[QUOTE](CNN) -- A political battle is shaping up in the Garden State about whether to give gay and lesbian couples the right to wed -- a move that, if approved, would make New Jersey the seventh state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage.
How the issue plays out was the subject of a series of political thrusts and parries this week between a Democratic-controlled state legislature and a Republican governor, who supports New Jersey's civil unions but opposes same-sex marriage.
Gov. Chris Christie, a conservative favorite once thought of as a potential presidential contender, called Tuesday for a state-wide referendum to settle the issue.
"This issue that our state's exploring, whether or not to redefine hundreds of years of societal and religious traditions, should not be decided by 121 people in the statehouse in Trenton," the governor said during a town hall meeting. "The institution of marriage is too serious to be treated like a political football."
The referendum would put the decision into the hands of residents of New Jersey, where recent polling suggests that those in favor of legalizing hold a slight majority.
It would also largely absolve Christie from making good on a pledge to veto the bill during a legislative session -- a move that analysts say may help preserve his conservative credentials, while presumably stealing a win from Democratic lawmakers who have long pushed for the measure.
A recent Quinnipiac University poll found that 52% of New Jersey voters are in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage.
But Christie's Democratic opponents argue that a referendum shouldn't be used to decide civil rights issues, pointing to historic legislative and judicial decisions regarding the rights of African Americans and women.
"We do not put civil rights questions on the ballot," Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg said Tuesday. "With all due respect to my colleagues at the other side of the table, a couple of them took a cop out."
Christie's statement Tuesday also frustrated gay-rights advocates, whose spirits were buoyed a day earlier with the governor's nomination of Bruce Harris, New Jersey's first openly gay state Supreme Court justice if confirmed.
"It's abhorrent to put civil rights on the ballot," said Steven Goldstein, chairman of a gay and lesbian rights group called Garden State Equality. "They want to corrupt the political system with donor money. The kind of money that we can't raise."
The likelihood of a referendum reaching voters is uncertain given the makeup of the Democratic-controlled state legislature.
Activists, in opposing such referendums, often point to the politics of Maine and California.
In 2009, Maine state legislators passed a same-sex marriage bill that drew subsequent challenges by opponents who pushed for a referendum that ultimately overturned the law with 53% of the vote.
Still, gay rights advocates in Maine this week garnered thousands of signatures in an effort to force a second referendum in November.
In California, a 2008 public vote outlawed gay and lesbian couples' right to wed.
Two years later, a federal district court overturned the voter-approved measure known as Proposition 8, saying couples were unfairly denied their rights. The ban has remained in place during the appeals process and could soon get a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Similar battles have also unfolded in Maryland and Washington state, where same-sex marriage opponents have pressed for referendums to counter bills that appear to enjoy growing support in their state houses.
Earlier this week, Mary Margaret Haugen -- once considered the holdout vote in Washington's 49-member Senate, said she would step in as the crucial 25th vote in order to pass the marriage bill.
Supporters say the legislation already has a majority behind it in the state House of Representatives, and Washington's Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire pledged to sign the bill if passed.
But opponents told the Senate Government Operations Committee that they aren't done fighting. Joseph Backholm, director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, said the issue should be put to a public vote.
"If we as a state are going to take the position that mothers and fathers are interchangeable and replaceable, if we are going to send a message to fathers and potential fathers in this state that it isn't important to be in the lives of their children because dads specifically don't matter, that is something we should all do together," he said.
In June, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed into law a bill that made his state the sixth to legalize same-sex marriage, more than doubling the number of Americans living in places that permit such unions.
Five other states -- Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire -- and the District of Columbia currently grant same-sex marriage licenses.
With Hawaii and Delaware joining the list earlier this month, five other states now recognize civil unions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
New Jersey, Illinois and Rhode Island also recognize civil unions providing state-level spousal rights to same-sex couples.[/QUOTE]
Source: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/28/us/new-jersey-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t3[/url]
This is my home state. I read in a local paper a couple days ago that my governor "swears to veto" any same-sex marriage bill that comes to his desk.
I agree, Screw those buttloving homos and their "rights", if they want the same status as normal people they should have thought of that before they stuck their dick in another mans ass.
The very IDEA harumph.
But seriously though, what is it that makes guys like this [I]care[/I] about gay marriage let alone hate it so much, I mean is literally none of his god damn business.
Just legalize it and be done with it already. Seriously, it's their own business. The only reason why people oppose it is because of religious belief, so the idea of having it be illegal on a completely religious foundation is so fucking irritating, not to mention intruding people's rights.
They should call it a civil union as opposed to marriage.
Marriage is holy matrimony between a man and woman under God, and homosexuals cannot do that.
I'm fine with them getting the same rights and everything, just don't call it a marriage, because it isn't.
[QUOTE=coolsteve;34442011]They should call it a civil union as opposed to marriage.
Marriage is holy matrimony between a man and woman under god, and homosexuals cannot do that.
I'm fine with them getting the same rights and everything, just don't call it a marriage, because it isn't.[/QUOTE]
My god says they can. My god says anyone can get married for any reason.
