Gay Marriage Vote in NJ Senate on Thursday

[Ban my account ffs!]

Civil rights are inherent and should not be decided by "the people".. instead they should be protected by the government, "the people" be damned.

Government is instigated by the people.

Indeed.. unfortunately, representative democracy with strong checks and balances is about the best system we have for now.... because it does allow for social change, albeit slow social change.

But when it comes to civil rights, I do not believe they are earned or that they are a privilege.. I believe they are a basic human right and that no constitution, lawmaking body, or citizenry has the right to infringe upon them.  These rights transcend human civilization and government.

If we're voting on a highway system or a new national park... the people should have a strong input.  When it comes to my personal sexual orientation or whom I wish to marry, the government has no right to tell me no.. and giving preference to one group over another is inherently wrong... again, the will of the people be damned.  I don't care if 51% hate gays.  That 51% doesn't have any right to rule when it comes to civil rights.  End of story.

[Gren]

I come from a country where we have same sex marriage and where referendums are extremely rare. I think that a few years ago some Catholic Church leaders proposed that redefinition of marriage should be put into a ballot, just after the law legalizing gay marriage had been passed. But not even the main opposition party, People's Party (which opposes the law and has reported it as uncostitutional) asked for that.

So it feels strange that a country as the United States, bastion of equality and freedom, leaves the rights of a minority in the hands of a majority which may be uninformed, biased by religious or ideological fundamentalism and munipulated by the media.  In this way we leave people unprotected and their rights denied by their fellow citizens. I don't think this is fair.

I do not know if these law is going to pass in New Jersey. I don't know the composition of the  Senate, and I ignore what kind of members it has. Anyway, it's only a matter of time. Because in the end, all the walls fall. Opposition to gay marriage is not an exception.

[Hash]

Direct democracy is dumb.

NZ's 'smack' referendum last year is possibly the best example of the stupidity.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I come from a country where we have same sex marriage and where referendums are extremely rare. I think that a few years ago some Catholic Church leaders proposed that redefinition of marriage should be put into a ballot, just after the law legalizing gay marriage had been passed. But not even the main opposition party, People's Party (which opposes the law and has reported it as uncostitutional) asked for that.

So it feels strange that a country as the United States, bastion of equality and freedom, leaves the rights of a minority in the hands of a majority which may be uninformed, biased by religious or ideological fundamentalism and munipulated by the media.  In this way we leave people unprotected and their rights denied by their fellow citizens. I don't think this is fair.

I do not know if these law is going to pass in New Jersey. I don't know the composition of the  Senate, and I ignore what kind of members it has. Anyway, it's only a matter of time. Because in the end, all the walls fall. Opposition to gay marriage is not an exception.

Welcome to the forum

[Mint]

I've already been stupid enough to argue that issue with you before. I just figured Vepres would know better with you.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, that's what the gays get for trying to pass this under the people's noses. Why should the legislature legislate legislation?

Well, Arnold thinks that it should be up to the courts.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I've already been stupid enough to argue that issue with you before. I just figured Vepres would know better with you.

So that's a no, then.

[Free Palestine]

Civil rights are inherent and should not be decided by "the people".. instead they should be protected by the government, "the people" be damned.

Government is instigated by the people.

Indeed.. unfortunately, representative democracy with strong checks and balances is about the best system we have for now.... because it does allow for social change, albeit slow social change.

But when it comes to civil rights, I do not believe they are earned or that they are a privilege.. I believe they are a basic human right and that no constitution, lawmaking body, or citizenry has the right to infringe upon them.  These rights transcend human civilization and government.

If we're voting on a highway system or a new national park... the people should have a strong input.  When it comes to my personal sexual orientation or whom I wish to marry, the government has no right to tell me no.. and giving preference to one group over another is inherently wrong... again, the will of the people be damned.  I don't care if 51% hate gays.  That 51% doesn't have any right to rule when it comes to civil rights.  End of story.

I don't like fifty-one percent deciding for the other forty-nine.  That is wrong.  But to me it is even more wrong to reject the sovereign will of the people in favor of the opinion of a few enlightened individuals.  The people of Alabama decide what the laws of their state shall be, and no matter how wrong those laws may be, we do not have the right to overrule their sovereignty.

[Mint]

I honestly think cases like this are the reason the rational basis test exists. I don't have any problem with the courts intervening here.

[Torie]

Civil rights are inherent and should not be decided by "the people".. instead they should be protected by the government, "the people" be damned.

Government is instigated by the people.

Indeed.. unfortunately, representative democracy with strong checks and balances is about the best system we have for now.... because it does allow for social change, albeit slow social change.

But when it comes to civil rights, I do not believe they are earned or that they are a privilege.. I believe they are a basic human right and that no constitution, lawmaking body, or citizenry has the right to infringe upon them.  These rights transcend human civilization and government.

If we're voting on a highway system or a new national park... the people should have a strong input.  When it comes to my personal sexual orientation or whom I wish to marry, the government has no right to tell me no.. and giving preference to one group over another is inherently wrong... again, the will of the people be damned.  I don't care if 51% hate gays.  That 51% doesn't have any right to rule when it comes to civil rights.  End of story.

The people have the power to do anything. I think what you are saying is that you think additional personal liberty freedoms should be put in the Constitution, so that it would require a super majority to do something that you consider execrable. And that is a perfectly reasonable position. However, gay marriage is coming nationally in rather short order anyway, certainly within the next decade, and it will be done legislatively.

[Sam Spade]

Looks like the Catholic Church is back in the game.  Not terribly surprised, of course, but it changes a lot of assumptions.

[Holmes]

Have you ever assumed that the Catholic Church was out... of the game?

[Rowan]

Civil rights are inherent and should not be decided by "the people".. instead they should be protected by the government, "the people" be damned.

Government is instigated by the people.

Indeed.. unfortunately, representative democracy with strong checks and balances is about the best system we have for now.... because it does allow for social change, albeit slow social change.

But when it comes to civil rights, I do not believe they are earned or that they are a privilege.. I believe they are a basic human right and that no constitution, lawmaking body, or citizenry has the right to infringe upon them.  These rights transcend human civilization and government.

If we're voting on a highway system or a new national park... the people should have a strong input.  When it comes to my personal sexual orientation or whom I wish to marry, the government has no right to tell me no.. and giving preference to one group over another is inherently wrong... again, the will of the people be damned.  I don't care if 51% hate gays.  That 51% doesn't have any right to rule when it comes to civil rights.  End of story.

The people have the power to do anything. I think what you are saying is that you think additional personal liberty freedoms should be put in the Constitution, so that it would require a super majority to do something that you consider execrable. And that is a perfectly reasonable position. However, gay marriage is coming nationally in rather short order anyway, certainly within the next decade, and it will be done legislatively.

Within the next decade nationally? No, not even close.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Civil rights are inherent and should not be decided by "the people".. instead they should be protected by the government, "the people" be damned.

Government is instigated by the people.

Indeed.. unfortunately, representative democracy with strong checks and balances is about the best system we have for now.... because it does allow for social change, albeit slow social change.

But when it comes to civil rights, I do not believe they are earned or that they are a privilege.. I believe they are a basic human right and that no constitution, lawmaking body, or citizenry has the right to infringe upon them.  These rights transcend human civilization and government.

If we're voting on a highway system or a new national park... the people should have a strong input.  When it comes to my personal sexual orientation or whom I wish to marry, the government has no right to tell me no.. and giving preference to one group over another is inherently wrong... again, the will of the people be damned.  I don't care if 51% hate gays.  That 51% doesn't have any right to rule when it comes to civil rights.  End of story.

The people have the power to do anything. I think what you are saying is that you think additional personal liberty freedoms should be put in the Constitution, so that it would require a super majority to do something that you consider execrable. And that is a perfectly reasonable position. However, gay marriage is coming nationally in rather short order anyway, certainly within the next decade, and it will be done legislatively.

Within the next decade nationally? No, not even close.

     I can't see the Senate passing a bill in support of gay marriage in the next 10 years. Maybe in the next 25 years, but I just don't see it before then. Definitely places like Mississippi & Alabama won't be passing bills to institute gay marriage anytime soon.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

While I disagree with using the term "marriage" to define a civil union between two partners of the same sex - I'm going to have to side with the Anti-democratic Democrats on here

Long before the OMG TEA PARTY REVULOTION! populist mania hit conservatism, there were some of us who reminded everyone who would listen that we are "a Republic, not a democracy" - meaning that the Constitution, morality, and human dignity should trump the whims of an electorate.

That being said, tyranny by the judiciary isn't any better than the tyrannny of the majority - but admittedly the former has a little bit better batting average over the past fifty years or so.

The best we can do is send our best and brightest to represent us in our respective legislative bodies and let them do their job, and not demand that they take a public opinion survey every five minutes about how they should vote.

[Mint]

While I disagree with using the term "marriage" to define a civil union between two partners of the same sex - I'm going to have to side with the Anti-democratic Democrats on here

Long before the OMG TEA PARTY REVULOTION! populist mania hit conservatism, there were some of us who reminded everyone who would listen that we are "a Republic, not a democracy" - meaning that the Constitution, morality, and human dignity should trump the whims of an electorate.

Um.. hello.. < points.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

While I disagree with using the term "marriage" to define a civil union between two partners of the same sex - I'm going to have to side with the Anti-democratic Democrats on here

Long before the OMG TEA PARTY REVULOTION! populist mania hit conservatism, there were some of us who reminded everyone who would listen that we are "a Republic, not a democracy" - meaning that the Constitution, morality, and human dignity should trump the whims of an electorate.

That being said, tyranny by the judiciary isn't any better than the tyrannny of the majority - but admittedly the former has a little bit better batting average over the past fifty years or so.

The best we can do is send our best and brightest to represent us in our respective legislative bodies and let them do their job, and not demand that they take a public opinion survey every five minutes about how they should vote.

Real Republicans disagree with your assessment.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

While I disagree with using the term "marriage" to define a civil union between two partners of the same sex - I'm going to have to side with the Anti-democratic Democrats on here

Long before the OMG TEA PARTY REVULOTION! populist mania hit conservatism, there were some of us who reminded everyone who would listen that we are "a Republic, not a democracy" - meaning that the Constitution, morality, and human dignity should trump the whims of an electorate.

That being said, tyranny by the judiciary isn't any better than the tyrannny of the majority - but admittedly the former has a little bit better batting average over the past fifty years or so.

The best we can do is send our best and brightest to represent us in our respective legislative bodies and let them do their job, and not demand that they take a public opinion survey every five minutes about how they should vote.

Real Republicans disagree with your assessment.

I'm sure that many do.  Big whoop.

[Brittain33]

Have you ever assumed that the Catholic Church was out... of the game?

Yes, they were very much in the game in Maine and California. They were only out of the game in Massachusetts for reasons I'm sure Sam is aware of.

I don't think we can credit the Catholic Church for this outcome beyond the normal background noise of Catholic opposition to same-sex marriage. We have the same dynamic we had in New York, where if it doesn't look like it's going to pass, every legislator who might be gettable decides to play it safe. In NJ you had the additional factor of full civil unions which, while they aren't working, have many straight people believing they do and they've already compromised enough to suit their consciences for what is "right" for same-sex couples. Five Republican senators came out in favor of fixing civil unions which, to me, does not speak of strong Catholic influence.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Portugal parliament votes to permit gay marriage
By BARRY HATTON, Associated Press Writer Barry Hatton, Associated Press Writer
22 mins ago
 
LISBON, Portugal – Portugal's parliament passed a bill Friday that would make the predominantly Catholic nation the sixth in Europe to permit gay marriage.

Conservative President Anibal Cavaco Silva is thought unlikely to veto the Socialist government's bill, which won the support of all left-of-center parties. His ratification would allow the first gay marriage ceremonies to take place in April — a month before Pope Benedict XVI is due on an official visit to Portugal.

Right-of-center parties opposed the change and sought a national referendum on the issue, but their proposal was rejected and the government's bill was passed by 125 votes to 99.

