Abolish civil marriage and all unions will be civil unions. If you want the title of marriage, it has to be done, additionally, in a religious (non-govenmental) "ceremony".

about polygamy ? because once you change the definition of marriage the genie is out of the bottle !

was leading a few days before the election and Daggett was at 20%. Poll numbers had CA prop passing, when push comes to shove in the booth people will sadly vote NO

The Eagleton Poll is the most inaccurate and the most politically biased poll. I have never seen them to be accurate. They predicted a Corzine victory in the last election. The people who work there and who do the polling are all left wing liberals and cannot do a poll without slanting the numbers in favor of their own personal viewpoint. So much for the unreliable and inaccurate Eagleton Poll which unfortunately is partially subsidized with taxpayer dollars.Gay marraige has been defeated in every state where a public referendum has been conducted. The american people will never legalize sexual perversion.

It is legalized under civil unions, you narrow minded nimrod.

With the decline in marriage perks in public and private benefit packages, the whole issue is rather moot.

We are talking about marriage not civil unions. Gays were free to screw each other even before civil unions. Lets not raise homosexuality to the level of marriage which can only exist between a man and a woman.This is not a narrow minded view as you so ignorantly claim. It is the view and belief of most Americans who have every constitutional right to define what marriage is.

Well said...homosexuality is NOT normal! For anyone who disagrees, ask yourself how long mankind would survive if homosexuality was the norm. It is not natural!

"about polygamy ? because once you change the definition of marriage the genie is out of the bottle"

We are all equally denied the abilty to marry multiple partners. There is no law permitting some of us to marry mulitple people while some of us are excluded. Your logic is incredably flawed and not at all applicable.

Is that voters or likely voters?

I got an e-mail that showed less than a third supported it in swing leg districts. Maybe it's the samples.

As far as the Constitution goes...The Supreme Court ruled that seperate but equal violates the principles of the Constitiution. The fact that homosexuals are denied the right to enter into a recognized marriage (Yes Brown vs. Board noted that distinctions even if they are in name only is a violation) is a further violation of the 14th Amendement. Constitutionally speaking there is no way that those who oppose gay marriage (Who have never been able to articulate a clear legal reason for doing so) have the ability. The legal argument and legal precendet combined with the Constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court (the final arbiter) are squarley on the side with those of us that support marriage eqaulity for everyone.

and not phony issues and phony stimilus for the manufacturers of Vaseline.

make it a public question in the next election. If the majority of the people want it, they'll vote for it.

Brown v Board of Education deals with educational facilities in which the court ruled that separate but equal with respect to education as means to permit segregation was inherently wrong and therefore not permissable. Using that decision as justification for Gay marriage is a huge stretch. Talk about liberal interpretation of the constituion that takes the cake.My view is that I find polgamy far more acceptable than gay marriage. Polygamy was perfectly justified in the ancient world. In fact Abraham the father of many nations had numerous wives, King David had numerous wives all permissable by society. Those societies imposed rules of behaviour and gay marriage was cetainly not one of them. It is the right of any society to set the civil standards of behaviour. Using the old human rights argument is a recipe for societal chaos.Similarly you don't have a human right to smoke and possess marijuana unless society says its ok. But gays do not want to be bound by civil rules and regulations. Like children they seek vindication by twisting the law in their favor.

Call it all Civil Union if it takes place in a town hall or by justice of the peace. Let it be marriage if done in a religious setting.

California voters turned their back on this really bad idea!

If the issue is equal rights, then improve the civil union statute and correct the inequities. The next thing we'll see is NAMBLA lobbying in NJ and others wanting to marry their pets.

There is absolutely no justifiable reason to redefine thousands of years of what marriage was and continues to stand for.

Will all those jackasses who continue to press this nonsense please just go away and leave normal human beings alone. Civil unions are as far as I am willing to go and I will vigorously work to defeat any legislator who votes in favor of this crap!

