• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
TRENTON, N.J. -- New Jersey's state Senate has defeated a bill to legalize gay marriage, the latest in a string of setbacks for advocates.

The defeat, by a vote of 20-14, likely ends any chance that the state Legislature approves gay marriage soon. Five senators did not vote; there is one Senate vacancy.

Gay rights advocates had been pushing hard for the bill because on Jan. 19, new Republican Gov. Chris Christie takes office and he has vowed to veto a gay marriage bill. Outgoing Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine had promised to sign it into law.

It was a major effort to get the bill to a full Senate. A vote was canceled last month when it appeared the measure would be defeated there. It wasn't until Tuesday that Senate leaders decided to allow the vote.

New Jersey offers civil unions that grant the legal rights of marriage to gay couples.
FOXNews.com - New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

Civil Unions Yes, changing "marriage" no. Makes sense to me.
 
Totally agree. Thanks for the post.


This is great news.
 
Anyone else notice the tone of inevitability in the reporting?
New Jersey's state Senate has defeated a bill to legalize gay marriage, the latest in a string of setbacks for advocates.

The defeat, by a vote of 20-14, likely ends any chance that the state Legislature approves gay marriage soon.
1) This is not a string of losses (or victories for proponents of traditional marriage), but "setbacks."
2) Let's not emphasize that the Legislature disapproved of gay marriage, instead let's say there little chance they will do so soon (implying they will later).
 
Anyone else notice the tone of inevitability in the reporting?

1) This is not a string of losses (or victories for proponents of traditional marriage), but "setbacks."
2) Let's not emphasize that the Legislature disapproved of gay marriage, instead let's say there little chance they will do so soon (implying they will later).

Well of course. Its never a defeat for the faithful. This religion has no church but its members are dedicated.
 
Truthfully, to me this is irrelevant. NJ already has civil unions which affords gay couples rights for adoptions, benefits, and other things that married couples have. Though my overall position is that the term "marriage" should be used only for religious purposes and all governmental unions should be "civil unions"... gay or straight, the way that NJ handles it currently, is fine by me. I'm not sure why this is a big deal.
 
I think the big deal is that NJ authorizes both marriages and civil unions.

If NJ stuck to authorizing civil unions as you suggested they should, there wouldn't be an issue.
 
I think the big deal is that NJ authorizes both marriages and civil unions.

If NJ stuck to authorizing civil unions as you suggested they should, there wouldn't be an issue.

I guess I don't see it that way. I can understand the frustration of not being able to use the word "marriage", but since, as far as I know, all of the benefits of being "married" are afforded those who have civil unions, I don't see this as a defeat or setback. Just how I see it though.
 
I think what it comes down to is a victory of principle. They want their union to be called by the same name as that of a heterosexual couple.

Personally, I'm a lot more interested in marital arrangements for the polyamorous, so...
 
I'm not sure why this is a big deal.

Because it's a legislative initiative that's defining this issue, a voice from the We the People rather than a tiny court ruled over by activist judges or some city steps circus like the San Francisco Mayor pulled in SF.
 
Because it's a legislative initiative that's defining this issue, a voice from the We the People rather than a tiny court ruled over by activist judges or some city steps circus like the San Francisco Mayor pulled in SF.

I've generally found that they're only "activist" judges when they disagree with your view. :lol:
 
Because it's a legislative initiative that's defining this issue, a voice from the We the People rather than a tiny court ruled over by activist judges or some city steps circus like the San Francisco Mayor pulled in SF.

You missed my point entirely. In NJ, with gay civil unions, gay couples have the same benefits, I believe as straight married couples. My point is, that if GM gets defeated in NJ, the only loss is the loss of a word.
 
I guess I don't see it that way. I can understand the frustration of not being able to use the word "marriage", but since, as far as I know, all of the benefits of being "married" are afforded those who have civil unions, I don't see this as a defeat or setback. Just how I see it though.

I don't think any one group has exclusive rights to the word marriage.
 
Because it's a legislative initiative that's defining this issue, a voice from the We the People rather than a tiny court ruled over by activist judges or some city steps circus like the San Francisco Mayor pulled in SF.

Amen to that.
 
I've generally found that they're only "activist" judges when they disagree with your view. :lol:
How many times have you seen judges making conservative laws from the bench? Hmmm?
 
You missed my point entirely. In NJ, with gay civil unions, gay couples have the same benefits, I believe as straight married couples. My point is, that if GM gets defeated in NJ, the only loss is the loss of a word.
But they were pushing for that word, weren't they? It must be more than just a word to them then.
 
But they were pushing for that word, weren't they? It must be more than just a word to them then.

Their argument is that if it's just a word, we should let them have it since it's no big deal; if it's not just a word, even more reason to let them have it, since it is a big deal and represents discriminatory practice.
 
Their argument is that if it's just a word, we should let them have it since it's no big deal; if it's not just a word, even more reason to let them have it, since it is a big deal and represents discriminatory practice.
It's not discriminatory if it's wrong for them to use it.
 
First off, Civics 101 tells us that judges don't make law, they interpret law and establish prescedent.

Secondly, Google is your friend.
Please save the condescension for Z and CC.
 
But they were pushing for that word, weren't they? It must be more than just a word to them then.

does anybody/group have exclusive rights to the word?
 
It's not discriminatory if it's wrong for them to use it.

Why would it be wrong for them to use it any more than it would be wrong for heterosexual swingers to use it or satanist for that matter.
 
Truthfully, to me this is irrelevant. NJ already has civil unions which affords gay couples rights for adoptions, benefits, and other things that married couples have. Though my overall position is that the term "marriage" should be used only for religious purposes and all governmental unions should be "civil unions"... gay or straight, the way that NJ handles it currently, is fine by me. I'm not sure why this is a big deal.

My thoughts precisely.
 
Back
Top Bottom