Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

digsbe said:

Of course, considering marriage is a civil contract given out by the state. The state issues the marriage license, marriage is a social contract, and therefore the state's populace can vote on how to define marriage and that civil contract.

Click to expand...

However they can only do so within the scope of the states power...IE, as long as it doesn't violate federal/constitutional law. If the state wants to vote, to save money in terms of workers, that marriage licenses will only be available on Fridays and Saturdays that'd be one thing and likely okay (no quoting me on that, just a shot from the hip for a nexample). On the flip side however, they could not vote to allow only people of the same race to be married due to the Supremacy clause causing the 14th amendment to apply to the states and thus disallowing them to discriminate via race.

Baralis said:

I oppose any bill recognizing gay marriage..

or any marriage...


I think "marriage" should be completely removed from government. Instead have a contractual agreement that is legal between any consenting adults, that can be 3 men and 1 woman, 6 women and 1 man, 2 men, 2 women, any combination or number and can be added upon at anytime as long as all those involved agree to the terms.

Who is the government to tell us who we can or cannot have a relationship with? We should be allowed to freely chose with no penalties.

Click to expand...

Six women and one man????? He'd need an anti-nagging prenup.

Zyphlin said:

However they can only do so within the scope of the states power...IE, as long as it doesn't violate federal/constitutional law. If the state wants to vote, to save money in terms of workers, that marriage licenses will only be available on Fridays and Saturdays that'd be one thing and likely okay (no quoting me on that, just a shot from the hip for a nexample). On the flip side however, they could not vote to allow only people of the same race to be married due to the Supremacy clause causing the 14th amendment to apply to the states and thus disallowing them to discriminate via race.

Click to expand...

Agreed. However, many states have defined marriage within their state constitutions as a union only between one man and one woman with no overturning of those state laws. I don't believe that the Constitution calls for protection due to sexuality and I don't think it's legally discriminating against gender to not allow a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman. I would have been if the Equal Rights Amendment was ratified, but it wasn't mainly due to concerns regarding times when gender discrimination is necessary.

While I disagree with you in regards to the gender discrimination...at this point in time the law is on your side (as there's been no ruling at the SCOTUS level suggesting it is gender discriminatoin). As such while my opinion may be that its unconstitutional, and as such I wouldn't support something on a personal level, I don't have an issue with a state population in general voting on something like this at the time being because the constitutional nature of it is still in question with the tie going to the runner (states) at this point.

digsbe said:

Of course, considering marriage is a civil contract given out by the state. The state issues the marriage license, marriage is a social contract, and therefore the state's populace can vote on how to define marriage and that civil contract.

Click to expand...

So then if a State decides that it's ok to ban interracial marriage, you support the state's right to do that?

TheNextEra said:

So then if a State decides that it's ok to ban interracial marriage, you support the state's right to do that?

Click to expand...

Let me help you answer that question by reposting important pieces of the past couple of posts before your.

digsbe said:

Of course, considering marriage is a civil contract given out by the state. The state issues the marriage license, marriage is a social contract, and therefore the state's populace can vote on how to define marriage and that civil contract.

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

However they can only do so within the scope of the states power...IE, as long as it doesn't violate federal/constitutional law. If the state wants to vote, to save money in terms of workers, that marriage licenses will only be available on Fridays and Saturdays that'd be one thing and likely okay (no quoting me on that, just a shot from the hip for a nexample). On the flip side however, they could not vote to allow only people of the same race to be married due to the Supremacy clause causing the 14th amendment to apply to the states and thus disallowing them to discriminate via race.

Click to expand...

digsbe said:

Agreed. However, many states have defined marriage within their state constitutions as a union only between one man and one woman with no overturning of those state laws. I don't believe that the Constitution calls for protection due to sexuality and I don't think it's legally discriminating against gender to not allow a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman. I would have been if the Equal Rights Amendment was ratified, but it wasn't mainly due to concerns regarding times when gender discrimination is necessary.

Click to expand...

digsbe said:

Christie said he vetoed the bill because it wasn't a state referendum where the voters could vote on it (like in almost every other state). I agree with the veto in this case.

Click to expand...

When do we get to start voting on all kinds of marriage?

Would you be ok with inter-racial marriage being put to a vote?

Would you be ok if voters passed a law that said only whites can get married

Would you be ok if voter agreed that only Christians should be able to get married.

Why not let voters decide all these?

disneydude said:

When do we get to start voting on all kinds of marriage?

Would you be ok with inter-racial marriage being put to a vote?

Would you be ok if voters passed a law that said only whites can get married

Would you be ok if voter agreed that only Christians should be able to get married.

Why not let voters decide all these?

Click to expand...

Race and religion are protected within the constitution. Homosexuality and other sexualities are not. I've heard those strawmen arguments many many times. The reason why I believe states have the right to define marriage is because I believe that it's Constitutionally legal to do so and that defining marriage between a man and a woman (which is the wording most states use, not a "ban" on gay marriage) is not a violation of rights outlined in the Constitution.

disneydude said:

Would you be ok with inter-racial marriage being put to a vote?

Click to expand...

