Christie vetos same sex marrige bill

#76
#76
golfballs03 said:
Slightly different IMO
Click to expand...

Not trying to equate the plight of the lgbt community today and african americans in the south up to the 1970's. Just pointing out the extreme flaw of referendum votes in these situations. There is a reason most of american law is not direct democracy
 
#77
#77
VOLatile said:
Show me the verses in the Bible that outlaw gay marriage or explicitly outlaws homosexuality.

(Hint: if you're wearing two different types of cloth or have cut your hair, you're a hypocrite.)
Click to expand...


Or plant beans with corn.

Or eat shellfish.
 
#78
#78
Ultimately, it's gonna take some action on the Federal level to get this worked out, as has been mentioned, it's entirely too sloppy when a handful of states allow gay marriage and some more define it strictly as a man and a woman while others allow civil unions, it's one big convoluted mess. Congress won't touch it, the President will call for it, but ultimately this is gonna be decided by the Supreme Court, much like interracial marriage was.

I believe denying same-sex couples the same rights as married couples is unconstitutional, the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause applies here: "no state shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Note, it isn't specific, it merely says 'laws'. Therefore if you deny same-sex couples the right to marry, you are denying them certain rights and responsibilities that married couples alone can have, which is where it becomes unequal, discriminatory and unconstitutional.

I enjoyed the debate earlier about why people who don't necessarily believe in God should be forced to live in a nation ruled by His supposed principles, especially one that is supposed to be free, where every man is supposed to be created equal and where the church and state are not supposed to intertwine. I believe the founding fathers chose not to choose a state religion and included the separation of church and state for this very purpose.

And referendum votes are worthless, because elections bring out a small sliver of the electorate most of the time and is therefore not a fair sample of the population at large either.
 
Last edited:
#79
#79
#80
#80
milohimself said:
Not trying to equate the plight of the lgbt community today and african americans in the south up to the 1970's. Just pointing out the extreme flaw of referendum votes in these situations. There is a reason most of american law is not direct democracy
Click to expand...

yes,we are a republic with a constitution. Not a democracy !
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#81
#81
I'm hoping Obama pushes hard for a resolution to this at the federal level in his second term.
 
#83
#83
milohimself said:
Not trying to equate the plight of the lgbt community today and african americans in the south up to the 1970's. Just pointing out the extreme flaw of referendum votes in these situations. There is a reason most of american law is not direct democracy
Click to expand...

At the state level, a ton of it is though.
 
#84
#84
VOLatile said:
I'm hoping Obama pushes hard for a resolution to this at the federal level in his second term.
Click to expand...

it's never been a priority for him. if he wanted to repeal doma he would've done it on day 1, or sometime before 2010 when he dems held both chambers. not to mention, he's already said that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman.
 
#85
#85
dreVol said:
it's never been a priority for him. if he wanted to repeal doma he would've done it on day 1, or sometime before 2010 when he dems held both chambers. not to mention, he's already said that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

It would be political suicide at this time.
The majority of voters believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
 
#87
#87
VOLatile said:
Show me the verses in the Bible that outlaw gay marriage or explicitly outlaws homosexuality.

(Hint: if you're wearing two different types of cloth or have cut your hair, you're a hypocrite.)
Click to expand...

Ask and ye shall receive:

matthew 19:4-5 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?

jude 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

1 Timothy 1:8-11 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Click to expand...

Also, as I am sure you know because it has been pointed out on this board numerous times, the old law no longer applies and your examples to make people "hypocrites" does not fly. That would be like complaining about a law that violates the Articles of Confederation. We no longer live under the Articles, we live under the Constitution.

None of those verses I posted should have any bearing on the law. I don't believe in legislating morality. I am just answering your challenge.
 
#89
#89
RespectTradition said:
Govt should get out of the marriage business.

I would agree with you on your second point if only one thing were true. If the government would not force people to compromise their religious beliefs in order to make it equal, then I would not object to that.

Religious rights trump marriage rights. Religious rights receive an explicit constitutional guarantee. Marriage rights do not.

