Fun facts: Gay marriage existed before Christianity. (They are, by far, not the only religion that has sects practicing bigotry.)

Corzine was a coward for not getting this done before leaving office. Now, we're left to Gov. Bigot.

Maybe we should put it to the voters of NJ... Should fat people be allowed to marry?

Maybe we can go back in time and put interracial marriage to a vote... Should a white guy be allowed to marry an Hispanic woman?

If you are arguing against marriage equality, you are a bigot. It really is that cut and dry.

Interpretations of the First amendment allow for religious exemptions for going off to fight wars. The First amendment does not provide a religious exemption to withhold taxes that fund such wars.

Quote:

GJ responding to me. Like I said in my earlier post, do you also deny people services because they violate other commandments set forth by God. Do you ask people if they have violated each of the 10 Commandments before you
sell them anything? Which is worse - selling cake to a felon who has been convicted of murder in the past or selling one to a gay couple?


If I am a Jehovah's witness and am also a doctor, you better believe that I will be forced to administer blood transfusions....which is not a violation of my constitutional right to religion. if I could choose not to do blood transfusions, it would be a violation of other people's rights, not mine...do you see the difference?

I do not agree, government will be telling me how to practice my religion. Ten years from now plural marriages might be in fashion. I cannot call myself a practicing Catholic, then take the money from a same sex couple. I am endangering my beliefs and my immoral soul. I will not run away from my faith, besides there are evidence of harassment from past lawsuits. a Methodist organization was sued in Ocean Grove, NJ when they denied a lesbian couple the use of their pavilion for a same-sex civil union. The Methodist organization lost and the state of New Jersey revoked the tax exemption for the pavilion, which will cost them around $20,000 a year;
?Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by law. Catholic Charities was accused of discrimination and pulled out of the adoption business in 2006;
?San Francisco dropped its $3.5 million in social services contracts with the Salvation Army because it refused to recognize same-sex partnership;
?A Christian gynecologist in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship. The doctor said it violated his religious beliefs and referred his patient to his partner, but the women sued. One justice suggested the doctor take up a different business
The Hobby Lobby case will settle the practice of religion. This is the real reason the Pilgrims came to the New World, the right to practice their faith without government telling them what to believe. I shouldn't be hit with lawsuits in the USA for practicing my religion, this law will open up more lawsuits.

Quote:

Are you on drugs? I am actually curious, do you take drugs which cause you to have hallucinations and not understand reality?

Churches are private institutions and they can discriminate as much as they want. They already do! I don't see any women priests do I? How about some women cardinals? heck, if I, as a protestant go into a church and declare myself as a non-catholic and ask them to use the Church for my wedding service, they will say no until I say I am a Catholic!

We are not talking about same sex couples getting married in a Church, which if the Church does not want that, there is no legal basis to force the Church to do that. What we are talking about is same sex couples being able to drive pass your house and go to the court house and get married and obtain a legal piece of paper allowing them the same rights you and your husband enjoy - nothing to do with you or your Church!

Quote:

I hope in your job, you ask every person whether they have had an affair, lied, killed someone, used the Lord's name in vain, and all the other ten commandments. Why? Because the holiest than thou attitude should be applied non-discriminately. As a wedding planner, if you don't think God wants you to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple then does selling a wedding cake to a couple who has committed adultery make it any better? Where do you draw the line.

Yvonne - your concerns are absolutely not based in reality nor fact.

I am legally married in the state of NJ and my marriage is recognized by the US federal government (I'm straight). But the Catholic church wouldn't have let my husband and I hold our wedding in a cathedral and won't sanctify our marriage b/c we are not practicing Catholics. Both the state and federal government are fine with this. Religious institutions are not now and will not be forced to perform or sanctify marriage ceremonies that go against their tenets.

As for offering services such as baking a wedding cake to same-sex couples, I'm not sure what part of your religion tells you that's not okay. I'm also not sure how changing the legal standing of same-sex couples in NJ from civil union to marriage would make this issue worse, if the problem is simply interacting with gay people who, by definition, are not married in your church, no matter what the state says. I think you might be misinterpreting what your faith asks of you - I've never met a Catholic baker (or any other kind of worker) who has asked me if I'm Catholic or if I've ever committed any sins like having sex outside of marriage or working on Sunday before serving me.

[Also, just because I can't help but correct misinformation when I see it, Plan B is a contraceptive, not an abortion pill - it has no effect on an already-fertilized egg. The abortion pill(s) is an entirely different combination of drugs.]

Quote:
I am not religious and I do not believe in civil unions, I believe in marriage and if I want to get married it should be my right not yours. Just for the record marriage has been around way b4 organized religion.

It is easy to dismiss my concerns but time and time again, people were sued over same sex marriage. The same sex law will be used to punish individuals or institutions that refused to provide services for same sex couples. NJ needs a debate to thrash these problems out. Simply put, my religion relies on the Gospel of Mathew in which Jesus said, a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and the two will be one flesh. As a practicing Catholic, my religion is the strongest voice against same-sex marriage, so it would be a mockery to provide services to a same sex couple (baking wedding cake, renting hall, catering, etc.) Why should I choose as an American citizen between a law and my religion? The first amendment says, I have the right to exercise my religion. Exercise is different from worship. China gives its citizens the right to worship but not exercise. Once they leave the church doors, they are forced to have an abortion on that second child. No exercise there. By the way, this is being debated now on the right to exercise your religion, on the lawsuit brought by Hobby Lobby. Hobby Lobby received standing in the courts to bring a lawsuit against the federal mandate on the Affordable Care Act. The owner of Hobby Lobby does not want to pay for Plan B, an abortion pill, paying for Plan B violates the owner conscience that life begins at conception. Even the federal government during War Wars 1 and 11 (I am using Roman numbers, it is not eleven for the younger bloggers) did not draft men based on religious objections. Personally, if two men or two woman ties the knot that is their personal decision and conscience, I am concerned about my conscience and violating any rules of my Church. Also, it would be a violation to work for an abortion clinic, work in a lab that create the gas used on the Syrian people, kill an embryo for cloning, work for a porn company, etc. I want a healthy debate to have my concerns heard.

Quote:

Not even Obama is claiming gay marriage (or marriage, say, between three people) is a civil right.

NJ officials had the Governor and a majority in the Legislature with the ability to push gay marriage in NJ-but punted a few years ago. As far as polls, I think many residents don't want to go on record as supporting traditional marriage-the poll numbers are likely skewed because of that.

I say make every union a civil union, and leave marriage up to the religions-a simple solution, no?

Quote:

What are you even talking about? A majority of NJ's elected officials (on behalf of NJ voters) favor ending marriage discrimination, as demonstrated by their votes on the bill Christie vetoed. AND polling shows that nearly two-thirds of NJers favor ending marriage discrimination. How is the will of the people being ignored?

(This is ignoring the fact that one of the greatest things about the United States of America is that basic civil rights are not doled out according to the whims of voters by majority rule, but are simply guaranteed to all. Your assertion that it should be otherwise is astounding.)

So NJ voters will be denied the right to have their vote matter.

Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto

George Amick Trenton Times
September 16, 2013

It would appear at first glance to be Mission: Impossible.

A group of prominent advocates is attempting to persuade Republicans and a handful of reluctant Democrats in the Legislature to help override Gov. Chris Christie?s 2012 veto of a same-sex marriage bill before the current term expires in January 2014.

Well-financed and well-organized, they?re undaunted by the near-total control Christie has wielded up to now over his fellow Republicans in the Senate and Assembly.

Not once since he became governor have the Democratic legislative leaders been able to muster the two-thirds ?supermajority? in each house needed to override a veto. The power a New Jersey chief executive possesses to help or hurt a lawmaker?s political career and Republicans? awareness of how this extraordinarily short-fused incumbent would likely react if they disrespected him have combined to keep his record perfect.

Add the likelihood that soon after the override vote on the marriage bill is held, Christie will be sworn in for a second term with a big re-election victory under his belt, and the conventional wisdom would say it can?t be done.

