Christie Vetoes Gay Marriage

[Flopper]

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.

I think you are correct, FactFinder.

I disagree. States must be involve in marriage if we are to have marriage licenses. Although marriages licenses have been used to prevent child marriages, bigamy, interracial marriages, same sex marriage, and transmission of disease, the primary purpose today is to legally document the marriage for tax purpose and many other legal actions. The lack of legal documentation of marriage, would cause a multitude of problems.

 

[bripat9643]

"I am adhering to what I've said since this bill was first introduced — an issue of this magnitude and importance, which requires a constitutional amendment, should be left to the people of New Jersey to decide,"

Seems like he wants the people to make the decision. And you have a problem with this?

Um, yeah, I usually do when people appeal to bigotry to advance their political careers.

Christy is a fat sack of shit.

 

[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.

I think you are correct, FactFinder.

I disagree. States must be involve in marriage if we are to have marriage licenses. Although marriages licenses have been used to prevent child marriages, bigamy, interracial marriages, same sex marriage, and transmission of disease, the primary purpose today is to legally document the marriage for tax purpose and many other legal actions. The lack of legal documentation of marriage, would cause a multitude of problems.

and we need all that for what?

 

[DiamondDave]

And yet another reason to get government out of marriage except for governmental matters of taxes, inheritance, and power of attorney for emergencies and medical decisions....

Again.. all a ploy for forced acceptance and government interference on one side.. and on the other side, not wanting to reduce government's scope

 

[saveliberty]

In their decision.

The two judges on Tuesday stated explicitly that they were not deciding whether there was a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry, instead ruling that the disparate treatment of married couples and domestic partners since the passage of Proposition 8 violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

“Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently,” Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt wrote in the decision. “There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.”

“All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation ‘marriage,’ ” the judge wrote, adding, “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gay men and lesbians in California.”
In his dissenting opinion, Judge N. Randy Smith wrote that the court was overreaching in nullifying a voter initiative.

The flaw here is that the government cannot demand equal protection to a religious institution. If they had applied that to civil unions, they would be correct.

The flaw in your statement is that "marriage" is not a religious institution (as on only a religious institution). "Marriage" in our society exists in two distinct and separate realms: Religious Marriage and Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage: Those marriages established as a function of a religious organization. There are some religious organizations that recognize same-sex marriages, there are others that do not. There are religious organizations that don't recognize valid Civil Marriages also if the Civil Marriage occurs outside the dogma of the specific religious organization.

Civil Marriage: Civil Marriages are established under the rules and authority of civil government. Individuals can be married by a religious organization, but if they don't follow civil law, then, as it pertains to Civil Marriage - those religious marriages are not recognized for governmental purposes. A couple can be "married" in a Church/Temple/Synagogue, but if they don't obtain the requisite paperwork from the State that marriage is not valid under Civil Law.​

As soon as "marriage" was written into secular law, it was no longer simply a religious institution, it because a separate civil institution also.

If it were only a religious institution, then the government would need to recognize all religious institutions of "marriage" equally - such as Same-sex Marriages performed by religious institutions.


>>>>

As you pointed out they are not the same thing. Blurring the line further is not protecting religious rights. It makes for a clearer case to reverse the appelate decision.

 

[FactFinder]

And yet another reason to get government out of marriage except for governmental matters of taxes, inheritance, and power of attorney for emergencies and medical decisions....

Again.. all a ploy for forced acceptance and government interference on one side.. and on the other side, not wanting to reduce government's scope

power of attorney can be handled locally. Inheritance is a right. Goverment should have diddly to do with it. Taxes should be simplified so that marriage or family relationships are null and void, a non sequitor item.

 

[del]

And yet another reason to get government out of marriage except for governmental matters of taxes, inheritance, and power of attorney for emergencies and medical decisions....

Again.. all a ploy for forced acceptance and government interference on one side.. and on the other side, not wanting to reduce government's scope

power of attorney can be handled locally. Inheritance is a right. Goverment should have diddly to do with it. Taxes should be simplified so that marriage or family relationships are null and void, a non sequitor item.

reality isn't just a show on tv, you know.

 

[FactFinder]

And yet another reason to get government out of marriage except for governmental matters of taxes, inheritance, and power of attorney for emergencies and medical decisions....

Again.. all a ploy for forced acceptance and government interference on one side.. and on the other side, not wanting to reduce government's scope

power of attorney can be handled locally. Inheritance is a right. Goverment should have diddly to do with it. Taxes should be simplified so that marriage or family relationships are null and void, a non sequitor item.

reality isn't just a show on tv, you know.

Oh, government dictates reality?

 

[del]

power of attorney can be handled locally. Inheritance is a right. Goverment should have diddly to do with it. Taxes should be simplified so that marriage or family relationships are null and void, a non sequitor item.

reality isn't just a show on tv, you know.

Oh, government dictates reality?

what color is the sky on your home planet?

you can say should be this and should be that, but it ain't gonna happen because you say it, fuckwit

 

[FactFinder]

Oh you mean self centered people seeking their selfish ways have to have some power dictating to them what they can and cannot do?

 

[Robert_Stephens]

Same sex marriage is illogical overall. Government should stay out of any discourse on same. It should be a state level issue and right, in whatever outcome may come.

There are three mitigating issues that brought down all the great civilizations of the past, without exception: They are:

untendable debt
expansionism through endless warring
tolerance of all things sexual.

