Same Sex Marriage Passes Senate Judiciary Committee
Christie Calls For a Referendum
The Marriage Equality and Religious Exceptions Act passed the New Jersey Senate Judiciary committee this afternoon on a partisan 8-4 vote. Democrats Nicholas Scutari, Nia Gill, Nellie Pou, Paul Sarlo, Brain Stack, Loretta Weinberg, and Joe Vitale voted for the bill. Republicans Kip Bateman, Michael Doherty, Joe Kyrillos and Kevin O’Toole voted no.
While at a Town Hall meeting in Bridgewater, Governor Chris Christie called for putting the question on the ballot in November. Back in Trenton, Senate President Stephen Sweeney quickly rejected Christie’s call for a referendum, calling it a civil rights issue that should be decided by the legislature, not the people.
Former Governor Jon Corzine’s Public Advocate, Richard Chen, said that Women’s Suffrage was on the New Jersey ballot in 1915 and was defeated, passing only in Ocean County.
More from my site
Assembly Passes Gay Marriage Bill
Marriage Equality and Religious Excemption Act: It’s over except for the theatrics
Democratic Leader Wants No Religious Exceptions For Gay Marriage
Christie on Morning Joe
Christie Conditionally Vetos Marriage Equality and Religious Exemptions Act
Why the push for same sex marriage now?
O’Scanlon Reiterates His Support Of Gay Marriage
Gay married couple sues Catholic institution over medical benefits
Quinnipiac poll: New Jersey Supports Gay Marriage, Wants A Referendum
Same Sex Marriage Is Legal In New Jersey
So typical of these s$%mbag Dims–if the people might not want it—-don’t let them vote on it. This is not what we pay your salary for.
I thought Jen Beck was on the Judiciary Committee?? Good thing she isn’t– because she would have been the lone Republican voting for in favor of this matter.
Needless to say, she would vote for Same Sex Marriage after voting against it twice in the past and vowing to NEVER vote for this measure again.
Since when do we vote on civil rights? Particularly when dealing with the rights of a voting minority?
America and New Jersey are not Athenian Democracies. They are constitutional republics.
What next? Shall we vote on Black poeple’s civil rights? Asian people’s civil rights?
Chritie’s lack of understanding of the interplay between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is disappointing.
Really Justified Right? There are many people who are not in that minority who support same sex marriage. The Governor is right, let the PEOPLE decide. It should not be 120 legislators who will cast their vote based on who gives the biggest donations to their reelection campaign; it should be given to the people. And you very well know those opposed or against it are not going to be calling in. Just a very few. Those who are in that minority, and those who are the extreme opposite opposing it.
I could understand your point of view if this was on the ballot last election when 27% of the state voted. But this will most likely be a record year in voter turnout. Not only does NJ have the presidential race and congress race, we also have a US Senate race which will be responsible for a higher turnout also.
WE THE PEOPLE!!!!!
Really, really? Athenian Democracy on social issues?
Chiming in on this issue for the first time, I have to side with Really.
Why do 120 people get to decide what everyone in the state must do? Other states have voted on it, haven’t they?
Majority rules.
Freespeaker –
Shall the marjority rule by voting on the rights of Black poeple?
If not, please expound on when a majority rule vote is permitted and when it is not.
oo oo I know I know pick me pick me!
We can vote on marriage for homosexuals Because homosexuality is not immutable like skin color is or how about because homosexuals are already free to marry as long as it is someone of the opposite sex so they are not being treated differently from anyone else.
In short even if you believe marriage is a civil right homosexuals are not being discriminated against.
Finally I would point out that if you conclude it is a violation of a homosexuals civil rights to prohibit them from marrying each other then you have no basis for denying polygamists their rights or stopping incestual marriages.
Hello Moremonmouthmusings,
Interesting Post, A. The President could mandate more senators per state.
B. The Senate could vote to expand.
C. The population could grow enough to require more senators.
D. More states could be added to the Union.
All the Best
In his 1990 Senate race and 1991 Governors race, the majority of Louisiana white voters voted for well-known racist and anti-Semite David Duke. Fortunately those same voters were note voting on civil rights for African Americans.
TR,
Are you on record here (not that it matters since you won’t say who you are) that homosexuality is not genetic?
Also, where in the Consitution does the right to license marriage at all come from?
Just Right.
If you are asking me is there a gay Gene that makes homosexuals homosexual the answer is that there is no scientific proof of that.
If you are asking me if there is a genetic component that gives some people a tendancy towards homosexuality I would answer probably. I would add that that does not mean they can not change.
As to second question nowhere in the Federal couldn’t say about the State.
And you are right I will NEVER tell you who I am EVER. Get over it.
We need Initiative and Referendum in NJ … Let the people speak! Or are democrats afraid of the people?
TR why would they want them to change, and why would you want them to change?
Also, we seem to agree that there is no government power allowing the licensing of marriage.
That’s why I hold the position that government should get out of the marriage business altogether.
Why would they want to change? Seriously? Because they are not acting in accordance with the obvious natural order. They are therefore incomplete. Ask why a blind person would want to see or a schizophrenic want to be cured or why a pesron without legs would want them. Why would I want them to change? Compassion
TR,
A blind person wants to see and a person without legs wants to walk. The gay person does not want to have sex with a person of the opposite sex. Your analogies are inapposite.
Saying that homosexuals are “not part of the natural order” is putting the horse before the cart if you can not answer the question of whether desire is genetic.
