has somewhat been straightening out , even if it's at a snails pace. He already: got rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and has found DOMA unconstitutional. He got Bin Laden and other terrorists, got our troops out of Iraq, in fact wherever congress has not be able to block him, he has done what he said he'd do....and when he does see an error, he's open enough to discuss it, i.e. planned parenthood , birth control and the biggest and wealthiest economy on the planet: The Catholic Church.

@ Nicole Stephenson: Let me be the devil's advocate here. As soon as the cow reaches the age of legal consent, and you get her written agreement to the court, by all means do.

If you want to marry your cow, call your legislator and ask that a bill be introduced and presented before committee. (In all seriousness, I am not trying to make fun of or bash another poster here), My point has been that you and others who make an argument that this marriage law if passed would open a pandora's box to further erode society would not have the guts to contact a legislator to make a fool of yourself because you know this comparison is foolish and has nothing to do with the issue of individuals born with same gender orientation. Do you see where we're going here?

has the cow agreed to it or are you molesting the cow Nicole?

Eric, there's a pot for every lid, thank god......you have every right to discriminate who you sleep with.....rock on.

it does...marriage is religious....civil union is government...connect the dots Tom:)

The 60's! Exactly why this country is in such bad shape...the hippies have come into power. Political correctness, drugs, free sex, do whatever feels good! No
morals, no personal responsibilities...look at the results.

Black people who gained their civil rights in the 60's might feel differently Julia.

go girl...:)

Oxy, I have the impression that, for you, nothing has anything more than a fleeting meaning. Everything is in flux. It's what you think at this moment that is meaningful and true.

Actually I'm a data and fact driven person, Tom. I work off of facts and numbers. Universal truths. I don't 'reinterpret' things in order to make them comply with my own feelings. If I'm introduced evidence that counters something I've previously believed, guess what? I don't dismiss the evidence in order to obstinately cling onto my belief. Instead I take the evidence and change my previously held belief which this new evidence has proven wrong or faulty.

I think you've actually done a good job describing yourself and others who use a 2,000 year old book as their guide through modern life. Instead of changing your beliefs to comply with new evidence and theories based on observable fact (evolution, genetic explanation of homosexuality), you obstinately cling onto these 2,000 year old beliefs and dismiss all new evidence.

It's funny you should say "Everything is in flux" yet consider a 2,000 year old book as true and the best explanation for the world and how things came to be. You're a funny dude!

Oxy, you should change your "screen name" to "Mr. Spock"!
No, actually, Mr. Spock had more intellectual honesty than you. I've tried to educate you concerning the contemporary understanding and interpretation of scripture, to no avail. It appears you are actually more fundamentalist in your atheism than the straw Christianity you criticize. Straw man arguments are pretty low. I am surprised you stoop to them.
There is no winning an argument with a person for whom language has all the firmness of jello. There is no losing an argument with such a person either.
So, Master of Twisting Words, what sense does it make for the homosexual population to demand the use of the traditionally heterosexual term "marriage"? If it is for tax purposes only, then say so. If it is to fundamentally transform society, then say so. It is most certainly not a civil rights issue. What is the point of this legislative effort?

Is there a new law that only gays and black can insult their opponents?

When it comes down to it Eric, all the folks who argue against gay marriage are doing it on the basis of their bigotry, whether it's enforced by their religion or not. Haven't yet heard one legitimate secular argument against gay marriage.

Whites have been doing a very good job at leading the world in that regard Max.

From Reagan's fabricated Welfare Queen to Newt Gingrich's Food Stamp President, whites have been leading by example in regards to racial insults.

All liberals are gays, all gays are anti-Christian, all anti-Christians are pro-Muslims, and all Muslims anti-American terrorists. How's that for a broad accusation, Accidental Eric?

Max, uhh ok. Whatever.

Derek, I couldn't care less for your sexual orientation but you CANNOT be a Jew with a black mother. You're supposed to have a Jewish mother to be a Jew.

Max, a couple of facts to chew on.