Robert

 

[Flopper]

I think you are correct, FactFinder.

I disagree. States must be involve in marriage if we are to have marriage licenses. Although marriages licenses have been used to prevent child marriages, bigamy, interracial marriages, same sex marriage, and transmission of disease, the primary purpose today is to legally document the marriage for tax purpose and many other legal actions. The lack of legal documentation of marriage, would cause a multitude of problems.

and we need all that for what?

If you want to file a joint return, have your IRA passed on to your spouse without the tax burden, have legal recognition as family, and lots of other stuff you need a document accepted by the government as proof of marriage.

 

[FactFinder]

Same sex marriage is illogical overall. Government should stay out of any discourse on same. It should be a state level issue and right, in whatever outcome may come.

There are three mitigating issues that brought down all the great civilizations of the past, without exception: They are:

untendable debt
expansionism through endless warring
tolerance of all things sexual.

Robert

Robert

I assert that all government should refrain from all issues pertaining to marriage. Marriage is between man/woman and God. Period.

 

[Robert_Stephens]

Same sex marriage is illogical overall. Government should stay out of any discourse on same. It should be a state level issue and right, in whatever outcome may come.

There are three mitigating issues that brought down all the great civilizations of the past, without exception: They are:

untendable debt
expansionism through endless warring
tolerance of all things sexual.

Robert

I assert that all government should refrain from all issues pertaining to marriage. Marriage is between man/woman and God. Period.

Correct.

Robert

 

[FactFinder]

I disagree. States must be involve in marriage if we are to have marriage licenses. Although marriages licenses have been used to prevent child marriages, bigamy, interracial marriages, same sex marriage, and transmission of disease, the primary purpose today is to legally document the marriage for tax purpose and many other legal actions. The lack of legal documentation of marriage, would cause a multitude of problems.

and we need all that for what?

If you want to file a joint return, have your IRA passed on to your spouse without the tax burden, have legal recognition as family, and lots of other stuff you need a document accepted by the government as proof of marriage.

Those are all government rules. I state. Abolish them all.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The two judges on Tuesday stated explicitly that they were not deciding whether there was a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry, instead ruling that the disparate treatment of married couples and domestic partners since the passage of Proposition 8 violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

“Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently,” Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt wrote in the decision. “There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.”

“All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation ‘marriage,’ ” the judge wrote, adding, “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gay men and lesbians in California.”
In his dissenting opinion, Judge N. Randy Smith wrote that the court was overreaching in nullifying a voter initiative.

The flaw here is that the government cannot demand equal protection to a religious institution. If they had applied that to civil unions, they would be correct.

The flaw in your statement is that "marriage" is not a religious institution (as on only a religious institution). "Marriage" in our society exists in two distinct and separate realms: Religious Marriage and Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage: Those marriages established as a function of a religious organization. There are some religious organizations that recognize same-sex marriages, there are others that do not. There are religious organizations that don't recognize valid Civil Marriages also if the Civil Marriage occurs outside the dogma of the specific religious organization.

Civil Marriage: Civil Marriages are established under the rules and authority of civil government. Individuals can be married by a religious organization, but if they don't follow civil law, then, as it pertains to Civil Marriage - those religious marriages are not recognized for governmental purposes. A couple can be "married" in a Church/Temple/Synagogue, but if they don't obtain the requisite paperwork from the State that marriage is not valid under Civil Law.​

As soon as "marriage" was written into secular law, it was no longer simply a religious institution, it because a separate civil institution also.

If it were only a religious institution, then the government would need to recognize all religious institutions of "marriage" equally - such as Same-sex Marriages performed by religious institutions.


>>>>

As you pointed out they are not the same thing. Blurring the line further is not protecting religious rights. It makes for a clearer case to reverse the appelate decision.

I take it you don't think the government should protect the religious rights of religious institutions who perform same-sex marriages by recognizing them equally?

The decision has based on Civil Marriage being a secular institution and has nothing to do with recognition or non-recognition of one religious institutions view of what marriage is - it is irrelevant to the question under the secular law.

If the decision were based on the recognition of religous marriage performed by religious institutions - then that would actually be an argument for striking down Prop 8 and the recognition of different religious ceremonies equally.



>>>>

 

[del]

Oh you mean self centered people seeking their selfish ways have to have some power dictating to them what they can and cannot do?

come back when the meth wears off

 

[jillian]

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.

marriage is a creation of the state... not religion. it is mostly a function of property rights as there are over 1,000 rights and obligations which attach themselves to the status of being married.

"by the power vested in me by the state of _______________"

you can't possibly be saying that people married in nonreligious ceremonies aren't as married as people married in religious ceremonies.

 

[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.

marriage is a creation of the state... not religion. it is mostly a function of property rights as there are over 1,000 rights and obligations which attach themselves to the status of being married.

"by the power vested in me by the state of _______________"

you can't possibly be saying that people married in nonreligious ceremonies aren't as married as people married in religious ceremonies.

oh, i bet he can

 

[FactFinder]

and we need all that for what?

If you want to file a joint return, have your IRA passed on to your spouse without the tax burden, have legal recognition as family, and lots of other stuff you need a document accepted by the government as proof of marriage.

Those are all government rules. I state. Abolish them all.

In other words. I am a family because I state I am a family. The government should have zero interference in that. Their tax laws, interference in my retirement plans or lack thereof should be abolished. It is none of their business and the only reason they have ever ascerted themselves into it was to find out what they could take.