If they do a petition will then be placed on the ballot in the 2010 election to overturn gay marriage.The Republicans will hammer away as the Democrats lose every Congressional District in New Jersey. They will lose massive African American and Hispanic support in the urban areas as these groups are heavily opposed to gay marriage and traditionally vote Democrat. Go for it Dumbocrats.See the destruction of your party.

tax breaks and state approval for 2 x feces laden penis's ?

Paramus and Broy

Youre both disgusting and vulgar. Your sophmoric barbs meant as jokes against the gay community go beyond tasteless.

Bill Pat

 Brown vs. Board of Education set constitutional precendet determining that seprate but equal institutions are unconstitutional. THough the case involved a Board of Education this was simply the vector in whcih the question of Constitutional Law was decided (To be fair Con Law is very confusing and no that is not a shot at you). Ignoring that you proved my point that those opposed do so largelry because of non-civil moral beliefs and ignoring that the ancient definition of homosexual actually meant something more like a child molester we can all agree that what was perfectly acceptable in the ancient days should not be used as a gage for what is acceptable now (slavery, human sacrafice, monacrchy, etc..even polytheism was acceptable-something that most Chrisitians have trouble with). Thus to say that a biblical era king had many wives and rules against men being with men is a bit dated interms of its logic and usefulness. Lastly, a distinction should be made re human rights and civil rights (or liberties) it is not a human right for anyone to get married (these are natural law rights-Life, liberty, happiness etc), frankly its not even a civil right-it is a civil rights question that some are denied that right while others are not. Whether you agree with Brown v. Board's Constituional precendet you cannot deny that it is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Buckstopper

Why dont we make everythig a public question. SHould NYers and Pennsylvanians be forbidden to drive on the parkway and Expressway, should Mexican-Americans be forbidden to purcahses homes in Wildwood, should black students be denied entry into certain schools? In many settings these ballot questions would all pass-butthey would all do what Madison and Hailton and Jefferson feared. They would all be examples of tyranny of the majority. No matter what numbers the majority has it cannot suppress the rights of the minority, it cannot discriminate against those with minority status.

Mensa

While I didnt lump you in with Paramus and Broy oyu are close. You are relying on archaic sterotypes that equate child molestation and sexual abuse with homosexuality. You are creating an issue that does no exist. FOr whatever reason you see that gays being able to get married will somehow lead to legalized child molestation. Asit was the case with polygamy no one is able to sexually abuse a child regardless of sexual orientation. To use leagalize we are all denied the right to engage in sexual activity with minors eqaully (thank God) (Frankly Im surprised in this day and age there are those that worry about this)

For all of youthat think gay marriage would somehow upend male-female marriage is insane. If two men or two women get married my marriage to my wife isnt impacted in the slightest.

are you a catcher or a pitcher.?
It is what it is. Just stop the Cock Fighting its illegal

SJ Blue now thats funny coming from a defender of anal buggery

My point is that society has a right to make the rules. If you want to change them then do so through the porper process as with a referendum and not through a legislature that is tilted toward the liberal side. The people have a right to decide this issue. It is not a human rights issue. If your side wins then so be it but do not take away the right of the people to to sanction or not sanction gay marriage. We all have to live by the laws of a civil society. Its the same with drugs. If society wants to legalize them ,lets put it up to the public will. These are big issues that should be left to handful of legislators to decide.

I would like to point out that broy and paramus do an excellent job of demonstrating why letting the people decide is a bad idea. Clearly neither one of them knows what they are talking about and are not viewing this issue through the legal prism required to make a rational decision in the voting booth. Regardless-what process would you advocate? The Courts are consitutionally empowered to make constitutional interpretations so like it or not its intentional to use the courts to decide these issues. Should we also put on referendum what religions are acceptable? Under whose authority and by what standards whould you suggest that gay marriage be "sanctioned." If the legislature is liberal in nature then it is a reflection of those who voted it to be so. The Legislature represents the people. Drug laws are again not applicable because we are all forced to live under the same drug laws regardless of race, or sexual orientation (only the ill under doctors care get otherwise).