1)Judaism is a religion, not a race.
2)You can convert to Judaism.
3) There are black and African Jews
4)You're a bigot

Eric, a couple of facts to stuff into your empty head:
1) Judaism is a religon. Being a Jew is a nationality. People now knowing the difference are called "morons". Suck it up.
2) One can, indeed, convert to Judiasm. One cannot become a Jew. People now knowing the difference are called "morons". Suck it up.
3) There are no African Jews outside of Maghrib. There is a Bible-based legend about a Judaic kingdom in Ethiopia but they were converts, not Jews.
4) You're a moron. Sorry for repeating myself.
5) I happen to be a secular Jew with Israeli citizenship. Unlike you, I don't need Google to learn these things.

Wow, there's a nation of "Jew" now?

So if you convert to Judaism, what are you called? Judaic, Judaistical? Well considering your narrow world view, I can understand how you would get so upset with the notion that people might start thinking there a black Jews. You must have popped a blood vessel reading that one.

What is Lenny Kravitz? He's not Jewish because his mother is Black? What kind of moronic genetics do you have to make up to come to THAT conclusion? Oh wait, it's some kind of made up rule, not based on science or fact. Where does the religious rule end and the facts begin? Got it, thanks, now I'll leave you to form another bigoted rant boychik.

Eric, I have an education in Judaic studies - do you? Free speech allows for ignorance but doesn't excuse it. That "made up rule" you so nonchalantly referred to is what held the Jewish nation together for millenia. Learn some basics, then come back and we'll talk.

Nope, I don't need an education in a single religion and a culture from one small part of the world to understand high school biology and basic genetics.

I've met and seen Jews who have a wide variety of skin tones, hair and eye colors, I wonder how that happened.

Regarding ignorance, I guess you missed the part where I told you that it's a free country. So have at it pal, at least man up and own what your beliefs are and stop hiding it behind some convoluted parsing of the constitution.

> Eric: I've met and seen Jews who have a wide variety of skin tones, hair
> and eye colors, I wonder how that happened.

That's simple. First, the father's nationality doesn't matter, and second, not everyone who believes he or she is a Jew actually is.

See, Eric, you are right. This is a free country, and you're entitled to your opinions. You, however, aren't entitled to your own facts. As long as governmental actions and judicial rulings are discussed, there's no right or wrong, only opinions; when factual information is involved, not so much.

Exactly, but genes are inherited from both mother and father, so your "mother" rule has no basis in fact. It's a question of a governing (religious or secular, it doesn't matter) body deciding who is what based on an arbitrary rule, not because they are more Jewish by virtue of having more or less non-Jewish ancestors.

Basically, as an ethnicity, Jews are as mixed up as the rest of us, but if you want to pretend that someone has purer Jewish blood simply because the Mom instead of Dad was Jewish, well that's your problem, go ahead and ignore scientifically proven facts. I can't fix willful ignorance, so good luck with that.

Read some books, Eric, will you?

I've read lots of books, have some that you would recommend? Non-fiction please.

Perhaps you would to well to crack a few that were published in this century, and are about this country instead. Perhaps something explaining genetics or the civil rights movement. You know, broaden your knowledge a bit, nothing wrong with being proud of who you are, but if that's all you know, you'll continue to have weak, narrow minded arguments with no perspective on the larger picture.

Max, you stated that you cannot be a Jew with a black mother because you're supposed to have a Jewish mother to be a Jew. Who says that a black mother can't also be Jewish???

> Hookerman: Who says that a black mother can't also be Jewish???

She can, in theory. "Black" commonly assumes that both parents are black, unless we talk about Obama, but I think a daughter of a Jewish mother and a black father could also be considered black. She could also be a second-generation convert. Of course, my statement would be wrong if either of those were true. Most likely, however, Derek is half Jewish - good enough for him to consider himself a Jew but not "pure" enough, for example, to obtain Israel's citizenship. Pelase note that all this "science" has nothing to do with religion, only with bloodline.

""we include polygamy....If we can move the line for one form of relationship then there should be a ‘civil right’ for equality in all relationships."""
Will say it again just like before, If you feel there should be a civil right for equality in all relationships including polygamy then contact your state legislator. My point has been that you and others who make an argument that this marriage law if passed would open a pandora's box to further erode society would not have the nerve to contact a legislator to make a fool of yourself because you know this comparison is foolish and has nothing to do with the issue of individuals born with same gender orientation. Do you see where we're going here?