[editline]29th January 2012[/editline]
Why exactly is my god's word less valid than the word of the god that doesn't want gays to get married, anyways?
[QUOTE=coolsteve;34442011]They should call it a civil union as opposed to marriage.
Marriage is holy matrimony between a man and woman under god, and homosexuals cannot do that.
I'm fine with them getting the same rights and everything, just don't call it a marriage, because it isn't.[/QUOTE]
Which god? Cthulhu? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Ganesha? Odin? Hera? Isis?
My brother recently came out of the closet, and now has HIV.
What a bummer
I still find it surprising that this is still going on in first world countries.
My God is the state, and the state can do whatever it wants.
Men can marry men, and women can marry women.
[sub][sub][sub]soon comrades![/sub][/sub][/sub]
[QUOTE=coolsteve;34442011]They should call it a civil union as opposed to marriage.
Marriage is holy matrimony between a man and woman under God, and homosexuals cannot do that.
I'm fine with them getting the same rights and everything, just don't call it a marriage, because it isn't.[/QUOTE]
It burns
Of course you will veto it Chris Christie, you're the biggest republican sell out of the year and are the parties favorite of the month, wouldn't want to stir up those christians right?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34442046]My god says they can. My god says anyone can get married for any reason.
[editline]29th January 2012[/editline]
Why exactly is my god's word less valid than the word of the god that doesn't want gays to get married, anyways?[/QUOTE]
your god is inferior compared to the facepunch poster coolsteve
all hail coolsteve
i think both straight and gay marriages should be just categorized as 'Civil Unions' and they can both call it whatever they want
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34441629]
I read in a local paper a couple days ago that my governor "swears to veto" any same-sex marriage bill that comes to his desk.[/QUOTE]
I like to imagine Chris Christie vetoes bills by eating them.
Man, if only ignorant people like this could feel so passionately about shit that actually matters.
Huh, never would have expected a debate like this over here in Jersey.. I hope the result of this isn't going to be same backwards position as others. It's time to move forward already. Christie is an asshole if it's true he "swears to veto" whatever comes to him regarding it. Then again, I always thought of him like an asshole to begin with.
It's not even a real debate. It's just a bunch of backwards bigots trying to press their beliefs and morals onto others without any reason other than MY IMAGINARY FRIEND SAYS SO.
I don't see how this could possibly be up for debate.
Any country would only benefit from more committed people. And it's not like straight married couples sometimes aren't unsuccessful like divorce, bad parenting, etc.
will it be this last nail in the coffin for PCs?
We had a debate a couple years back also, didn't pass then either.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34444451]I like to imagine Chris Christie vetoes bills by eating them.[/QUOTE]
That's pretty much how he does it, actually
[QUOTE=Alexak75;34441811]not to mention intruding people's rights.[/QUOTE]
But isn't having a relgious belief a right... and aren't you in short taking away/limiting people's rights or beliefs... Therefore making yourself as bad as the people who are trying to stop gay marriage...
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34445699]That's pretty much how he does it, actually[/QUOTE]
No wonder he's so insidiously bloated.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34445699]That's pretty much how he does it, actually[/QUOTE]
I assume he regurgitates pieces and stitches them together when he proposes a bill?[QUOTE=bull3tmagn3t;34446319]But isn't having a relgious belief a right... and aren't you in short taking away/limiting people's rights or beliefs... Therefore making yourself as bad as the people who are trying to stop gay marriage...[/QUOTE]
I believe anyone with an IQ under 70 is less of a person and should be treated as such, anyone who doesn't let me pass this into law is a bigot who's taking away my rights.
[QUOTE=Rents;34446439]
I believe anyone with an IQ under 70 is less of a person and should be treated as such, anyone who doesn't let me pass this into law is a bigot who's taking away my rights.[/QUOTE]
The constitution says everyone is equal.
[QUOTE=bull3tmagn3t;34446832]The constitution says everyone is equal.[/QUOTE]
So why do gay couples and straight couples have different rights?
Just call it "union" and make it give the same rights to same sex couples as marriage gives to male-female couples. Homosexuals get equal rights and bigots stay satisfied since their sacred marriage stays sacred. Everyone's happy. Why is the name of any importance?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34449270]Just call it "union" and make it give the same rights to same sex couples as marriage gives to male-female couples. Homosexuals get equal rights and bigots stay satisfied since their sacred marriage stays sacred. Everyone's happy. Why is the name of any importance?[/QUOTE]
Because it wouldn't be true equality with a different name?
Why? It gives you exactly the same rights. That's what the fight is about no? How would giving it another name change anything?
Christie is possibly the greatest thing to happen to us ever, raising taxes, cutting funding for emergency services and schools and denying gay rights, not to mention him some how making so much money (totally not corrupt.)
[editline]29th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34449342]Why? It gives you exactly the same rights. That's what the fight is about no? How would giving it another name change anything?[/QUOTE]
Because it isn't marriage, and no one would recognize it as such. It also means that you are different, and you can not be married when straights can.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
