Comments

  1. says

    Well this is an extraordinarily dangerous proposal;
    the majority get to decide on whether we have specific rights !

    So I guess we are not endowed with unalienable rights after all.
    Now of what other rights would the majority like to deprive us ?

    Fu*k this !

  2. Jerry says

    Christie’s brain-dead on this. You simply do not put anyone’s civil rights up for a vote. I thought he was more courageous than that. And what are his reasons for opposing marriage equality? Are they similar to the same “rationale” that prevents him from going on a diet?

  3. Randy says

    I still can’t believe we put this up to a vote… but what exactly will NOM’s and other hate group’s reaction be when a state finally votes FOR marriage equality. You know it’s going to happen sooner or later and then what will they say? Will they finally admit the people have voted and leave it alone? (I’m definately guessing not!)

  4. Jayson says

    Once again, they don’t get it. Just because you have the majority vote, it doesn’t make it what this country was built on. They have every right to believe what they want to believe when it comes to religion. But we don’t have to live to their religious beliefs. Some of us have a brain and decided what is the right thing to do without a made up book to guide us on how to be a good person.,

  5. Stefan says

    Christie has actually never said he’d veto a bill if it reached his desk. He’s trying to deter the issue away from him so that he doesn’t have to deal with it. Thankfully it doesn’t seem that the NJ legislature will have it!

  6. Leonard says

    I’m kinda torn on this. I actually (as a progressive) like Gov. Christie. He didn’t come across as a typical GOP republican, in terms of decrying the ongoing moral decay posed by the nefarious homosexuals, and seemed to have a sense of humor (about his weight and about politics). I don’t agree with him on policy, but he seemed like a personable guy.

    That’s why I’m torn on this position. I see it as a political calculation. Gov. Christie certainly has 2016 on his mind and doesn’t want to be saddled with the “Governor who signed into law same-sex marriage” label.

    I think (and I might be just pulling this out of my ass) that he might see putting this vote to the state as a way of allowing marriage equality to pass or fail without being blamed, when his time comes to run for President. He’s learned a lesson from Romney who is being battered and bruised by his opponents, about what he signed into law…RomneyCare.

    In the end, this is a horrible move for civil rights. They should NEVER be put up to a vote, and the tyranny of the majority should be steadfastly beaten back in order to protect the minority.

  7. says

    Doesn’t anyone understand the meaning of “unalienable ” ?

    OK, the correct word is “inalienable”…….but let’s not dump on the Founding Fathers.
    And yes, “equality” is/should be un/inalienable.

  8. Dw says

    Anybody hear the hearing/vote? notice the republicans who voted no sounded ashamed? Seriously, they sounded like they knew they’d live to regret their votes because they’ll look like bigots even to most republicans in 10 years .

  9. David in Houston says

    Brian Brown said, “We believe that marriage, the foundational institution of society, should not be discarded under any circumstance.”

    So when you expand civil rights to a minority, that will somehow completely destroy the institution of marriage for everyone else? Funny how that didn’t happen when interracial marriage was forced on the country by the Supreme Court. — Asshat!

  10. Jay says

    Gee, New Jersey must be the richest state in the Union. Every other state is having fiscal problems but Christie thinks New Jersey should spend millions of dollars on a completely unnecessary election to let voters decide on gay civil rights. Smooth move, Gov Ex-Lax.

  11. Mike C. says

    This sucks. The Quinnipiac poll may show over 50% of people support marriage, but as we have seen time and time again, when put up to a vote, we lose, because organisations like NOM will stoop to their lowest dirtiest tactics, pulling out those parents from MA who say their son is forced to learn about gay sex in kindergarten. It is not a fair vote with them in the room. But I will go back to NJ to help campaign for it.

    And BTW, NJ actually is the richest state in the union, in terms of per capita and median income (sorry, just had to point that out as a proud New Jerseyan 😉

  12. Tony S says

    I am morally against obese people eating at fast food restaurants. I believe that the bible states gluttony is a sin. Perhaps there should be a constitutional amendment banning obese people from consuming fast food.

  13. dave gershner says

    oh sure, guv, let’s let the people of NJ decide if gay taxpayers have rights………how about black taxpayers, gonna vote on their rights too?—think that’s been done—how about fat, obese taxpayers, shall we take a vote there? ——-you would be out of a job and out of town, chris—i thought the Constitution of the United States gave the same rights to all people, gay, black and even fat, although I might draw the line there: not pretty

  14. TruthSeeker_Too says

    The so-called “Tradition of Marriage” from the beginning of time….

    Moses had two wives. He wrote the five books of the Jewish Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) which are also part of Christian’s Bible (Old Testament). He was married to Zipporah (a Midianite) and a Cushite (Ethopian) woman (set forth in Chapter 12 of the Book of Numbers).

    Abraham, Jacob, David and King Solomon each had multiple wives. These and other examples of prophets and men marrying multiple wives can be found throughout the Christian Bible.

    Jesus Christ, the Son of God, never married and said nothing about homosexuality. He did tell everyone, including his Christian followers, to “love one another” and “treat your neighbor as you would yourself.”

    The Prophet Joseph Smith, founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism) had at least six wives. Plural marriage was publicly practiced from 1852 to 1890 when it was terminated by the Manifesto issued by LDS Church President Woodruff.

    Allowing gay and lesbian couples access to civil marriage as recognized by the secular government of a U.S. State (like say, New Jersey) doesn’t alter religious teachings or the definition of a religion’s “traditional marriage” philosophy.

    Allowing gays and lesbian couples access to civil marriage DOES treat them the same as other couples under the equal protection clauses set forth in our state and federal constitutions.

    God has “handed down” his law(s) to the various religions and their followers.

    Legislatures were established to make the laws under which all citizens –believers or not– must live.

    New Jersey should join New York and pass this bill, hopefully with veto-proof margins in both chambers.

  15. ChrisQ says

    Dear Sad, Always The Bridesmaid Joisey: Thanks for too little, too late and good luck. You could have beat NY to the punch when Corzine was Governor, but you didn’t have the balls. Now that all those NJ couples are crossing the river to come to NY to get married and spend that $$ over here, you have had a change of heart. Too bad. Maybe next time you’ll elect a real Governor, like we have. Elections have consequences. Cuomo: Promise Kept. Joisey: Reputation earned.

  16. bobbyjoe says

    Brian Brown said, “We believe that marriage, the foundational institution of society, should not be discarded under any circumstance.”

    And two days ago, he and NOM were celebrating serial adulterer Newt Gingrich.

    Which from now on should be brought up every single time anyone from NOM rears their ugly head, as it confirms (if there’s anyone who ever doubted) how absolutely full of sh*t is that NOM actually feels anything about the “morality” of marriage other than greedily trying to make money off it.

  17. anon says

    This is to provide cover for Republicans in the assembly so they don’t have to vote in favor of the newly proposed law, but only the referendum. This protects Christie’s veto. However, the issue is also in the courts and Christie just nominated a gay guy, so the whole thing will probably be decided in the state supreme court.

  18. says

    Had integration and inter racial marriage been left to the voters neither would have ever been legalized or enacted. The rights of American citizens ought to be left to the Courts and not the voters because the prejudice of the voters will sway the outcome rather than the law. The catholic church and the conservative christians will be calling out from the pulpits for the way they want the the congregations and parishioners to cast their votes.

  19. Jerry6 says

    Yea! Let the people decide on Gay Marriage, Just like asking the South to vote on Negro Rights.
    But we don’t need to worry too long; The fat slob will probably die of a heart attack soon.

Leave A Reply