Let me help him answer that for you as well using the past few posts, again

Would you be ok if voters passed a law that said only whites can get married

Would you be ok if voter agreed that only Christians should be able to get married.[/QUOTE]

Zyphlin said:

However they can only do so within the scope of the states power...IE, as long as it doesn't violate federal/constitutional law.

...

On the flip side however, they could not vote to allow only people of the same race to be married due to the Supremacy clause causing the 14th amendment to apply to the states and thus disallowing them to discriminate via race.

Click to expand...

digsbe said:

Agreed.

Click to expand...

The two things you listed....race and religion...are clear cut undisputed examples of highest teir categories of protection and are examples where its clearly and indisputable, if not already dealt with in the SCOTUS, that unconstitutional discrimination is occuring.

Those two things can not be said in regards to same sex marriage.

Zyphlin said:

Let me help him answer that for you as well using the past few posts, again

Would you be ok if voters passed a law that said only whites can get married

Would you be ok if voter agreed that only Christians should be able to get married.

Click to expand...

The two things you listed....race and religion...are clear cut undisputed examples of highest teir categories of protection and are examples where its clearly and indisputable, if not already dealt with in the SCOTUS, that unconstitutional discrimination is occuring.

Those two things can not be said in regards to same sex marriage.[/QUOTE]

Fine....

What if the voters passed a law that said you can't get married if you weigh over 250 lbs.

or

You can't get married after the age of 25?

Should voters be allowed to pass those laws?

Just to clarify. I am personally in support of SSM and homosexual married couples having the same benefits as heterosexual married couples (ex: adoption, healthcare decisions, visitations, etc.) I personally just don't see it within the US Constitution to say that homosexual marriage is a Constitutional right and that it is illegal for states to define marriage and set the parameters for what relationships they consider as eligible for legally recognized state issued marriages.

disneydude said:

What if the voters passed a law that said you can't get married if you weigh over 250 lbs.

or

You can't get married after the age of 25?

Should voters be allowed to pass those laws?

Click to expand...

yes. otherwise we are potentially creating a system where the populace doesn't have an interest in defending the government they do have.

digsbe said:

Just to clarify. I am personally in support of SSM and homosexual married couples having the same benefits as heterosexual married couples (ex: adoption, healthcare decisions, visitations, etc.) I personally just don't see it within the US Constitution to say that homosexual marriage is a Constitutional right and that it is illegal for states to define marriage and set the parameters for what relationships they consider as eligible for legally recognized state issued marriages.

Click to expand...

You have to understand the equal protection clause. The government is allowed to discriminate, even on race/religion as long as there is a "compelling" governmental interest involved. The government is allowed to discriminate in other cases that don't rise to that level, if they can show it involves a "legitimate" governmental interest. The government is NOT allowed to discriminate unless they can show that. The problem that gay marriage opponents have and will continue to have in these battles before the Court is they cannot come up with a legitimate governmental interest to justify the discrimination.

ARealConservative said:

yes. otherwise we are potentially creating a system where the populace doesn't have an interest in defending the government they do have.

Click to expand...

That is what the legislative and judicial branches were created for.

ARealConservative said:

Quote

Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
What if the voters passed a law that said you can't get married if you weigh over 250 lbs.

or

You can't get married after the age of 25?

Should voters be allowed to pass those laws?

Click to expand...

yes. otherwise we are potentially creating a system where the populace doesn't have an interest in defending the government they do have.

Click to expand...

That roughly the exact opposite of a libertarian viewpoint.

disneydude said:

That is what the legislative and judicial branches were created for.

Click to expand...

huh? I am talking about what happens when you force a system on people they don't agree with.

your response was nonsensical.

BooRadley said:

That roughly the exact opposite of a libertarian viewpoint.

Click to expand...

so? libertarianism is a flawed concept because it doesn't take into count that people are flawed.

disneydude said:

Fine....

What if the voters passed a law that said you can't get married if you weigh over 250 lbs.

or

You can't get married after the age of 25?

Should voters be allowed to pass those laws?

Click to expand...

I would probably say I wouldn't have an issue in pricniple with a state voting on that thing. I also wouldn't have an issue, and would probably support, people bringing legal suit against it challenging it on the basis that even though age and "weight" are a lower teir category the government would still need to meet a certain burden of proof to justify the discrimination and I don't think it could show it.

That said it'd matter a bit in regards to what the states constitutions state.

ARealConservative said:

huh? I am talking about what happens when you force a system on people they don't agree with.

your response was nonsensical.

Click to expand...

No it wasn't. You responded that voters should be allowed to pass these ridiculous laws because otherwise we run the risk of a system that they don't agree with being foisted on them. I replied that this isn't true at all. What protects the electorate is the fact that we elect our representatives. Disagree with them? Vote them out, and the courts are there to ensure that the whim of the majority is not allowed to trample on the rights of the minority. You might call that "nonsensical" but it is what this country was based upon.

disneydude said:

You have to understand the equal protection clause. The government is allowed to discriminate, even on race/religion as long as there is a "compelling" governmental interest involved. The government is allowed to discriminate in other cases that don't rise to that level, if they can show it involves a "legitimate" governmental interest. The government is NOT allowed to discriminate unless they can show that. The problem that gay marriage opponents have and will continue to have in these battles before the Court is they cannot come up with a legitimate governmental interest to justify the discrimination.

Click to expand...

I think you need to understand that sexuality is not outlined in the EPC and that the government does legally discriminate based on gender. The Equal Rights Amendment was a proposed Constitutional amendment back in the 70's. It essentially stated that all gender discrimination is wrong and that "equal" rights between both genders must take place. The amendment was struck down for several reasons. If this amendment was ratified it would be completely illegal to deny a man the right to marry a man or a woman the right to marry a woman due to all gender discrimination being illegal under the failed ERA.

The ERA was not ratified due to the fact that it would force women to sign up for selective service and legally be drafted along with men (currently only males have to sign up for selective service and can be rafted). It would also make it illegal to have male and female restrooms or places due to discriminating against gender. There were several conflicts that would have risen if this amendment was passed and this is why it failed.

Due to the fact that the government does legally discriminate regarding gender in some cases (like selective service and drafting), I don't think it's right to say that defining marriage between a man and woman by the state (who legally issues the marriage license) is unconstitutional. I think it's a big stretch to say that homosexuality is protected under the EPC and that it's outright illegal gender discrimination for a sovereign state that issues marriage licenses to define what marriage is. It would be a massive overhaul and in my opinion a trampling upon state's rights (essentially forcing them and dictating what marriage is) for the SCOTUS to say that homosexuality is protected under the Constitution and that protection means it's wrong to not extend full marriage to homosexual relationships or to say that it's illegal gender discrimination to not allow citizens of a state to marry within the same gender.

Zyphlin said:

I would probably say I wouldn't have an issue in pricniple with a state voting on that thing. I also wouldn't have an issue, and would probably support, people bringing legal suit against it challenging it on the basis that even though age and "weight" are a lower teir category the government would still need to meet a certain burden of proof to justify the discrimination and I don't think it could show it.

That said it'd matter a bit in regards to what the states constitutions state.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. The problem with putting everything to a "popular vote" really pre-empts why we have a legislative and judicial system however. Why not just do away with legislatures and put everything on a ballot then?

disneydude said:

No it wasn't. You responded that voters should be allowed to pass these ridiculous laws because otherwise we run the risk of a system that they don't agree with being foisted on them. I replied that this isn't true at all. What protects the electorate is the fact that we elect our representatives. Disagree with them? Vote them out, and the courts are there to ensure that the whim of the majority is not allowed to trample on the rights of the minority. You might call that "nonsensical" but it is what this country was based upon.

Click to expand...

My apologies, when you asked if voters should be able to pass this law, I was under the impression we were all adults that understand we operate under a representative republic.

So my answer was that yes such laws should be allowed to pass.

What you replied with is childish sophomorics dealing with us not being a direct democracy, which is learned in elementary school.

disneydude said:

The problem that gay marriage opponents have and will continue to have in these battles before the Court is they cannot come up with a legitimate governmental interest to justify the discrimination.

Click to expand...

Disney, there are a number of things that are absolutely arguable as legitimate state interests that can be argued with regards to marriage. Creating stable families, encouraging procreation, advocating monogramy in the population, better regulating ownership rights in joint couplings, and even for lack of a more eloquent explanation streamlining the aiblity to set a singular individual as your prime designee in most scenario's.

While various people may disagree with how much of a legitimate state interest those things are, its just not accurate to suggest that there is an issue in coming up with any legitimate government interest the government has in regards to marriage. Indeed, it has been decided...through upholding the governments role in marriage to date...that the government DOES have legitimate interest in regulating marriage.

Where the EPC comes into affect in terms of "gay marriage", and through use of the term you're clearly talking about the class "homosexuals" rather than gender, is not singularly whether or not there's a legitimate state interest at play in the particular instance but also whether or not discriminating against the class in question is "rationally related" to that interest.

It is that rationally related portion of things where potential problem for those against it come to a headway. However, there's still a large question if even something as nebulous as maintaining a traditional culture is enough to qualify as "legitimate" but not "compelling" (Which would be what was needed in Loving).

Considering that homosexuality, at this point, is a classification that falls under minimum scrutiny and the very broad leeway that it bestows upon judges in determining what "legitimate" and "raitonal" means, I don't believe the issue is nearly the slam dunk...when viewed from the mindset of "gay marriage"...as your opinion presents it.

disneydude said:

No it wasn't. You responded that voters should be allowed to pass these ridiculous laws because otherwise we run the risk of a system that they don't agree with being foisted on them. I replied that this isn't true at all. What protects the electorate is the fact that we elect our representatives. Disagree with them? Vote them out, and the courts are there to ensure that the whim of the majority is not allowed to trample on the rights of the minority. You might call that "nonsensical" but it is what this country was based upon.

Click to expand...

Right, the courts are there to ensure that such doesn't happen. However, to do such...in part...the ocurts act after hte fact. Your question was not whether or not those laws would be upheld and remain in place. Your question was whether or not they should be allowed to be voted on.

He is playing to the base, and it could potentially be his downfall just like it has been for GWB, McCain, and Romney.