Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Chris Christie Vetos Gay Marriage Bill; Should it be left up to a vote of the people?
Topic Started: Feb 19 2012, 01:12 AM (1,596 Views)
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Banandangees
Feb 20 2012, 04:30 PM
campingken
Feb 20 2012, 11:51 AM
Ban,

The people don't get to decide on Constitutional rights. If they did Jim Crowe would still ve and well in the south.
True!

But what Christie is saying is, to let the people of NJ (by ballot vote) tell the legislators how to legislate "on such an important issue,."

Link

Quote:
 
Gov. Chris Christie has followed through on his promise to reject a bill allowing same-sex marriage in New Jersey by quickly vetoing the measure Friday and renewing his call for a ballot question to decide the issue.

In returning the bill to the Legislature, Christie reaffirmed his view that voters should decide whether to change the definition of marriage in New Jersey.

"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," Christie said in a statement. "I continue to encourage the Legislature to trust the people of New Jersey and seek their input by allowing our citizens to vote on a question that represents a profoundly significant societal change. This is the only path to amend our State Constitution and the best way to resolve the issue of same-sex marriage in our state.


Brew wrote this (on first page):

"It's amazing that the party that boasts that they are the defenders of personal freedom is also the party that wants to interfere in personal lives the most, on this topic and abortion, among others."

What this Republican "fat ass" is saying is that before a few politicians make a decision that affects the "personal lives," rights and freedoms of all the citizens of New Jersey, let them hear from the people themselves in the form of a ballot.... let them hear from all people, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Blacks, Whites, Italians, Jews, Polish, Irish, the whole lot.... then let the legislators cast their votes in light of what the people want. Again, what can be more fair in representing all the people about an issue that affects their personal lives. Let the people decide what they feel is best for their "personal lives" on this issue, not the government.

What better way is there for Christie to "defend the people's personal freedoms," on this issue of same-sex-marriage, than to let them decide for themselves, showing the legislators who represent them, the direction they wish for them to go?


It's amazing that the party that boasts that they are the defenders of the poor and common folk, who complain that a few, such as big business, manipulates politicians and policy that affect the lives of the people would object to a Governor vetoing the decision made by a few and instead giving the people themselves the opportunity to decide for themselves on this important issue that affect their personal lives.

Deception!
What a crock of crap! The whole idea of our government is to protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority. As Ken said, we don't allow majorities to decide what our human rights are. Old fat ass just made a political decision to please his rabid right-wing constituents. He's a tub of lard and a great menace to liberty. And Ban agrees with him. Geesh!
Please explain how two people, regardless of sex, loving and marrying each other affects anybody else's lives. That's the dumbest argument ever for not allowing for same-sex marriage.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
"The whole idea of our government is to protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority."

Actually to protect the right of the people against intrusion by government. The majority cannot rule but through government, ditto the minority, nor can corporations, but through government. All anyone has to do is read the Declaration and Constitution to see this.

The Constitution says nothing at all about regulating marriage, therefore the government should have no say whatsoever. At the federal level, at the state level that depends on each state's constitution, and from there it's left to the people to decide for themselves.

On this view, much of what government does is illegal, and this is where most liberals, and many so called conservatives abandon the Constitution, because their vision of fairness outweighs freedom.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Chris
Feb 20 2012, 08:03 PM
"The whole idea of our government is to protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority."

Actually to protect the right of the people against intrusion by government. The majority cannot rule but through government, ditto the minority, nor can corporations, but through government. All anyone has to do is read the Declaration and Constitution to see this.

The Constitution says nothing at all about regulating marriage, therefore the government should have no say whatsoever. At the federal level, at the state level that depends on each state's constitution, and from there it's left to the people to decide for themselves.

On this view, much of what government does is illegal, and this is where most liberals, and many so called conservatives abandon the Constitution, because their vision of fairness outweighs freedom.
I don't think state constitutions can override the national constitution. Marriage is a thing that transcends state borders. It has to be a national issue.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
"I don't think state constitutions can override the national constitution. Marriage is a thing that transcends state borders. It has to be a national issue."

Better tell that to California and some of the other states that have already made a rulling on same sex marriage.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Banandangees
Feb 20 2012, 09:33 PM
"I don't think state constitutions can override the national constitution. Marriage is a thing that transcends state borders. It has to be a national issue."

Better tell that to California and some of the other states that have already made a rulling on same sex marriage.
Does the national constitution say anything about same-sex marriage?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tim from AL
No Avatar
Gold Star Member
[ * ]
I think faggots should be able to marry. That way, when they grow old and after years of arguing, they can join this forum here as grumpy old buttholes like so many others here.
Edited by Tim from AL, Feb 20 2012, 09:48 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Tim from AL
Feb 20 2012, 09:48 PM
I think faggots should be able to marry. That way, when they grow old and after years of arguing, they can join this forum here as grumpy old buttholes like so many others here.
Do you include yourself in that description, Tim? Seems like you complain and argue as much as the rest of us. All the while telling us we shouldn't
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
campingken
No Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Ban,

I believe that prior federal court decisions require states to recognize and accept marriages preformed in other states as legal and binding in their own. This rule was made due to some states not accepting interacial marriages as legal.

When it comes right down to it a marriage is nothing more than a legal contract between 2 consenting adults. Those who wish God to be involved in their marriage are free to do so. Also churches should be allowed to slam their doors in the faces of anyone they wish to.

It is time to take the tax exempt status away from church's. Then they can discriminate to their heart's content.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
"It is time to take the tax exempt status away from church's. Then they can discriminate to their heart's content. "

Stomping my foot and screaming............YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tim from AL
No Avatar
Gold Star Member
[ * ]
Mountainrivers
Feb 20 2012, 09:53 PM
Tim from AL
Feb 20 2012, 09:48 PM
I think faggots should be able to marry. That way, when they grow old and after years of arguing, they can join this forum here as grumpy old buttholes like so many others here.
Do you include yourself in that description, Tim? Seems like you complain and argue as much as the rest of us. All the while telling us we shouldn't
Where am I complaining here? I said they should be able to marry so they can, too, come into this forum and be grumpy old men like all of you guys. Nope. Didn't complain a bit. Nor, was I complaining about the name calling, just wishing some of you so called friends would stop acting like 2 year olds or thinking you should fight and if you lose, take your ball and wagon home with you. Just trying to help.

But, I guess, it's apparent that those who think such must be the guilty party, as if you feel like you're being talked about, and paranoid that it's you that's being talked about, well, it's not my fault. A guilty conscience always comes out.

SO, who has a guilty conscience and is talking to the person who was trying to help keep down the fighting and back stabbing? The answer shows the guilty party just like the glove that fits. And, the reply to this message of contempt shows the guilty party's hand, as the rest will see. Who's gonna say i'm wrong?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis