Christie Vetoes Gay Marriage

[Unkotare]

"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.

So the reason you started this thread was just to advertise your lefty political views? Great, everyone knows you are a far-left numbskull. Congratulations, now STFU.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I don't think the government need to recognize anything as pertains to marriage. It is none of their business.

I can respect your right to believe that.

I just don't think that once people think beyond the platitude of it and start to examine closely what it means in terms of the 1138 Federal government laws (at last count), plus hundreds of more state laws, in which marriage was a component of federal and state recognized "rights, responsibilities, and privileges" and that if suddenly the government stopped recognizing the family relationship established under Civil Marriage and all that that would take away from the people.

The government stopping the recognition of a spouse will have a huge impact - one that I don't see you gaining a lot of support from heterosexuals for.

They say the hardest job in the military is being a military spouse and my wife was one for most of my military career. As a retiree she has medical benefits and arrangements have been made (which are ONLY available to a legal spouse) that she will receive part of my retirement check if I were to pass before she does so that she will have something to care for herself with. Government non-recognition of Civil Marriage means she would have no security in our elder years because while she raised our children while I was off defending our country she would have no access to my Social Security nor my military retirement.

Similar situations exist both in the government sector and the private sector - government not recognizing Civil Marriage is not something that will gain large support.

>>>>

Not looking for support. Just stating my mind. All those things you mention are the twisted twine ball of the government. Of course my family is entitled to all I have earned when I am gone. It should be a matter of fact not a goverment regulation. Nor should my family have to deal with the government in any way other than maybe to prove they exist if the government owes me.

Just government "twisted twine" ball?

Lets say that you are a small business owner. The business is in your name. One day coming home from work there is a car accident and you are killed and being fairly young and possessing in a sense of invulnerability you have not created a Will.

One of the "twisted twines" of government recognition of Civil Marriage is that if someone passes without a will, their spouse is the inheritor of the estate and it is transferred to the surviving spouse with very little tax liability. With Civil Marriage your wife is the recognized heir of your estate and the business passes to her. Without Civil Marriage the passing of your business (or portion thereof in the case of join ownership) would not be viewed as the inheritance of a spouse, it would be viewed as income and therefore liable for taxes. You owned the business (or your share) and (s)he owned nothing or his/her share - when your spouse acquired your portion - that is income on their part.

Without Civil Marriage your wife - in the eyes of the law - is not family and is as a stranger to you. Without a will, under the inheritance laws of most states - strangers have no claim on an individuals estate and the property transfers to the next closest blood relative. (Remember a spouse is not a "blood relative", they are a family member established because of recognition of Civil Marriage under the law.) If you have no blood relatives (or none come forward) it's even possible that the estate could pass to the government to dispose of.

You say "Nor should my family have to deal with the government in any way other than maybe to prove they exist if the government owes me" yet there is no recognition of Civil Marriage establishing that bond between you and your spouse, then your spouse is not part of your family. Then you say that your spouse may have to prove that she is your spouse - but that is the government recognizing her as family - something that if the government doesn't recognize marriage they would not be able to do.

Logically speaking the government cannot "not recognize marriage" then turn around and "recognize marriage" because when they recognize it, then logically they are no longer "not recognizing" it.


>>>>

 

[FactFinder]

I can respect your right to believe that.

I just don't think that once people think beyond the platitude of it and start to examine closely what it means in terms of the 1138 Federal government laws (at last count), plus hundreds of more state laws, in which marriage was a component of federal and state recognized "rights, responsibilities, and privileges" and that if suddenly the government stopped recognizing the family relationship established under Civil Marriage and all that that would take away from the people.

The government stopping the recognition of a spouse will have a huge impact - one that I don't see you gaining a lot of support from heterosexuals for.

They say the hardest job in the military is being a military spouse and my wife was one for most of my military career. As a retiree she has medical benefits and arrangements have been made (which are ONLY available to a legal spouse) that she will receive part of my retirement check if I were to pass before she does so that she will have something to care for herself with. Government non-recognition of Civil Marriage means she would have no security in our elder years because while she raised our children while I was off defending our country she would have no access to my Social Security nor my military retirement.

Similar situations exist both in the government sector and the private sector - government not recognizing Civil Marriage is not something that will gain large support.

>>>>

Not looking for support. Just stating my mind. All those things you mention are the twisted twine ball of the government. Of course my family is entitled to all I have earned when I am gone. It should be a matter of fact not a goverment regulation. Nor should my family have to deal with the government in any way other than maybe to prove they exist if the government owes me.

Just government "twisted twine" ball?

Lets say that you are a small business owner. The business is in your name. One day coming home from work there is a car accident and you are killed and being fairly young and possessing in a sense of invulnerability you have not created a Will.

