Uncivil Unrest!

People should not be voting on issues related to equal protection and the 14th amendment.

No one cares what the religious definition of marriage is. That will never change. No church will ever be forced to recognize a marriage that was not done in accordance with their traditions. This is how the Catholic church operates right now. (I'm sure, as is always the case, the right bribe/donation to the priest can change that)

The issue at hand is the "legal" definition of marriage. In a legal sense, two consenting adults should be able to enjoy the same contractual marital rights regardless of their sex. From a legal standpoint, voters should not be allowed to vote to discriminate. If you want to change the word and call it a civil union, fine. Do it. Currently the legal definition of marriage is really nothing more than a civil union between two people.

Sometimes the majority is wrong. In many states, the majority would have voted to uphold segragation and slavery and would have voted to prevent a woman's right to vote.

Reed was a little over the top but his comments have a valid point. It is idiotic to think that giving gays the same marital rights under the legal definition of marriage will in any way threaten heterosexual marriages. We need look no further to recent history to tell us that society is doing a good job of destroying these marriages without the help of same sex equality.

It is ironic that some of the same religious "conservatives" making this their rallying cry have marriages that have fallen apart. You can't help but laugh.

The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. (Quote - Barry Goldwater)

And Dick, on an unrelated issue, are you aware that there is no such thing as a Democrat Party? The legal and historical name of the party has always been the Democratic Party. Your continued incorrect usage is childish and diminishes any reasonable point of view you might have. I see you love the national party so much so you might want to check this link out http://www.usatoday.com/money/topstories/2008-08-26-856813040_x.htm

LaRossa correctly referred to an individual Member of the party you mentioned as a Democrat.  Really, though, nobody cares about that.  The starker truth is ... whatever you want to call that party - its current path will hopefully lead it out of existence.  Leftists scream their heads off about how the Republican party is allegedly being taken over by the 'vast right-wing conspiracy", but seldom do you hear a mention of how the left-wing has already co-opted the (Demo-whatever you want to call them) party, and is attempting to ram their anti-capitalist, free-loving 60's radicalism, Marxism, and various other -isms down the throat of the rest of the country.  And when, to their shock, the majority of the country rejects their long ago debunked style of existence, they reply with rants of hate monger, sexist, racist, homophobe, etc.  And, to further prove my point, no doubt this post will elicit some of that specially reserved vitriol.  Happy Venting!

The guy squats in taxpayer subsidized affordable housing in Princeton even though he has multiple government jobs and is a lawyer. If he moved, mabybe someone who needs the housing could get it and towns wouldn't have to build more of it, like Reed voted to mandate on every town. That said... Did LaLoser really say: "We all know the shenanigans that go on in lame-duck sessions. Legal bribes of six-figure appointments will float around." He had some dicey votes in his lame duck and wound up with ajoke job from Whitman at a cheesey state commission. On that score, he knows what he talks about. But then, this time Corzine will be on his way out and will have nothing to offer.

What is a Republic? An explanation of the various forms of government, and why America is not a democracy. This video explains how We are a country of laws, issues should not be decided by voters but by law.

To find out, watch this video "What is a Republic?" on... www.newjerseyfordummies.com

resurrectingreagan -

I'd suggest you read some histoy but based on your screenname, that probably escapes you.  Say it loud and clear - The Democratic Party.  Does it actually hurt your brain to afford the party the respect of calling them by the proper/legal name.  And spare me with the Matthews, Olberman, etc...  It is obviosu from your posts that you neglect to analyze other peoples' points of view.

But I get, it is cute to say Democrat party - giggle, giggle.  Knock yourself out.  Your the one that sounds like an ignorant bufoon.

you are an english professor who, rather than sitting pretty with a cushy fellowship in some Ivy League institution is stuck doing adjunct work in a state college where no one from the Dean  down to the students give a flying flip about your pontifications on Democrat verses Democratic.

I consider myself pretty well-educated and have voted for "Democrats" as much as "Republicans" and it does get confusing at times because, depending on context, the use of "Democrat" at times is appropriate even though the formal name of the Party is "Democratic". Of course Republicans use the same word in descriptive contexts as they do in a formal context so it isn't as confusing.

It really is unimportant if "Democrat" and "Democratic" are used interchangeably. It seems to me one is as good as the other depending on the context.

Dick (the former state bureaucrat whose job was to pick balls for the state lottery) LaRossa is a bigoted rightwing idiot whose pathetic attempts to reresurrect his failed political career will be as successful as Chris "Crash" Christie becoming a spokesman for AAA.

http://christiegonewild.blogspot.com/

So it is cool that Reed respects himself, but he kind of needs to start respecting others too. Time to grow up and leave the school yard.

resurrectingreagan

Well, it is only a debate in the Rush Limbaugh/LaRossa circles. Most people know I am correct.

Fanofflorio -

Of course it is appropriate some times to use Democrat without the 'ic. But the Mickey Mouse usage by people like LaRossa/Limbaugh do it because it annoys Democrats. Well, it doesn't really annoy me (I am not a Democrat). What annoys me is that instead of trying to make valid points people try to play silly games and be childish rather than use the appropriate terminology.

I mean, even Bill Buckley criticizes the comic book conservatives for being this childish and not using the 'ic. (I stole comic book conservatives from another conservative columnists)

Best laugh I've had in a long time. Maybe by his lover, but not anyone else. The only thing you can respect about his is that he admits what he is.

On the other hand, poll the members of his own party. He is the biggest joke in the Assembly and that is as far as he will ever go. He is the toothless pit bull..

All bark, no bite.