Tyranny of the majority? I don't really believe the majority, if it is against gay marriage, goes so far as to say that gay couples shouldn't be afforded the same rights as hetrosexual couples. I truly believe it's more a fight over the definition of the word marriage rather than the legal rights attached to the word. Using your argument, the miniority then gets to dictate what the definition of a word is and that is contrary to the meaning of the word "definition".

"My point is that society has a right to make the rules. If you want to change them then do so through the porper process as with a referendum and not through a legislature that is tilted toward the liberal side."

Just like the Dixiecrats used to say. I guess this means we'll see Steve Lonegan doing his best George Wallace impression by standing in front of the courthouse entrance to block the bride and bride, or groom and groom as the case may be, from getting marriage license.

christiegonewild.blogspot.com

Have we forgotten the most basic law....The law of nature? If men bed down with men and women with women, mankind will exterminate. Does anyone need more proof that homosexuality is just wrong?

How though does gay marriage alter what you call marriage? What is more important ensuring that each and every american is able to enjoy the same rights or that a definition simply becomes expanded? I disagree with you that those who would vote would stop short of offering the same rights, I think that there are many many who would make being a homosexual illegal based on their (loose) understanding of judeo-christian principles. Regardless, the Court declared that even if the distinction is in name only and all other things being equal it is still not equal.

You assume 1)that all people will somehow evolve to be gay and the numbers just dont support that. 2) that the homosexual population of Earth and the USA is significant enough (or has ever been significant enough) to impact natural population growth or lack there of 3) That gay people do not desire to have children (they do) 4) that should every human being become gay that they would all be to stupid to procreate. Natural Law, by your understanding, would have us all running around naked because that is the way we are born and it would have men chase after as many desirable female mates as possible. You have also equated the human emotions of love and romance to basic biological urges.

that those against changing our long established laws need to fight this issue? We are not proposing changes, yet it seems we are the ones that need to pursue Constitutional Amendments just to maintain what has always existed.

In America’s history, when an aggrieved group believes our laws are unjust, it is that group that convinces the rest of society of their plight and circumstance. Then they take the necessary steps to get the matter resolved by passing a Constitutional Amendment. This how women were given the right to vote (19th Amendment) and the voting age was reduced to eighteen years of age (26th Amendment).

Women were not given the right to vote because some judge or legislative body decided that the definition of man should be changed to include women. 18, 19, and 20 year olds were not permitted to vote because some judge decided they were as mature as a 21 year old and therefore should be able to vote. I also want to point out that not one woman voted to pass the 19th Amendment, not one person under the age of twenty-one voted to pass the 26th Amendment. These Amendments passed because society, as a whole, agreed that these changes were justified.

It should not be up to defenders of marriage to pass amendments to secure the long established concept of marriage. Homosexuals and their supporters should be the ones required to pass an amendment to effect the change they seek. They also have a significant advantage that neither blacks, nor women, nor those under twenty-one enjoyed when they sought to make changes to our laws. They will not be denied from voting for the amendment.

retentives, sodomy can be hetero. Hmmmmmmm!

What you really have to ask yourselves it, why do you care? How does it affect you if two adults want to join in an official union? If it does not interfere with your life or change your relationships, then why are you so concerned. I think if you spend some real time on introspective thought you will realize that it bothers you simply b/c it makes you uncomfortable and if we were to abolish or ban all things that made us uncomfortable, then we probably would have never gotten out of our caves.

many in Nazi Germany were convinced to go along with the rounding up of Jews when asked the same questions. Why do you care? How does it affect you? If it does not interfere with your life, then why are you so concerned?

"many in Nazi Germany were convinced to go along with the rounding up of Jews when asked the same questions. Why do you care?"

When all else fails equate same sex marriage with the holocaust.

