• 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!

Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

Sure.

So, back to the representative republic you live in not working for you there. Apparently you would much rather have a tyranny of the majority, which is not what our founding fathers wanted, which is why we are not a direct democracy.

Or maybe you only want direct democracy on those things you think the legislature gets wrong, despite the fact that polls have consistently shown that the majority wants same sex marriage to be legal?

No majority of the people of any state has voted for SSM. When taken to a vote SSM was always soundly defeated and that will continue in November with Washington and NJ and maybe more.. Like I said the only states were allowed to marry with the exception of Iowa were liberal blue states.....31 states have constitutional amendments banning SSm. Stay tuned.
 
Here we go with the personal attacks and name calling..........Is that all you can bring to the table?

I didn't call you anything.

Please don't lie.

Show some integrity and defend your position.

You think bigotry is reasonable--yes or no?
 
as long as your side loses and its not called marriage that is all I care about


That is my opinion. sorry if you don't agree call it domestic partnerships or what ever, just not marriage.


How does their side lose if they have gay marriage? Because you choose to use a different term its not a victory for gay marriage supporters? Those of us who actually support traditional marriage lost New Jersey and any other state that has civil unions/domestic partnerships.Marriage is marriage regardless if you call it marriage or use some term invented by closet gay marriage supporters to sucker traditional marriage supporters. Face it man you are a gay marriage supporter in denial over the fact you support gay marriage.
 
How does their side lose if they have gay marriage? Because you choose to use a different term its not a victory for gay marriage supporters? Those of us who actually support traditional marriage lost New Jersey and any other state that has civil unions/domestic partnerships.Marriage is marriage regardless if you call it marriage or use some term invented by closet gay marriage supporters to sucker traditional marriage supporters. Face it man you are a gay marriage supporter in denial over the fact you support gay marriage.

What problem could you possibly have with civil unions?
 
How does their side lose if they have gay marriage? Because you choose to use a different term its not a victory for gay marriage supporters? Those of us who actually support traditional marriage lost New Jersey and any other state that has civil unions/domestic partnerships.Marriage is marriage regardless if you call it marriage or use some term invented by closet gay marriage supporters to sucker traditional marriage supporters. Face it man you are a gay marriage supporter in denial over the fact you support gay marriage.

It is possible to have the position of "who cares". That's the position I have. I don't agree with gay marriage. I think its repulsive. I also know it isn't any of my business. Its no ones business until a gay couple tries to adopt.
 
I live in NJ. Not a fan of Christie at all... I will certainly help to get him voted out of office in 2013. He'll probably veto this, but it really doesn't matter. Nationwide polls are showing that support for gay marriage keeps rising every year. My guess is that within the next 10 years, it will be legal. Anti's with continue to complain, but once it's legal, it will be a whole lot easier to ignore their complaints, especially since, with the exception of religious reasons or wanting to get government out of marriage altogether, no anti has ever presented a logical opinion against SSM. At least not one that I could not destroy.
 
It is possible to have the position of "who cares". That's the position I have. I don't agree with gay marriage. I think its repulsive. I also know it isn't any of my business. Its no ones business until a gay couple tries to adopt.

Why is it your business when a gay couple tries to adopt?
 

I don't live in New Jersey, and Christie has done some things I am not happy about...but overall, I'm a big fan and this is sad news for me. I really like him and would like to see him run in 2016....and it'd be nice to be able to support a candidate from MY party who wasn't bat**** crazy.

But I cannot support a bigot, under any circumstances...and I hope if he does veto this bill, the legislature will have the votes to override him, or the voters can get a referrendum together.

SSM should be the law of land, period.

 
No majority of the people of any state has voted for SSM. When taken to a vote SSM was always soundly defeated and that will continue in November with Washington and NJ and maybe more.. Like I said the only states were allowed to marry with the exception of Iowa were liberal blue states.....31 states have constitutional amendments banning SSm. Stay tuned.

And again, we live in a representative republic, even the states are set up this way, not a direct democracy.

Direct democracies are tyrannies of the majority. They also have major issues that come into play having to do with voting. That is not what our founding fathers wanted, which is why we have the Constitution and the system we do. This goes for the states as well, since they are all set up very similar to our federal government with representatives and each having its own constitution.
 
I don't live in New Jersey, and Christie has done some things I am not happy about...but overall, I'm a big fan and this is sad news for me. I really like him and would like to see him run in 2016....and it'd be nice to be able to support a candidate from MY party who wasn't bat**** crazy.

But I cannot support a bigot, under any circumstances...and I hope if he does veto this bill, the legislature will have the votes to override him, or the voters can get a referrendum together.

SSM should be the law of land, period.




Why can't a person have a difference of opinion? why do you on the left always resort to name calling. Is your hate that deep? And to think you call us on the right the intolerant ones.......... Sad
 
Christie should give the voters what they want, just like California should.
 
Christie should give the voters what they want, just like California should.

No they shouldn't, unconstitutional laws should never be implemented.
 
No they shouldn't, unconstitutional laws should never be implemented.

It's unconstitutional to deny people the right to their votes or force a state that issues marriage licenses (and marriage being silent in the Constitution) all in the name of something that isn't Constitutionally sound (forcing SSM on every state)
 
It's unconstitutional to deny people the right to their votes or force a state that issues marriage licenses (and marriage being silent in the Constitution) all in the name of something that isn't Constitutionally sound (forcing SSM on every state)

The law doesn't apply the same to me as it does to you. That' unconstitutional, you can't deny that.
 
It's unconstitutional to deny people the right to their votes or force a state that issues marriage licenses (and marriage being silent in the Constitution) all in the name of something that isn't Constitutionally sound (forcing SSM on every state)

You don't have a right to vote on my rights.

States don't have a right to deny fundamental rights. Marriage is a fundamental right, says SCOTUS.

Same-sex marriage isn't being forced on anyone. You have it backwards. I don't have to prove to you why I should have a right. You have to prove to me why I shouldn't.
 
Last edited:
Too bad for Christie, he had potential to bring the GOP out of the dark ages.
 
So what you're actually saying here is that gays can have gay marriage. They just can't call it that. That's some funny ****.

Language and the definition of words has been and continues to be very important. Marriage is reserved for a man and a woman. Man and man, woman and woman, and any other combination that society deems acceptable now or in the future should not be defined or named "marriage". I've actually had this same view since I got here on DP.
 
You know what's really ridiculous about all of this? When gay marriage is finally made constitutionally legal in all fifty states, literally nothing in the lives of those who opposed it will be affected at all.
 
You know what's really ridiculous about all of this? When gay marriage is finally made constitutionally legal in all fifty states, literally nothing in the lives of those who opposed it will be affected at all.

Probably true, though the number of gay divorces and divorce lawyers will rise. I don't have a problem with gay marriage, I have a problem with the terminology. If gay people want to mess up their lives and get married who am I to tell them they can't? :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom