Chris Christie Chooses to Drop Opposition to Marriage Equality

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Dear Liberals,

Equality is nothing but a figment of your imagination.

And you continue to exhibit your ignorance.

The issue has nothing to do with ‘equality,’ it has rather to do with consistency – a consistent application of Constitutional case law, where absent a legitimate legislative end, measures prohibiting same-sex couples from accessing marriage laws are invalid.

That you and others on the right seek to disadvantage same-sex couples with regard to accessing marriage law is also consistent with the fear of change and diversity common among authoritarian conservatives.

 

[Noomi]

.
By Becky Bratu, Staff Writer, NBC News

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie announced Monday he is abandoning the legal challenge to same-sex marriage, saying last week's court decision giving gays and lesbians the right to wed "left no ambiguity."

.

He sees sense. Finally. How many more States to go now?

 

[Seawytch]

Different people have different opinions on not only the concept of gay marriage, but also how it should be implemented.

In my case I would vote for it if it went on the ballot, however I see no federal consitutional right to it, so using the federal courts is in my opinion, legislating from the bench.

It is an issue for the State legislatures to figure out.

Nobody should be allowed to vote on what rights others are allowed to have

Gay Marriage is not a right.

Marriage is...the SCOTUS declared it such on no less than three occasions. There is no such thing as "gay marriage", there is only marriage and it is a fundamental right. In order to keep a fundamental right from a group of people, you must be able to ascribe a societal harm in allowing it. You cant.

 

[martybegan]

Nobody should be allowed to vote on what rights others are allowed to have

Gay Marriage is not a right.

Marriage is...the SCOTUS declared it such on no less than three occasions. There is no such thing as "gay marriage", there is only marriage and it is a fundamental right. In order to keep a fundamental right from a group of people, you must be able to ascribe a societal harm in allowing it. You cant.

SCOTUS declared that based on Racial discrimination. Considering race doesnt affect the plumbing, it is not a comparable situation.

 

[martybegan]

You might have a point if you were being denied the right to bear arms because of your race, sex, religion or sexual orientation

I have a point in general, you just refuse to admit it. In fact, denying me a right for the simple reason that I am not a government actor or agent is EVEN WORSE than denying me for the reasons you listed.

There is nothing in the consitution about denying someone something due to sex or sexual orientation, except the right to vote.

No, it speaks to equal protection under the law for all citizens

Are you trying to imply that marriage is a privledge and not a right?

Marriage is a contract, nothing more. If gays want thier own contract, have them make it up, call it "blarriage" and submit it to the state.

 

[bodecea]

Gay Marriage is not a right.

Marriage is...the SCOTUS declared it such on no less than three occasions. There is no such thing as "gay marriage", there is only marriage and it is a fundamental right. In order to keep a fundamental right from a group of people, you must be able to ascribe a societal harm in allowing it. You cant.

SCOTUS declared that based on Racial discrimination. Considering race doesnt affect the plumbing, it is not a comparable situation.

Where did SCOTUS say that marriage based on race is a fundamental right....they did not...they said MARRIAGE is a fundamental right.

 

[Seawytch]

Gay Marriage is not a right.

Marriage is...the SCOTUS declared it such on no less than three occasions. There is no such thing as "gay marriage", there is only marriage and it is a fundamental right. In order to keep a fundamental right from a group of people, you must be able to ascribe a societal harm in allowing it. You cant.

SCOTUS declared that based on Racial discrimination. Considering race doesnt affect the plumbing, it is not a comparable situation.

No, they based it on equal treatment. Not all their declarations of marriage being a fundamental right were based on race. Only one of the three was. Turner v Safely and Zablokski v Redhail.

 

[Seawytch]

I have a point in general, you just refuse to admit it. In fact, denying me a right for the simple reason that I am not a government actor or agent is EVEN WORSE than denying me for the reasons you listed.

There is nothing in the consitution about denying someone something due to sex or sexual orientation, except the right to vote.

No, it speaks to equal protection under the law for all citizens

Are you trying to imply that marriage is a privledge and not a right?

Marriage is a contract, nothing more. If gays want thier own contract, have them make it up, call it "blarriage" and submit it to the state.

Straights first.

 

[Redfish]

Marriage is...the SCOTUS declared it such on no less than three occasions. There is no such thing as "gay marriage", there is only marriage and it is a fundamental right. In order to keep a fundamental right from a group of people, you must be able to ascribe a societal harm in allowing it. You cant.

SCOTUS declared that based on Racial discrimination. Considering race doesnt affect the plumbing, it is not a comparable situation.

Where did SCOTUS say that marriage based on race is a fundamental right....they did not...they said MARRIAGE is a fundamental right.

SCOTUS did NOT say that gay marriage was a fundamental right. A gay hook up, however committed and loving, is not a marriage.

Legalize your civil union, mutual support contract, or whatever you want to call your gay union, but a marriage is one man and one woman.

 

[rightwinger]

SCOTUS declared that based on Racial discrimination. Considering race doesnt affect the plumbing, it is not a comparable situation.

Where did SCOTUS say that marriage based on race is a fundamental right....they did not...they said MARRIAGE is a fundamental right.