Tommy
See you did not really read the article that Art posted on the issue of biological determination. First at most genetics give s a predisposition. We are genetically predisposed to a lot of things. That does not mean it is our immutable destiny or that we can not change or resist the predisposition.
If genetics was determinitive we could not really blame the pedophile or the sociopath for their behaviour because they would be controlled by there genetics. While we may recognize that they have a mental illness resulting from a confluence of factors we do not conclude that they lack free will and give them a pass. We also try to change them.
More importantly that someone is born a certain way does not mean it is natural for them to be that way. people are born blind. does that mean people are meant to be blind. Of course not. Scientifically we would say it was a mistake in a gene sequence or embryo development or the result of a disease. (from a religous view point it is because we live in an imperfect world but lets not go there today). We know however that the norm is meant to be that we have two eyes. Just like we can tell by observation that men were meant to have sex with women and visa versa. Its the whole lock and key design not to mention reproduction of the species. Therefore logic and reason dictate that a man being attracted to a man is not the natural order of things. It is not what is intended for us.
People instictivly (sp?) want to be the way they were meant to be. So I bet that if they came up with a pill that made gays straight you would have very few turn it down.
TR,
The article Art posted does not posit that it is settled that “at most genetics give’s a predisposition.”
Plus the statement is loaded with abiguous wording. Is “predisposition” different than desire? Is everyone’s sexuality a “predisposition” or just gays?
I don’t blame the pedophile for his desire. Unfortunately for him, he desires someone who can not give consent. He’s stuck in that world and we have to have laws against his desire to protect those who can not consent.
That does not line up with gays at all. Their desire is for someone who can give consent, so your analogy is inapposite.
As for it being “natural” to be born a certain way, I think you may be confusing the term “natural” with terms involving arithmetic.
Barring injury, we are all born “natural” and thefore all fall under the heading. You can then turn to arithmetic and make the point that of all naturally born people, a greater percentage are born one way, and a lesser percentage another way.
But certainly homosexuality appears in the nature of man with enough frequency that it is rightfully termed natural.
Your blind peson analogy is prefaced with a “mistake in a gene sequene.” You certainly know that no such thing has been found regarding desire, nor has it been coupled with disease.
Your final statement, that a gays would take a pill to turn straight – is it based upon anything other than your own speculation?
It suggests to me that you still don’t accept that homosexuality is an actual desire.
Tommy
Yes it does.
I’ll answer with a question. Does everyone have a predisposition to be an alcholic? There is a suggested genetic predisposition to that condition.
Progress you admit that whether or not a person has control over the desire is not the real issue but that desires impact on society. Therefore the issue becomes does sanctioning homosexual desire damage society.
Now you are engaging in semantics. We are created to be a certain way.The world is not perfect so we do not always turn out that way. Natural is term I use to describe that way. We determine what that way is by observation and then applying logic and reason to those observations. We were created to have sex with the opposite sex. To deny that is just an attempt to rationilize away a “truth” you find inconvenient.
Now it is obvious you and I will not agree so lets move on to something else. This subject is becoming tiresome. I will even do something unusual and if you like you can have the last word.
TR it is a website for discussion. I can’t stop you from leaving the discussion.
How in the world does Homosexual desire harm society?
TR,
Should alcoholics be allowed to marry?
Allowing alcoholics to marry does not put a government stamp of approval on getting drunk. Now leave me alone I want to go harrass the Rand supporter
“TR said at 10:31 am on January 27th, 2012:
Allowing alcoholics to marry does not put a government stamp of approval on getting drunk.”
Then allowing gays to marry wouldn’t put a government seal of approval on anything either, would it? If so, what?
Tommy why do you keep asking me questions I have answered ad nauseum. You have read my position on this stuff before. So for the last time.
Marriage is a stamp of approval on a relationship. It sanctions it, subsidizes it and encourages it. Allowing Gays to marry is the Govt. putting a stamp of approval on the relationship.
Homosexual relationships are physically, emotionally and psychologically harmful to the people that engage in them (yes That is what I just said) and there is empirical data that supports that. Now if thats what two or even three or more people want to do together that is their business. Go ahead.
However, Government should not sanction it.
Further I will submit another controversial statement to you. When homosexuality is accepted in society as completly normal you will see an increase in homosexuality. Because culture does have an impact on whether SOME people go down that path. You will see more young people experiment with it during formative years and become entrapped by it.
Now go have a field day.
While I refute that homosexuality is harmful to the homosexual, I note too that you are violating Ronald Reagan’s rule of governing: While we need laws to protect us from one another (speed limits) we don’t need laws that protect us from ourselves (helmet laws).
I asked Rick Santorum last week if allowing gay marriage would produce more gay relationships, he said he didn’t know that to be true.
Where are you getting the information that it is true? Are you making it making it up?
I would be violating the reagans rule if I wanted laws passed that prohibited homosexuality. I do not want laws passed that encourage it. Just like I don’t want laws that encourage people to not wear helmets.
No I am not making up anything.
It is pointless to have this discussuion with you because you refuse to believe anything negative about homosexuality all based on your feelings. If I cited you a thousand studies about the harmfull affects you would still not believe.
Go bother Santorum
Your assumptions about me are incorrect, and we should not turn the conversation to being about one another.
I dismiss your fake studies, and cite you real ones that say smoking is harmful, but I don’t want big government to tell some adults they can and others they can’t.
Tom,
I reread that paragraph and it does not contradict my statement. In my view the whole article supports my position and I have no problem saying I agree completly with that paragraph.
Mike this is your first post to this thread. What paragraph are you referring to?
oops I thought I was still on the article Art posted on this subject sorry.