States should not be allowed to vote on gay marriage

Government should not be in the marriage business . . . period

Rocket River

 

You aren't stupid enough to believe that many do not believe that homosexuality is immoral.

so to confirm, the liberals have most certainly been PWN3D here.

 

The law suggests that a 12 year old can't consent to sex or marriage. You know that's never going to change, gay marriage or not, and are playing dumb.

 

Fat homophobe vetoes Gay Marriage Bill

 

I actually don't think he's a homophobe; this could just be election year hooey to keep him in good graces or influential with the GOP during the primaries and through the convention.

 

Oh, so he's more interested in politics and not what's best for his constituents.

Got it

 

or perhaps he doesn't like governments deciding what is best for people in all cases. He has said since the beginning he wants the people to vote on this.

 

No ****. If this weren't true our country would still be the undisputed #1 superpower.

 

doubtful and he would lose

The Rutgers-Eagleton poll, released Tuesday, surveyed 914 registered voters and found that 54% of them support gay marriage, which New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie opposes. Thirty-five percent oppose gay marriage, the poll found.

and then there is this nugget

Christy and Lerch dismissed a poll released Tuesday showing that most New Jersey voters support same-sex marriage. Christy said he believed voters were misled into believing that same-sex marriage was a civil rights issue and that they did not want to be seen as against civil rights. That concern, he said, led to skewed poll results.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2012/02/gay-marriage-new-jersey-.html

 

"misled into believing that same-sex marriage was a civil rights issue"

that's comedy!

 

"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."

 

Combo breaker!!!!

 

Who is disputing our position again?

 

To follow up Pouhe's post the government also has an interest in regard to guardianship issues of children, the distribution of property and familial benefits.

As I said ideally though I would like to see marriage handled by contract law so gender and number of partners wouldn't matter as the contract between the parties could be tailored. The problem with that though is there is a lot of institutional inertia to concept of marriage.

 

So then did you think miscegenation laws were fair since people of all races could get married just not to other races?

 

Makes sense. To be honest, I didnt consider implications of my initial statement and see the relevance in requiring licensed marriages in the context of family law.

My main point is that whatever constructs exist in the government, they need to recognize voluntary associations of all types, be they religious, social, professional, or sexual. So long as the government is the sole arbiter in legitimating marriages, there will always be disenfranchised groups unless and until it adopts a format that provides for full recognition of groups, beliefs, and practices equally.

That doesnt mean that I as an individual absolve my rights to critique practices that I find objectionable on moral/ethical/theological/philosophical grounds, it just means that I am not for using state power as a means of regulating/superimposing my own aforementioned beliefs on others.

In theory, modifying existing contract law to accommodate that is possible. In practice, it is highly unlikely that marginalized polygamous groups will be afforded the same level of support as gay rights groups are garnering today. And so long as those groups are dependent on popular sentiment/lobbyists/policy modification to validate their lifestyle decisions, the state operates as an instrument of restriction rather than one of protection.

 

America's track record for civil rights is not that good.

Slavery.
Immigration.
Gays.
Women.