One of the "twisted twines" of government recognition of Civil Marriage is that if someone passes without a will, their spouse is the inheritor of the estate and it is transferred to the surviving spouse with very little tax liability. With Civil Marriage your wife is the recognized heir of your estate and the business passes to her. Without Civil Marriage the passing of your business (or portion thereof in the case of join ownership) would not be viewed as the inheritance of a spouse, it would be viewed as income and therefore liable for taxes. You owned the business (or your share) and (s)he owned nothing or his/her share - when your spouse acquired your portion - that is income on their part.

Without Civil Marriage your wife - in the eyes of the law - is not family and is as a stranger to you. Without a will, under the inheritance laws of most states - strangers have no claim on an individuals estate and the property transfers to the next closest blood relative. (Remember a spouse is not a "blood relative", they are a family member established because of recognition of Civil Marriage under the law.) If you have no blood relatives (or none come forward) it's even possible that the estate could pass to the government to dispose of.

You say "Nor should my family have to deal with the government in any way other than maybe to prove they exist if the government owes me" yet there is no recognition of Civil Marriage establishing that bond between you and your spouse, then your spouse is not part of your family. Then you say that your spouse may have to prove that she is your spouse - but that is the government recognizing her as family - something that if the government doesn't recognize marriage they would not be able to do.

Logically speaking the government cannot "not recognize marriage" then turn around and "recognize marriage" because when they recognize it, then logically they are no longer "not recognizing" it.


>>>>

What you describe is all more government en"twinings". What i am saying is all of that is none of governments business other than to enforce that my family owns my shit. Period end of story end of involvement. My family is whoever I said it was.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not looking for support. Just stating my mind. All those things you mention are the twisted twine ball of the government. Of course my family is entitled to all I have earned when I am gone. It should be a matter of fact not a goverment regulation. Nor should my family have to deal with the government in any way other than maybe to prove they exist if the government owes me.

Just government "twisted twine" ball?

Lets say that you are a small business owner. The business is in your name. One day coming home from work there is a car accident and you are killed and being fairly young and possessing in a sense of invulnerability you have not created a Will.

One of the "twisted twines" of government recognition of Civil Marriage is that if someone passes without a will, their spouse is the inheritor of the estate and it is transferred to the surviving spouse with very little tax liability. With Civil Marriage your wife is the recognized heir of your estate and the business passes to her. Without Civil Marriage the passing of your business (or portion thereof in the case of join ownership) would not be viewed as the inheritance of a spouse, it would be viewed as income and therefore liable for taxes. You owned the business (or your share) and (s)he owned nothing or his/her share - when your spouse acquired your portion - that is income on their part.

Without Civil Marriage your wife - in the eyes of the law - is not family and is as a stranger to you. Without a will, under the inheritance laws of most states - strangers have no claim on an individuals estate and the property transfers to the next closest blood relative. (Remember a spouse is not a "blood relative", they are a family member established because of recognition of Civil Marriage under the law.) If you have no blood relatives (or none come forward) it's even possible that the estate could pass to the government to dispose of.

You say "Nor should my family have to deal with the government in any way other than maybe to prove they exist if the government owes me" yet there is no recognition of Civil Marriage establishing that bond between you and your spouse, then your spouse is not part of your family. Then you say that your spouse may have to prove that she is your spouse - but that is the government recognizing her as family - something that if the government doesn't recognize marriage they would not be able to do.

Logically speaking the government cannot "not recognize marriage" then turn around and "recognize marriage" because when they recognize it, then logically they are no longer "not recognizing" it.


>>>>

What you describe is all more government en"twinings". What i am saying is all of that is none of governments business other than to enforce that my family owns my shit. Period end of story end of involvement. My family is whoever I said it was.

For the government to recognize that your family owns your stuff, you by default need government recognition that you have established a "family" with another person who, prior to some point in time, was not a member of your family. That's what Civil Marriage is, it is the recognition of a family status between two people who are not blood relatives.

Without that recognition, under the eyes of the law - a spouse is just a live-in boyfriend or girlfriend, they are not family.

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

>


Well I'm off to bed.

FF, thanks for the discussion, I'll leave the last post of the evening to you. Thanks for the honest discussion and (something rare around here sometimes) an honorable exchange of ideas without it devolving into name calling and personal insults.

I enjoyed it immensely.


WW


>>>>

 

[JoeB131]

Well, I don't agree that there is a constitutional "right" to gay marriage.

But I think that the crafting of laws should be left to the legistlature. That's their function. And unlike a referendum, they have the time and ability to craft laws.

The veto power of a governor or president should be reserved for instances when a legislature acts irresponsibly. Here, it hasn't.

Christy is just sucking up to a larger national stage. Because he knows his fat ass is probalby done in the Gubenertorial election of 2013.

Translation: " I just hate republicans and everything they do."

Wow, so like do the voices in you head give you translations to perfectly valid arguments when you can't refute them.

Jabba is sucking up to the national stage, because he knows his shelf life is short. He's gone in 2013 and he knows it.

"Throw that Teacher to the Rancor!"

 

[JoeB131]

I've always been a critic of judges who decide they are going to disregard the will of legistlatures and the populace and impose these things,

Actually judges have no choice but to strike down legislation which is clearly un-Constitutional, for a judge to do otherwise, he’d be disregarding the rule of law.

but here's a case where they did it the right way, they passed a bill, and Christie the Hutt decides he's stull sucking up to be RomBot's running mate.

True. It’s incumbent upon states to follow the Constitution, in this case the 14th Amendment right of equal access to the law. If states (or in this example a governor) fail to follow the rule of law, that’s where the needless lawsuits come from.

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

In fact, the Constitution has a problem with it: civil rights aren’t determined by majority rule.

Right. A liberal thinks there are all sorts of rights hidden in the 14th Amendment- gay marriage, abortion on demand - while a clearly written right to firearm ownership in the Second Amendment isn't really there.

 

[JoeB131]

Dumb, dumb dumb...

U.S. News - NJ Gov. Christie vetoes same-sex marriage bill

I've always been a critic of judges who decide they are going to disregard the will of legistlatures and the populace and impose these things, but here's a case where they did it the right way, they passed a bill, and Christie the Hutt decides he's stull sucking up to be RomBot's running mate.

They did it the right way? The governor also did it the right way. Why not try a voter referendum before you take the side of your fellow sissies?

Why do you feel the need to attack someone because he doesn't hate like you do?

Christie's actions here are pretty repugnant, but then again, so is he, this bloated monstrosity who thinks he has a future in national politics.

 

[JoeB131]

"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.

Takes one to know one huh?

Marriage is a religious institution, the state has no place there, civil unions are the state's domain.

Well, no, they aren't. Marriage is a legally binding contract.

My problem here is with the process. Folks on the right- myself included- have been telling gays to do it the right way. Got to their legislators and advocate for a change in the laws if they don't like the current law. And they did that here. What we don't want them doing is venue shopping in courts until they find jokers like Judge Walker who decided that they are going to overturn referendums, and not recuse themselves for conflicts of interest.

i don't want judges legislating from the bench, and I don't want executives legislating from the mansion.

The Veto power should be what it is- a check and balance. It should be there to veto things when the legistlature acts irresponsibly, like spending money the state doesn't have. This isn't a case where a veto was justified.

 

[Mac1958]

The Veto power should be what it is- a check and balance. It should be there to veto things when the legistlature acts irresponsibly, like spending money the state doesn't have. This isn't a case where a veto was justified.

Well, it was inevitable. Christie had to do it to stay in good graces with the GOP/TP. He may well have an entirely different personal opinion on this.

.

 

[JoeB131]

Marriage is a religious institution, the state should only be ruling on civil unions. This ruling takes away the dignity and status of religious peoples.

Nobody is taking away the diginity and status of folks who trembled before an imaginary sky friend.

I'm still waiting for any religious type to explain to me how two gays getting married effects their straight marriage in any way, shape or form.

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

here are a few laws that were on the books in Utah. take a close look. and while you're shaking your head at how stupid these laws are, realize that that's how people in the not to distant future will feel about our laws/lawmakers who keep certain rights from gay people. they will look at us and laugh.


1888: Miscegenation [Statute] Intermarriage prohibited between a Negro and a white person, and between a "Mongolian" and a white person.
1907: Miscegenation [Statute] Marriage laws amended, with earlier intermarriage provision remaining the same.
1933: Miscegenation [Statute] Prohibited marriages between persons of the Caucasian and Asian races.
1953: Miscegenation [State Code] Marriage between "white and Negro, Malayan, mulatto, quadroon, or octoroon void."

 

[jillian]

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

so only religious people should be married, DD?

you want two tiers of relationships? one for religious folk and one for secular?

if you don't want government interference, i'm sure you'll agree that government should stay out of my uterus.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I gotta say that part of the beauty of the veto -is- that it allows for the executive to exercise his/her own conscience in the legislative process. The governor is an elected official, just as the legislators are, and thus represents "the will of the people" just as the state house does. In the absence of a super majority, the representative will of the people is split enough that any argument stating that the executive tipping an issue in the opposite direction is definitively contradictory to the views of the electorate and therefore morally improper is hardly decisive. Mechanically, it's a pretty solid setup.

Next up, there really isn't a constitutional right to gay marriage. The closest argument anyone's made is that, under the equal rights amendment, recognizing heterosexual marriage but not homosexual marriage is illegal because it discriminates unfairly against homosexuals. Unfortunately for proponents of this argument, sexual orientation didn't make the list of criteria due to which the government can't discriminate.