Gay rights campaigners applauded from the galleries, hugged and kissed outside the building and ate wedding cake.

"This law rights a wrong," Prime Minister Jose Socrates said in a speech to lawmakers, adding that it "simply ends pointless suffering."

Socrates said the measure is part of his effort to modernize Portugal where homosexuality was a crime until 1982. Two years ago his government lifted Portugal's ban on abortion, despite church opposition.

Gay marriage is currently permitted in Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Norway. Canada, South Africa and six U.S. states also permit it.

The bill removes a reference in the current law to marriage being between two people of different sexes.

"It's a slight change to the law, it's true," Socrates, the prime minister, said. "But it is a very important and symbolic step towards fully ensuring respect for values that are essential in any democratic, open and tolerant society: the values of freedom, equality and non-discrimination."

Like neighboring Spain, which introduced same-sex marriages four years ago, Portugal is an overwhelmingly Roman Catholic country and previous efforts to introduce gay marriage ran into strong resistance from religious groups and conservative lawmakers.

Paulo Corte-Real, head of a lobby group called Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual Intervention, said Portugal had become a pioneering country in gay rights.

"This is a historic moment. We just hope (the bill) gets ratified quickly," he said.

Socrates said a referendum was not necessary because the gay marriage proposal was included in the Socialist Party's manifesto in last September's general election, when it was returned to power.

In 2001, a law allowed "civil unions" between same-sex couples which granted them certain legal, tax and property rights. However, it did not allow couples to take their partner's name, inherit their possessions nor their state pension, which is permitted in marriages.

A proposal from the Left Bloc and Green Party allowing gay couples to adopt children was voted down Friday. Gay campaigners said they would continue to fight for gay couples' parental rights.

The main opposition Social Democratic Party proposed granting non-married cohabiting couples of the same sex more rights, as in France, but its bill also was rejected.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

It's worth noting that Republican leadership, and Christie in particular, have been very protective of State Senator Bill Baroni, the lone yes vote on the Republican side of the aisle.

Sadly, when push came to shove, only 56% of Democrats in the legislature voted yes. Some were flat-out nos, like Fred Madden and Ron Rice; some were scaredy cat abstentions, like Jeff Van Drew.

[Free Palestine]

Any attempt to federally legalize same-sex marriage would be a direct affront to the founding principals of the country.  Not to mention a blatant violation of the Tenth Amendment (not that anybody in the federal government cares).  It should be left up to the states, not the federal government.

[Brittain33]

It's worth noting that Republican leadership, and Christie in particular, have been very protective of State Senator Bill Baroni, the lone yes vote on the Republican side of the aisle.

Christie whipped his caucus like Romney on this one, I thought, because he didn't want the distraction of a revolt by conservatives in primaries. They're protective of Baroni because Baroni is a rising star in a tough district. That's why so many Republicans favored "fixing" civil unions.

Sean Kean put in a dispiriting and pathetic performance.

[Brittain33]

Any attempt to federally legalize same-sex marriage would be a direct affront to the founding principals of the country.  Not to mention a blatant violation of the Tenth Amendment (not that anybody in the federal government cares).  It should be left up to the states, not the federal government.

There are two issues here:

1. Making the federal government enforce marriages legal in Mass., Iowa, New Hampshire, etc. in Alabama and Arkansas.
2. Having the federal government recognize marriages legal in Mass, Iowa, N.H. for federal purposes, like taxes and immigration.

Do you have the same view on both issues? If so, how do you justify #2 when it is a departure from past practice?

[Verily]

Any attempt to federally legalize same-sex marriage would be a direct affront to the founding principals of the country.  Not to mention a blatant violation of the Tenth Amendment (not that anybody in the federal government cares).  It should be left up to the states, not the federal government.

See what brittain has to say about the issue first--both of his points are what is desired action on the part of the federal government, neither of which is a "blatant affront".

Also, the federal judiciary absolutely has the right to override state laws and constitutional amendments in this regard as they violate the Constitution as well, specifically the 14th amendment.