Christie Vetoes Gay Marriage

[g5000]

Federal judges don't appear to take kindy with voting on this issue.

No, what the federal judges had a problem with was that California had granted recognition to gay marriage and then took it away. You can't do that.

Where did they say that?

In their decision.

 

[g5000]

Christie Vetoes Gay Marriage

Actually I think government belongs out of marriage. I agree that marriage is between a man and a woman but that can conly be sanctified by God.

Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. In this case I think that is beyond Ceasar's bounds.

Caesar awards cash and prizes to married people. Gays want the same.

 

[FactFinder]

shame on Ceasar.

 

[Provocateur]

No, what the federal judges had a problem with was that California had granted recognition to gay marriage and then took it away. You can't do that.

Where did they say that?

In their decision.

Do you have some link to the section where it talks about it? I don't recall that being a basis for their ruling.

 

[jillian]

He felt the people of NJ should vote on it.

He has the right to veto legislation he doesn't find appropriate.

Federal judges don't appear to take kindy with voting on this issue.

No, what the federal judges had a problem with was that California had granted recognition to gay marriage and then took it away. It was a very narrowly defined ruling.

With Christie's veto, New Jersey has not granted recognition.

that wasn't the basis for the decision.

 

[del]

Christie Vetoes Gay Marriage

Actually I think government belongs out of marriage. I agree that marriage is between a man and a woman but that can conly be sanctified by God.

Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. In this case I think that is beyond Ceasar's bounds.

tell the irs

 

[Provocateur]

Federal judges don't appear to take kindy with voting on this issue.

No, what the federal judges had a problem with was that California had granted recognition to gay marriage and then took it away. It was a very narrowly defined ruling.

With Christie's veto, New Jersey has not granted recognition.

that wasn't the basis for the decision.

I'm in a lazy mood right now, so don't want to sift through the actual ruling, but here is a small snippet from the NYTimes:

In California, a court battle continued. The state’s Supreme Court had ruled in May 2008 that a ban on same-sex marriage was discriminatory, and the state began performing them. The ban was restored in a referendum that fall by a ballot measure known as Proposition 8.

The legality of the Proposition 8 ban was upheld by the state’s Supreme Court, but in August 2011, a federal judge ruled that it was unconstitutional. In February 2012, a federal appeals court agreed. The case is expected to be resolved by the Supreme Court. For more on Proposition 8, click here.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/same_sex_marriage/index.html

 

[g5000]

Where did they say that?

In their decision.

Do you have some link to the section where it talks about it? I don't recall that being a basis for their ruling.

I have the decision:
www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/02/07/1016696com.pdf

See page 6.

 

[FactFinder]

Christie Vetoes Gay Marriage

Actually I think government belongs out of marriage. I agree that marriage is between a man and a woman but that can conly be sanctified by God.

Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. In this case I think that is beyond Ceasar's bounds.

tell the irs

I'm telling the whole world or at least the subset that is on US Message boards right now. They can like it or lump it. It matters little to me. After all,,,,I'm just giving my "Thoughts?"

 

[g5000]

Federal judges don't appear to take kindy with voting on this issue.

No, what the federal judges had a problem with was that California had granted recognition to gay marriage and then took it away. It was a very narrowly defined ruling.

With Christie's veto, New Jersey has not granted recognition.

that wasn't the basis for the decision.

Yes, it was.

www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/02/07/1016696com.pdf

See page 6.

 

[whitehall]

There is nothing stopping gays from marrying. Nothing. Christie did not just veto their ability to marry.

The only thing that separates a gay marriage from a straight marriage is the government cash and prizes that come with marriage. That is what Christie vetoed. And that is what makes gay marriage a 14th amendment issue.

See my signature.

That's not why I got married. I got married because I loved my wife and wanted our relationship validated

Same as gays

And many gays have marriage ceremonies in states that do not recognize them. Just as I'm sure people in interracial marriages did before they were legal.

Should we have kept interracial marriages illegal since marriage is supposed to be about love?

Understand the problem?

There is no problem. The governor vetoed a a bill. It happens every day. Find someone else's crotch to cry on.

 

[del]

Christie Vetoes Gay Marriage

Actually I think government belongs out of marriage. I agree that marriage is between a man and a woman but that can conly be sanctified by God.

Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. In this case I think that is beyond Ceasar's bounds.

tell the irs

I'm telling the whole world or at least the subset that is on US Message boards right now. They can like it or lump it. It matters little to me. After all,,,,I'm just giving my "Thoughts?"

surely you speak euphemistically

 

[Provocateur]

In their decision.

Do you have some link to the section where it talks about it? I don't recall that being a basis for their ruling.

I have the decision:
www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/02/07/1016696com.pdf

See page 6.

It doesn't seem to be the crux of the decision, imo.

 

[FactFinder]

tell the irs

I'm telling the whole world or at least the subset that is on US Message boards right now. They can like it or lump it. It matters little to me. After all,,,,I'm just giving my "Thoughts?"

surely you speak euphemistically

Although it seemed to take awhile, you are catching on.

 

[g5000]

The relevant part of the decision:

Whether under the Constitution same-sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry, a right that has long been enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, is an important and highly controversial question. It is currently a matter of great debate in our nation, and an issue over which people of good will may disagree, sometimes strongly. Of course, when questions of constitutional law are necessary to the resolution of a case, courts may not and should not abstain from deciding them simply because they are controversial. We need not and do not answer the broader question in this case, however, because California had already committed to same-sex couples both the incidents of marriage and the official designation of ‘marriage,’ and Proposition 8’s only effect was to take away that important and legally significant designation, while leaving in place all of its incidents. This unique and strictly limited effect of Proposition 8 allows us to address the amendment’s constitutionality on narrow grounds.

 

[Provocateur]

The relevant part of the decision:

Whether under the Constitution same-sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry, a right that has long been enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, is an important and highly controversial question. It is currently a matter of great debate in our nation, and an issue over which people of good will may disagree, sometimes strongly. Of course, when questions of constitutional law are necessary to the resolution of a case, courts may not and should not abstain from deciding them simply because they are controversial. We need not and do not answer the broader question in this case, however, because California had already committed to same-sex couples both the incidents of marriage and the official designation of ‘marriage,’ and Proposition 8’s only effect was to take away that important and legally significant designation, while leaving in place all of its incidents. This unique and strictly limited effect of Proposition 8 allows us to address the amendment’s constitutionality on narrow grounds.

I understood which section you were referring to.

 

[del]

I'm telling the whole world or at least the subset that is on US Message boards right now. They can like it or lump it. It matters little to me. After all,,,,I'm just giving my "Thoughts?"

surely you speak euphemistically

Although it seemed to take awhile, you are catching on.

no, i knew you weren't too bright when you first showed up

 

[FactFinder]

surely you speak euphemistically

Although it seemed to take awhile, you are catching on.

no, i knew you weren't too bright when you first showed up

and you!

 

[del]

Although it seemed to take awhile, you are catching on.

no, i knew you weren't too bright when you first showed up

and you!

i stand in awe of your rapier like wit

really

 

[FactFinder]

Geez, how could this place survive without people like us?