- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
FOXNews.com - New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage BillTRENTON, 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.
1) This is not a string of losses (or victories for proponents of traditional marriage), but "setbacks."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.
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).
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'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 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.
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.
How many times have you seen judges making conservative laws from the bench? Hmmm?I've generally found that they're only "activist" judges when they disagree with your view. :lol:
But they were pushing for that word, weren't they? It must be more than just a word to them then.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.
How many times have you seen judges making conservative laws from the bench? Hmmm?
But they were pushing for that word, weren't they? It must be more than just a word to them then.
It's not discriminatory if it's wrong for them to use it.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.
Please save the condescension for Z and CC.First off, Civics 101 tells us that judges don't make law, they interpret law and establish prescedent.
Secondly, Google is your friend.
But they were pushing for that word, weren't they? It must be more than just a word to them then.
Please save the condescension for Z and CC.
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.
It's not discriminatory if it's wrong for them to use it.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?