My father-in-law owns a jewelry store. If he doesn't want to sell a wedding band to a gay couple, he shouldn't have to. However, under current law, he can be sued. If gay marriage is made the law, the lawsuit against him will become much stronger. This is wrong.
Click to expand...

So much FAIL in this post, one doesn't know where to begin.
 
#90
#90
Gramps said:
It would be political suicide at this time.
The majority of voters believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

Thats changing. Younger republicans from moderate states are slowly getting on board. It'll happen within my lifetime
 
#91
#91
I don't understand what the big deal is. If you don't like gay marriage don't get one. There is no need for different wording (marriage vs civil union) if it means the same thing. No one is mandating or asking any religious organization for perform gay marriages. Only that the state recognize them equally.
 
#92
#92
Christie should of got his fat arse in the presidential race this year.

I don't really care what the gays do, let them be miserably married ever after like the rest of the nation.

What I find ironic about religion vs same sex is that the bible most quote from is a King James bible, and he was a flaming queen.
 
#96
#96
milohimself said:
I dont like the idea of civil rights being put to a referendum. Could you imagine if the civil rights act was put to a popular vote state by state in the south in the 60's?
Click to expand...


This. Rights are not granted by people. All people are entitled to those rights. BS political move by a guy that could have made a stand and made a difference.
 
#97
#97
milohimself said:
I dont like the idea of civil rights being put to a referendum. Could you imagine if the civil rights act was put to a popular vote state by state in the south in the 60's?
Click to expand...

You are starting with a big assumption that marriage is a civil right.

The government routinely singles out all sorts of groups for certain benefits - particularly various minority groups.

If I cannot receive the same benefits that an American Indian does are mean my civil rights are being violated?

It's all governmental social engineering. If one is a civil rights violation then others are as well.
 
#98
#98
volinbham said:
You are starting with a big assumption that marriage is a civil right.

The government routinely singles out all sorts of groups for certain benefits - particularly various minority groups.

If I cannot receive the same benefits that an American Indian does are mean my civil rights are being violated?

It's all governmental social engineering. If one is a civil rights violation then others are as well.
Click to expand...

I hadn't thought of it like that. Nice point. There are differences (gays aren't asking for free college), but it's food for thought.
 
#99
#99
volinbham said:
You are starting with a big assumption that marriage is a civil right.

The government routinely singles out all sorts of groups for certain benefits - particularly various minority groups.

If I cannot receive the same benefits that an American Indian does are mean my civil rights are being violated?
Click to expand...

Native Americans have their own separate sets of treaties with the government, so I don't see that as analogous.

And when I refer to marriage as a civil right, I refer to the rights and responsibilities that federal and state governments associate with their own legal definition of marriage. That depends on, and I know this is contentious, the equal protection clause being applicable here.

So whether the government extends marriage rights to all persons or gets out of the marriage business altogether, either way I'm happy because there's no legal double standard.
 
#100
#100
milohimself said:
Native Americans have their own separate sets of treaties with the government, so I don't see that as analogous.

And when I refer to marriage as a civil right, I refer to the rights and responsibilities that federal and state governments associate with their own legal definition of marriage. That depends on, and I know this is contentious, the equal protection clause being applicable here.

So whether the government extends marriage rights to all persons or gets out of the marriage business altogether, either way I'm happy because there's no legal double standard.
Click to expand...

Okay let's take benefits for African Americans. No treaty. They are there to make up for past wrongs AND to attempt to "level the playing field". It is the government saying "this group needs special treatment for the good of the country" in effect.

Marriage benefits have the same root. They are their to encourage family stability and as was shown in the "illegimacy" thread there are studies showing kids born in wedlock are more successful and less burden on the country.

It's not about civil rights - it's social engineering with an underlying motivation. I'm not claiming the motivation is correct or not past it's time but that's what it is.

Put another way, just because some group gets special priviledges from the government doesn't make that a civil rights issue. If it did, the government could never single out specific groups for benefits without violating the EPC.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top