I wonder what these heroic wingnuts, who profess to care so much about their fellow men, were doing when the cops were rounding up gays.

christiegonewild.blogspot.com

http://www.politickernj.com/joey-novick/35063/we-need-sanctity-marriage-...

first of all I never assume as you know one who assumes makes an ass of themselves...As with all liberal progressives you are over analyzing my post. The human race must procreate to carry on and obviously two men cannot have children. But this debate is about marriage and again marriage is between a man and a woman not two living creatures that love each other. I know several people who love their animals more than their spuose does that mean we shouls allow people to marry their animals. Afterall we now have a member of the Obama administration that wants animals to have legal representation. Some may find the perverse act of homosexuality sexy and some may find beastyality acceptable but it doesnt make it right. And to your point that gays want to have children is true but traumitized children as they get older and is strictly for their selfish reasons trying to fit into a society that they never will. The homesexual community is a freak show and all you have to do to quantify that statement is to watch the gay pride parade. There is nothing normal about it. Lastly wearing clothing and the laws of nature have nothing to do with each other.

And I quote "If men bed down with men and women with women, mankind will exterminate. " and somehow I am wrong for supposing that you fear that homosexuality will lead to the "extermination" of the human race? Afterall what you said there is pretty cut and dry. I agree that we are not simply biological creatures-you introduced natural law not me. I addressed this issue from a legal standpoint-more specifically a 14th Amendment issue, and a seperate but equal issue if you recall. If you know several people that love their animals deeply, i am happy for you. I generally believe that those who love animals have a deeper capacity for empathy. But you make the mistake of equating homosexuality with beastiality. You have rather unsuccessfully compared apples to oranges. When two men make a conscious decisions to enter into a relationship with one another no one's rights are being violated. Conversly, when a human imposes their obviously superior abilities and forces themselves onto an animal, an animal that has no control over the situtation that is a depraved and unnatural and cruel act. The fact that the Obama administration (what your specific reference is do not know) thinks that animals should have rights is nothing new, numerous animal cruelty laws exist, the fact that some in the Obama administration support those laws does not in anyway indicate that gay marriage would lead to leglaized beastiality-that logic defies reason. This is a tactic used frequently. "Oh Gay marriage first then whats next you can marry your sister" "Oh Obama wants the nation to have access to healthcare he's a Communist/socialist/nazi." There is no evidence to suggest that the nation would tolerate such horrific acts as child molestation (as noted by other psoters) or beasitality because the rights of consenting adults were recognized. Regardless, (and I cant believe I am saying this) we are all equally denied the right to marrying our pets. Unlike, gay marriage where some of us can get married and some of us cant. Clearly, you prove my often stated point. Furthermore, no evidence, none whatsover not one shred of credible evidence suggests that children that are raised in gay parent homes are anymore likely to be "traumatized." I do thank you for continuing to prove my often stated point that those who would seek to prevent gay marriage do so because of moral convictions (typically based) in a particular religious faith, and they do not do so because of any legal precendent (One of the many reasons why this should not be a ballot issue). Your faith and your convictions are fairly your own, but we (despite the right's pervasive myth) are not a nation rooted in Chrisitanity. Its simply not the case, the founders took great cause to make sure that there was no religious test for public office, that church and state should be seperate.

Your ranting is typical ACLU bs...Lawyers and liberals (not mutually exclusive)are on the path to ruining this country. I see that you have neglected to refute what a freak show the gay pride parade is, your silence speaks volumes.Again you are missing my point that homosexuality is not normal. I am not saying that homosexuals should not share basic human rights all I am saying is that should not have special rights afforded to them. And you will never see a study that says children of homosexual couples are traumatized because it is not PC to fund such a study. However, the children that I do see who have two moms or two dads are truly head cases. In addition my faith has nothing to do with my position ( I am not real faithful, my own issues)it is just so black and white to me that homosexuals lead a deviant lifestyle (gay pride parade)and that marriage is between one man and one woman. Life is not fair so get over it with this marriage fight!