All that said, this issue boggles my f'in mind. Religious conservatives make up the largest demographic block voting in popular elections to keep homosexuals from legally marrying. The vast majority of religious conservatives in the US belong to Christian denominations. Track like, 3, on Jesus' Greatest Hits is "Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged", and yet so much vehement opposition. Perhaps this is just opinion, but it seems to me that actively demanding that your government use its power to keep consenting adults from entering into unions of which one doesn't approve involves a healthy amount of judgement. Maybe I'm mistaken. Was the actual Jesus quote more like, "Judge not lest ye be judged, unless what you're judging is something that I probably wouldn't approve of. In those cases, judge and apprehend as necessary."? Seems like that sort of qualifier would be in direct conflict with concepts like, "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord".

Aside from it striking me as against Christ's teachings to actively inhibit "unGodly" behaviors of others, I can't wrap my mind around the motivation to stop people from doing things that don't involve you or any victims. To be perfectly honest, and this might be the inherent laziness of a long-term marijuana smoker rearing it's head, it's difficult for me to wrap my mind around why people even have an opinion on this one. The only reason I care, or have ever cared, about who someone is f*#%ing, is if I'm trying to f*#% them, or trying to f#%* who they're f#*%ing. Otherwise there's not enough self interest involved to justify the energy to formulate an up or down opinion on the matter, and I can't relate with that not being a default psychological setting. Clearly it's not, so I dream of a day when that sort of live and let live mentality is universally considered proper social etiquette.

 

[Sallow]

I've always been a critic of judges who decide they are going to disregard the will of legistlatures and the populace and impose these things,

Actually judges have no choice but to strike down legislation which is clearly un-Constitutional, for a judge to do otherwise, he’d be disregarding the rule of law.



True. It’s incumbent upon states to follow the Constitution, in this case the 14th Amendment right of equal access to the law. If states (or in this example a governor) fail to follow the rule of law, that’s where the needless lawsuits come from.

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

In fact, the Constitution has a problem with it: civil rights aren’t determined by majority rule.

Right. A liberal thinks there are all sorts of rights hidden in the 14th Amendment- gay marriage, abortion on demand - while a clearly written right to firearm ownership in the Second Amendment isn't really there.

I don't see "firearms"..

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Actually judges have no choice but to strike down legislation which is clearly un-Constitutional, for a judge to do otherwise, he’d be disregarding the rule of law.



True. It’s incumbent upon states to follow the Constitution, in this case the 14th Amendment right of equal access to the law. If states (or in this example a governor) fail to follow the rule of law, that’s where the needless lawsuits come from.



In fact, the Constitution has a problem with it: civil rights aren’t determined by majority rule.

Right. A liberal thinks there are all sorts of rights hidden in the 14th Amendment- gay marriage, abortion on demand - while a clearly written right to firearm ownership in the Second Amendment isn't really there.

I don't see "firearms"..

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You?

Considering that firearms had been the primary hand-held armament for quite a few years leading up to that ratification, I'd say the interpretation is pretty much a slam dunk.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually judges have no choice but to strike down legislation which is clearly un-Constitutional, for a judge to do otherwise, he’d be disregarding the rule of law.



True. It’s incumbent upon states to follow the Constitution, in this case the 14th Amendment right of equal access to the law. If states (or in this example a governor) fail to follow the rule of law, that’s where the needless lawsuits come from.



In fact, the Constitution has a problem with it: civil rights aren’t determined by majority rule.

Right. A liberal thinks there are all sorts of rights hidden in the 14th Amendment- gay marriage, abortion on demand - while a clearly written right to firearm ownership in the Second Amendment isn't really there.

I don't see "firearms"..

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You?

arms = firearms. They weren't talking about swords or clubs here.

They were talking about guns. Sorry. Argument fail.

 

[Seawytch]

The Governorsaraus says he wants to put marriage equality on a ballot, to have people vote on it. When, in history, have minority rights been voted on by a majority?

Speaking of history, the Governorsaraus has decided to be on the wrong side of it. Too bad for him...

 

[rightwinger]

Right. A liberal thinks there are all sorts of rights hidden in the 14th Amendment- gay marriage, abortion on demand - while a clearly written right to firearm ownership in the Second Amendment isn't really there.

I don't see "firearms"..

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You?

arms = firearms. They weren't talking about swords or clubs here.

They were talking about guns. Sorry. Argument fail.

So your point is that the second amendment needs to be interpreted that arms means firearms

 

[JoeB131]

NO, I'm saying that unless you are some kind of special kind of liberal retard, you can't really interpret it to mean anything else.

Unlike the 14th Amendment, which doesn't say a thing about abortion or gay marriage, but judges keep finding those special rights, hidden in there, that no one else noticed in the last 100-140 years.