But New Jersey United for Marriage, a new alliance of national and state gay rights and civil rights groups, believes it can.

It has been able to attract wealthy activists to provide funding; corporate leaders to talk up the economic benefits of marriage equality; ?ber-lobbyists such as Dale Florio and Hazel Gluck; prominent Republicans such as Steve Schmidt, a key adviser to Sen. John McCain?s 2008 presidential campaign, and Tom Wilson, a former state GOP chairman; and communications specialists such as Chris Donnelly, press secretary for the Senate Democratic majority.

The bill Christie vetoed, S1, passed the Senate 24-16, with two Republicans, Sens. Diane Allen (R-Edgewater Park) and Jennifer Beck (R-Red Bank), voting yes and two Democrats voting no. If those four votes remain unchanged, three additional yes votes will be needed to beat the veto.

In the Assembly, the tally was 42-33, with no Republicans voting yes, two Democrats voting no, three Republicans and one Democrat not voting, and one Democratic seat temporarily vacant. A veto override will require 12 additional ayes.

At least three of those 12 ? one Republican and two Democratic ? are in sight right now.

The Republican, freshman Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi of River Vale, who didn?t vote earlier, now says she?ll support the override effort.

For her, the deciding factor was the U.S. Supreme Court?s June decision overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act. With DOMA dead, federal agencies can grant benefits to same-sex married couples in the 13 states, plus the District of Columbia, which allow such marriages. At one stroke, the justices ended any pretense that New Jersey?s law authorizing civil unions affords the equal rights and privileges to same-sex couples to which the New Jersey Supreme Court has said they?re entitled.

On the Democratic side, the two Assembly members who weren?t available for the original vote, Wayne DeAngelo (D-Hamilton) and Gabriela Mosquera (D-Laurel Springs), also intend to back the override, although DeAngelo said he?ll listen to constituents on both sides of the issue first.

?I?m for equal treatment,? he told me. Carol Murphy, a spokeswoman for Mosquera, said her boss ?supports same-sex marriage and will vote for the override.?

The two other Republicans who didn?t vote in 2012, Declan O?Scanlon (R-Little Silver) and Mary Pat Angelini (R-Ocean), haven?t committed themselves, but United for Marriage members think there?s a good chance the two will end up on their side.

The advocates intend to make their case to individual lawmakers with arguments such as these:

?Assemblywoman Schepisi said it: The Supreme Court?s decision to throw out DOMA was a game-changer. It?s now clear that New Jersey?s civil union law doesn?t do what it?s supposed to do. As legislators who respect the national and state constitutions, you should want to address that problem.
?Inevitably, same-sex marriage is going to come to New Jersey. We?re one of only two states in the Northeast ? Pennsylvania is the other ? that doesn?t allow it. Polls show it?s favored by up to 64 percent of the public. It will become a reality here either because you vote it in or because the courts order it, and it?s on a potential fast track in the state courts right now.

?If you do the job, you can assure churches and clergy and religious organizations in your districts that object to same-sex marriage that nothing will change for them; they?ll have no obligation to solemnize gay weddings or acknowledge them in any way. The bill makes that clear. There?s no guarantee that a court decision would do the same. That should be an incentive to you to take the initiative yourselves.

?The Christie factor? Assume the governor is re-elected. Whether he wins big or wins small, the day he takes the oath of office he?ll be a lame duck. The pressure on you to do things his way will ease. In a couple of years, he could resign to run for president. But you?ll still be here, probably long after he?s gone. As for other concerns, we can show you evidence that only a tiny number of legislators nationwide who voted for gay marriage paid any price for it at election time.

?It?s going to be part of your legacy, one way or another. If it happens because of the courts, and not because of your vote, it will be a part of history that you can?t change. Do you really want to have to explain a few years from now ? when marriage equality will be in the mainstream, not even in the discussion any longer ? why you resisted it to the end??

That?s the pitch. Will it be persuasive? Stay tuned.

http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index ... marriage_advocates_l.html