1st and foremost I am not ranting, my conclusions are logical and structured. 2) I didnt ignore your deviant lifestyle quotes, I explicitly said that you wish to stop gay people from getting married because of moral convictions. There is nothing wrong, illegal, or deviant about gay pride parades. They are no more "deviant" than marde gras. What they are is offensive to your sepcific set of sensibilities. I ask you WHY you think that they are "freak shows" and what makes NORMAL normal to you. I do not dismiss that what you might see is not typical for what you would see on any random tuesday, but it doesnt make it deviant or freakish-unless of course you are making that normative distinction based on a set of moral beliefs that deem such actions deviant-however as I have said this is a legal issue and not one thing you have mentioned is illegal. Homosexuals are not looking for special rights, they are simply looking for the same rights that you and I have as heterosexuals. Life, as you point out isnt fair, but civil societies can write fair laws and can execute the laws of the land with fairness.

Don not count me as one who thinks Mardi Gras are normal. However, the gay pride parade takes freakish to an entirely different level. The gay pride parade has "marchers" scantly clad performing simulated sex acts for all too see. Would you take your child to the gay pride parade? I try to live by a set of standards that if I couldn't act a certain way or say certain things in front of my parents or children I probably should not say or do it. What two consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business and their right. Gays have those rights. What you are talking about is diminishing traditional values of people who hold them near and dear. How or why is that fair? Traditionalist are are getting the short end of the stick when it comes to marriage, celebrating Christmas and being able to utter God in a public forum. People are getting sick and tired of all the complaining that something is not fair. Sports aren't fair because little Johnny didn't get a trophy. We are doing a disservice to society by teaching people they are entitled to things that they arn't and gay marriage is one of them. Gay's should do what other sub cultures do and create their own microcosim of acceptance and stop demanding that they be accepted into someone elses. It is like me going to Russia and demanding that all Russians speak English because that is what I speak. How abusrd would that be? This is typical liberal thinking that people should have an open mind to the way they think but are closed minded to the way other people think.

I'm not really sure if you are getting this, but all of your posts continue to prove my point. No, I would not take my kids to a gay pride parade, because I wouldnt go to a gay pride parade, but when they were 10 I would take them to R rated movies either. Regardless, no one is required to attend a gay pride parade so I'm not so sure why you care so much about the so called depravity that happens there. Simulated sex scenes are all over the place anyway, and you only find the "depravity" that happens at a gay pride parade so much more offensive because its two people of the same sex doing it-and that is unusual to you, it frightens you and you admitidly 'traditionalist' sensibilities. Not to be crash, but there are plenty of things I've said and done that I wouldnt do in from on my parents or children and believe me I am better for having done them. Not everything is intended for mixed company and I again dont see how the subject matter being gay or strait impacts that. Somethings are meant for adults, regardless no one is asking you to like "gay" things, just respect their right to not be treated like second class citizens. You are always free to ignore them. Your traditional rights are not being infringed on, you still will have them when gay people can get married. What marriage means to you will still be the same, who you think should be married wont change, you are even free to educate your children that only men should marry women and women should only marry men. Homosexuals being granted the same equal rights as everyone else does nothing to dimish what your family means to you or to society as a whole. Your life stays the same. Christmas is a national holiday-Bill O'Reilly's war on Christmas segements are not indicative of what actually happens in the world. Traditionalists are free to enjoy Christmas as they've always been. Last I checked our money still says in God we Trust and there are God references all over the public sphere, the President swears in on a Bible for crying out loud. The only two groups from our little discussion whose rights are actually being violated are gay people and atheists. Life isnt fair and for what its worth I agree that there are vast extremes such as everyone gets a trophy leagues-but thats a compititon analogy. Gays should not have to compete for the same rights enjoyed by heterosexual people. Little Johnny's rights arenet violated because he lost a game, but if Little Johnny is denied his right to compete with the other kids because he was born different thats when you have an issue. Being gay is not a sub-culture. You would say so because they are a minority, but Gay people are citizens, they are all shapes and sizes and are living in your neighborhood. Should all minorities develop into sub-culture status as easily and off-handidly as you suggest. What you are suggesting is one set of rules for "us" and one set of rules for "them" and that dog just dont hunt as they say. Gay's dont want YOU to accept them, they are not demanding to be approved of by anyone, they are simply demanding their equal rights as citizens of this country. Your Russian analagy isnt applicable. Gay people are not asking you to be gay (which would be proper under you demanding Russians to speak english). The proper analagy would be if you were a Russian citizens but were legally denied something that all other Russians are not because you were born different. I am not closed minded to the way you think. I would bet that you and I have much in common. But our difference is this, regardless I believe that my country should protect and defend the rights of all of its citizens equally and fairly. Under the eyes of the law we are all equal, we are all treated equally and fairly by our governments-when it comes to gay marriage this is simply not the case. There are one set of legal (mind you legal legal legal this is a legal arguemnt) for heterosexuals and one set of legal standards for homosexuals that is not only wrong but it is Unconstitutional.

Blue...Gays have the same human rights that you and I have. In fact they are even afforded better protections under the law with hate crime legislation than you and I are are afforded. What the gay community is looking for are the same "benefits" associated with marriage. These benefits are not entitlements like human rights are. Why should an employer extend (and contribute monetarily) health benefits for a gay employee when that employer does not agree with those values. You are forcing a set of values onto a group that does not accept those values and are therefore violating their rights. The gay community is trying to force their acceptance into mainstream society by crying discrimination. If the legislature is successful in passing gay marriage I would bet that more companies will discriminate against hiring gays for that very reason.

Blue, you are a liberal who can't see the other side. You are very articulate and write very well. But you are wrong on this and the majority of the country feels the same way I do. Protect gays against discrimination and treat them fairly but they not will not be accepted into mainstream society with their traditional values and their is nothing wrong or illegal about that. This is clearly a fairness issue. I think it is fair and you don't. Oh well such is life. Let's just agree that I am right and well your not...just kidding! I guess this is what makes the world go round...we just see the same issue from very different perspectives. Have a Happy Thanksgiving.

An R rated movie is something that you pay for and is viwed in private. The parade is in the public forum and funded with tax dollars. The people living, working and conducting business along the route have no control over the antics of the performers. I think you would agree with me that if the gay community wanted to be accepted into mainstream society they would tone down this parade. What is the saying when in Rome...

OK-You assume that gay people want acceptance, that they want personal acceptance from individuals, when I dont. I think that what they want as a group is the same legal rights and privilages as any other American-in the legal setting. I agree that this is not a human rights issue, it is a civil rights issue. Of course gays have the same human rights, but they do not share the same civil rights that you an I have as heterosexuals. Lets assume that civil unions do give the exact same benefits (they usually dont) but because it is not called marriage it is not marriage (same logic as the segregated school no matter if the book ciriculum and buildings are identical it is not the same and thus not equal) and thus not equal (that might seem like a semantics only argument but not to people that have been together for decades yet they still cannot enjoy the same public recognition of their relationships that you and I can). What you are suggesting re a business owner having to extend benefits is a bit murkey and slippery. You technically advocated for discrimination in the workplace. If an employer has benefits for his employees technically a civil union partnership would be elligable for those benefits already. Which may violate some of the employers personal (not legal) "values" already. Regardless, employers are not allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation and frankly my employers values are of no concern to me in the workplace. In terms of business provided that insurance for gay couples is not higher than it is for straight couples (and it is actually usually cheaper) the business owner has no legal reason to make a distinction between offering a husband and wife benefits or a husband and husband. By that logic every gay govt employee's spouse could have their benefits taken away when the GOP is in power. You nor anyone else doesnt have to accept that being gay is moral and ok, but we as a society have to recognize that their rights should be equal to heterosexuals. Rights are not up for debate, they are not up to the majority of voices no matter how many people oppose it. I see your side of the argument all too well, or so I think. And will close with asserting as I always have-there is no justifiable, legal reason to prevent gay people from getting married. If we continue to keep gay people from being married than we must all be prevented from being married. All current marriages must be refered to civically as civil unions, what you decide to call them personally is what you decide to call them-but publically and civically we must all be entitled to the same rights, benefits, and protections afforded by law.

But in any event, it is clear that we will not agree on this, but it was a fun discussion. Have a Happy Thanksgiving!

Me too, thanks for sharing your position...I look forward to reading some of your other posts on other topics...