Gay Marriage Vote in NJ Senate on Thursday

[Rowan]

The state senate will vote on marriage equality legislation on Thursday, Senate President Richard Codey (D-Roseland) announced today.

“Given the intensely personal nature of this issue, I think the people of this state deserve the right to a formal debate on the Senate floor,” said Codey.  “I’d like to commend both sides of this issue for their passionate advocacy thus far and the heartfelt testimony that we have heard.”

The legislation was cleared for a vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee last month after seven hours of testimony by supporters and opponents.  But the senate vote was postponed to allow the assembly to consider the bill.

Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts (D-Camden) last week announced that he would not post the bill without action in the senate. 

http://www.politickernj.com/matt-friedman/35774/senate-vote-marriage-equality-thursday

[Brittain33]

Well, that's something. It will probably go down in flames as in New York but at least we'll be on the record for the first time.

[Bo]

How about they let the people of NJ vote on this?

[Marokai Backbeat]

How about they let the people of NJ vote on this?

Yeah, civil rights should always go to referenda. That's how we made such great progress with african american rights!

[Associate Justice PiT]

How about they let the people of NJ vote on this?

Yeah, civil rights should always go to referenda. That's how we made such great progress with african american rights!

     I find that, throughout history, attempts to expand civil rights have done poorly whenever they've gone to the ballot box.

[Mechaman]

How about they let the people of NJ vote on this?

Yeah, civil rights should always go to referenda. That's how we made such great progress with african american rights!

     I find that, throughout history, attempts to expand civil rights have done poorly whenever they've gone to the ballot box.

Yeah mob rule is usually not good when determining civil liberties, at least during this era of great change in the values and morals of society.

[Holmes]

But it's always ok to vote on the lives and personal matters of the gay. Besides, they totally already have all the same legal rights as straight people, except whenever they fill forms they gotta check a non-existent "civil union" box instead. Is that all, New Jersey gays!? Come on!

[President Mitt]

How about they let the people of NJ vote on this?

As a person from SC, I can tell you that's a bad idea.

[Verily]

Well, that's something. It will probably go down in flames as in New York but at least we'll be on the record for the first time.

Should do better than New York, maybe failing by only a vote or two. OTOH, I can't think of any Republicans who might vote for it. Diane Allen has sold out.

[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.

[Vepres]

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

*As long as it doesn't slow down their agenda

[Rowan]

Well, that's something. It will probably go down in flames as in New York but at least we'll be on the record for the first time.

Should do better than New York, maybe failing by only a vote or two. OTOH, I can't think of any Republicans who might vote for it. Diane Allen has sold out.

The moron Baroni will probably be the only one.

[Rowan]

Oh, and the debate begins at 2 PM. You can watch it online here:

http://www.njn.net/newspublicaffairs/coverage/gaymarriagevote.html

[Brittain33]

The moron Baroni will probably be the only one.

That's an uncommon opinion to be held of Baroni.

My mother called Jennifer Beck, one of the ostensible "gettable" senators. I would be shocked if Beck actually voted yes but it can't hurt for her to hear from a constituent in a new community that was built in the district a few years ago.

[Meeker]

Failed 14-20

[Holmes]

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

[Brittain33]

Well at least the writing was on the wall with this one--and we saw how, in New York, when it looks like it's not going to pass, no one on the fence is going to hop over.

[k-onmmunist]

How about they let the people of NJ vote on this?

Yeah, civil rights should always go to referenda. That's how we made such great progress with african american rights!

I love how you pretend to support democracy.

[Ban my account ffs!]

How about they let the people of NJ vote on this?

Yeah, civil rights should always go to referenda. That's how we made such great progress with african american rights!

I love how you pretend to support democracy.

Yeah, cuz majority rule is always the best solution to everything ever! 

[Associate Justice PiT]

How about they let the people of NJ vote on this?

Yeah, civil rights should always go to referenda. That's how we made such great progress with african american rights!

I love how you pretend to support democracy.

    Huh? If something wins in a democratic vote, it should be honored as such, but I have no qualms about preventing an issue from a democratic vote if that would benefit my side.

[k-onmmunist]

How about they let the people of NJ vote on this?

Yeah, civil rights should always go to referenda. That's how we made such great progress with african american rights!

I love how you pretend to support democracy.

Yeah, cuz majority rule is always the best solution to everything ever! 

That's what democracy advocates. I'm not a democrat, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

[Marokai Backbeat]

How about they let the people of NJ vote on this?

Yeah, civil rights should always go to referenda. That's how we made such great progress with african american rights!

I love how you pretend to support democracy.

Referenda have never been a great thing, in my opinion. People are notoriously uninformed, subject more to personal bigotry than your average legislator, and often just generally don't see the big picture.

Several examples off the top of my head. Gay marriage is of course one of the first that comes to mind. Passing the legislature of Maine, and supported by the legislature of California, yet, narrowly fails in both states because of a silly referendum. Individual rights should never be left up for a vote. If we followed the referendum approach, rights for women, blacks, gays, and a whole host of other sections of society would be set back decades, at least. Can you imagine slavery being put up for a referendum in the 1800s?

California also has serious budget issues, caused mainly by silly rules in amending the constitution and an unwilling public to go along with a damn thing being done. California is essentially bankrupt, and almost nothing good is getting done about that.

Colorado voters also made an extremely stupid move in approving the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or TABOR, because it sounded like a cute and good idea to the Average Joe that can't, apparently, do any sort of research on his own or see the forest instead of the trees. Instead TABOR passed, and ravaged Colorado, causing an uncountable number of difficulties and funding shortfalls. It was so bad, voters in Colorado changed their minds and suspended most of TABOR for the time being.

Switzerland also had the infamous referendum last year banning minarets. The Swiss government was vocally against the ban, being more, you know, intelligent, but the voters approved it anyway and the Swiss now have a lovely xenophobic image I'm sure they're proud of.

The list goes on and on. Voters simply cannot be trusted to make direct decisions most of the time, because they're too subject to their own bigotry or personal feelings and are grossly uninformed. Because voters are too dumb to make all the decisions, we have a system where voters elect more intelligent and dedicated people to make decisions for them, and evaluate their progress every 2/4/6 years. There are countless, countless, examples of referenda going wrong, and that's why I'm opposed to them.

[Хahar 🤔]

Direct democracy is dumb.

[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.

[Vepres]

How about they let the people of NJ vote on this?

Yeah, civil rights should always go to referenda. That's how we made such great progress with african american rights!

I love how you pretend to support democracy.

Referenda have never been a great thing, in my opinion. People are notoriously uninformed, subject more to personal bigotry than your average legislator, and often just generally don't see the big picture.

Several examples off the top of my head. Gay marriage is of course one of the first that comes to mind. Passing the legislature of Maine, and supported by the legislature of California, yet, narrowly fails in both states because of a silly referendum. Individual rights should never be left up for a vote. If we followed the referendum approach, rights for women, blacks, gays, and a whole host of other sections of society would be set back decades, at least. Can you imagine slavery being put up for a referendum in the 1800s?

California also has serious budget issues, caused mainly by silly rules in amending the constitution and an unwilling public to go along with a damn thing being done. California is essentially bankrupt, and almost nothing good is getting done about that.

Colorado voters also made an extremely stupid move in approving the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or TABOR, because it sounded like a cute and good idea to the Average Joe that can't, apparently, do any sort of research on his own or see the forest instead of the trees. Instead TABOR passed, and ravaged Colorado, causing an uncountable number of difficulties and funding shortfalls. It was so bad, voters in Colorado changed their minds and suspended most of TABOR for the time being.

Switzerland also had the infamous referendum last year banning minarets. The Swiss government was vocally against the ban, being more, you know, intelligent, but the voters approved it anyway and the Swiss now have a lovely xenophobic image I'm sure they're proud of.

The list goes on and on. Voters simply cannot be trusted to make direct decisions most of the time, because they're too subject to their own bigotry or personal feelings and are grossly uninformed. Because voters are too dumb to make all the decisions, we have a system where voters elect more intelligent and dedicated people to make decisions for them, and evaluate their progress every 2/4/6 years. There are countless, countless, examples of referenda going wrong, and that's why I'm opposed to them.

For the most part, the referendum work very well in Colorado. The TABOR reform passed, and it's not like it wouldn't have passed the state legislature at the time anyway. There's a reason that we're the second "freest" state.

However, I agree that civil rights shouldn't be put to referendum to protect against tyranny of the majority.