SCOTUS did NOT say that gay marriage was a fundamental right. A gay hook up, however committed and loving, is not a marriage.

Legalize your civil union, mutual support contract, or whatever you want to call your gay union, but a marriage is one man and one woman.

You are not trying to claim that marriage is a privilege are you?

 

[martybegan]

No, it speaks to equal protection under the law for all citizens

Are you trying to imply that marriage is a privledge and not a right?

Marriage is a contract, nothing more. If gays want thier own contract, have them make it up, call it "blarriage" and submit it to the state.

Straights first.

We already have it. The legwork was done centuries ago. What you want is the same recognition as straight couples, and that isnt going to happen.

 

[martybegan]

Marriage is...the SCOTUS declared it such on no less than three occasions. There is no such thing as "gay marriage", there is only marriage and it is a fundamental right. In order to keep a fundamental right from a group of people, you must be able to ascribe a societal harm in allowing it. You cant.

SCOTUS declared that based on Racial discrimination. Considering race doesnt affect the plumbing, it is not a comparable situation.

No, they based it on equal treatment. Not all their declarations of marriage being a fundamental right were based on race. Only one of the three was. Turner v Safely and Zablokski v Redhail.

No matter how much you want it to be, unions between same sex people are not the same as unions between opposite sex people. Biology can be a real *****.

 

[Redfish]

Where did SCOTUS say that marriage based on race is a fundamental right....they did not...they said MARRIAGE is a fundamental right.

SCOTUS did NOT say that gay marriage was a fundamental right. A gay hook up, however committed and loving, is not a marriage.

Legalize your civil union, mutual support contract, or whatever you want to call your gay union, but a marriage is one man and one woman.

You are not trying to claim that marriage is a privledge are you?

marriage is a social contract sanctioned by the state. certain types of human bonding and coupling are not marriages.

If a state wants to sanction abnormal types of human coupling then the voters or each state should decide what types of unions they consider to be in the best interests of society as a whole and what they want to call them. Its none of the business of the federal government.

 

[rightwinger]

SCOTUS did NOT say that gay marriage was a fundamental right. A gay hook up, however committed and loving, is not a marriage.

Legalize your civil union, mutual support contract, or whatever you want to call your gay union, but a marriage is one man and one woman.

You are not trying to claim that marriage is a privledge are you?

marriage is a social contract sanctioned by the state. certain types of human bonding and coupling are not marriages.

If a state wants to sanction abnormal types of human coupling then the voters or each state should decide what types of unions they consider to be in the best interests of society as a whole and what they want to call them. Its none of the business of the federal government.

It is none of the business of voters

97% of heterosexual voters should not get to vote on what rights that the 3% of homosexuals are allowed to have

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper

 

[Redfish]

You are not trying to claim that marriage is a privledge are you?

marriage is a social contract sanctioned by the state. certain types of human bonding and coupling are not marriages.

If a state wants to sanction abnormal types of human coupling then the voters or each state should decide what types of unions they consider to be in the best interests of society as a whole and what they want to call them. Its none of the business of the federal government.

It is none of the business of voters

97% of heterosexual voters should not get to vote on what rights that the 3% of homosexuals are allowed to have

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper

So you choose minority rule over majority rule------------move to north korea, thats the way they do it.

 

[bendog]

He is a liberal after all.

Everyone to the left of Hitler is a liberal to you.

That's unfair. Hitler tolerated Goering.

 

[rightwinger]

marriage is a social contract sanctioned by the state. certain types of human bonding and coupling are not marriages.

If a state wants to sanction abnormal types of human coupling then the voters or each state should decide what types of unions they consider to be in the best interests of society as a whole and what they want to call them. Its none of the business of the federal government.

It is none of the business of voters

97% of heterosexual voters should not get to vote on what rights that the 3% of homosexuals are allowed to have

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper

So you choose minority rule over majority rule------------move to north korea, thats the way they do it.

When it comes to individual rights....yes I do

 

[Redfish]

It is none of the business of voters

97% of heterosexual voters should not get to vote on what rights that the 3% of homosexuals are allowed to have

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper

So you choose minority rule over majority rule------------move to north korea, thats the way they do it.

When it comes to individual rights....yes I do

What if the minority wanted the right to marry dogs and cats?----actually there probably is a minority that supports that.

do we make exceptions for every minority no matter how weird or obscene?

Do your individual rights allow you to shit on the rights of a majority?

 

[rightwinger]

So you choose minority rule over majority rule------------move to north korea, thats the way they do it.

When it comes to individual rights....yes I do

What if the minority wanted the right to marry dogs and cats?----actually there probably is a minority that supports that.

do we make exceptions for every minority no matter how weird or obscene?

Do your individual rights allow you to shit on the rights of a majority?

Let me see.......when the topic is Gay Marriage
The immediate response from the right is always........beastiality, Beastiality, BEASTIALITY

So how do we respond to their rant?

Bestiality is a crime, gay marriage is not
Marriage implies mutual consent and an animal is not capable of consent
Gay marriage requires consenting adults
Society can define a reason why bestiality is harmful, they cannot do the same with gay marriage

 

[bendog]

They'd rather have HRC potus and continue chanting beastiality than to just get over it and have Christie potus.