NJ lawmakers say they're near a veto-proof majority on gay marriage bill

[Holmes]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2012/01/19/n-j-lawmaker-gay-marriage-nears-veto-proof-support/?mod=google_news_blog

Democrats in New Jersey have disappointed on this issue before, I'm not holding my breath.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

NJ seems like it would be pretty difficult. RI, MD, and HI should be cake and IL and WA should also be easier.

[Zarn]

NJ seems like it would be pretty difficult. RI, MD, and HI should be cake and IL and WA should also be easier.

There are probably a decent amount of GOP voters that would be okay with gay marriage, even though they wouldn't go out and vote on it. GOP lawmakers, on the other hand, won't vote for it.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Isn't Christie in the "I don't give a sh**t" column of the issue?

[Zarn]

Isn't Christie in the "I don't give a sh**t" column of the issue?

It was kind of the case at one point. He said if the people wanted it through a direct vote, then he would be okay with it.  He also said he would have campaigned against it.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Christie opposes gay marriage, but not enough to go to the wall to keep gays from marrying. And I think that's what his recent hedging is about. He's a realist on the issue.

It's going to pass, and he wants it to do as little damage to him and the GOP as possible. Which is why he's letting Republicans vote their conscience. The gay marriage bill will pass the Democratic Assembly and Democratic Senate regardless of what the GOP does. If gay marriage is going to pass, the best scenario for him personally is gay marriage passing veto-proof majority.

Christie vetos, the legislature overrides, and the issue goes away. Gays don't march on Trenton because they got what they want; Christie gets to keep his conservative bona fides.

[krazen1211]

This is just Sweeney stroking his ego and covering his  rear to union bust, and of course preparation for 2014 Senate.

It's not serious.


Rice, Turner, and Van Drew will never go for this.


It'll be funny if they try the amendment gambit as Chris Christie wins re-election in a landslide.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Christies response is going to effect any VP or Presidential ambitions, obviously.

[Simfan34]

From what I've heard, Christie would not mind this passing. Of course, signing a gay marriage bill would hardly be any good for his reputation come 2016. So, what we have is this political posturing with Sweeney and Christie trying to make themselves look good, or in Christie's case, not look bad.

So what we're going to have is Mr. Moderate describes. Christie will make it known that he doesn't care to the Republicans in the Legislature, they'll vote for it, he'll veto it, it'll pass, and he can say he tried. Win-win for all involved. But will anyone pick up on the ruse?

[Holmes]

Christie has already reiterated that he has been vocal in his opposition to the issue before.

[Rowan]

I think Christie wants a veto-override just so that the issue goes away and he never has to sign the bill himself.

[memphis]

Trouble for the GOP is if the gays can get married legit, they'll be much less likely grow up to be closeted Republicans.

[milhouse24]

I actually think it may be Unconstitutional for the government to regulate marriage if it is not about forcing a man to financially support his biological children. 

Basically, the government has no right regulating what gay couples can and cannot do. 
People need to be free, and gay people need to be free from government oversight and enforcement.
If the government regulates gay marriage, then it would have to enforce gay monogamy.  In some cases, the government may choose to make gay adultery illegal.  The government may imprison gay people for gay marriage fraud. 

Getting marriage benefits is not a right.  No person has a right to be subsidized by the government.  Every government agreement is a quid pro quo.  Biological marriage enforces a man to financially support his wife and child.  Biological marriage is anti-bigamy.  That is why it is regulated by the government, because the government (and married women) do not want men running around impregnating every woman in sight and have millions of bastard children. 

There is no Constitutional reason that says that gay people need to be married to gay people in order to have sexual relations or impregnate each other (which they can't). 
The government should not and cannot play a role in regulating the private lives and financial lives of gay people. 
America is about freedom, and each person should advocate less government programs and regulations and not more. 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Milhouse, that line of reasoning is so ass-backwards it's actually rather spectacular. You should try to print some of this stuff out and take it to an art gallery run by a well-preserved fifty-something woman in a skirt suit and rimless glasses who chain-smokes Pall Mall cigarettes.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Curiously enough, Christie just named an openly gay African American to the State Supreme Court today.

[Lambsbread]

Curiously enough, Christie just named an openly gay African American to the State Supreme Court today.

[Brittain33]

There's a thread for milhouse's views on gay marriage in some other board, I think.

[Free Palestine]

I actually think it may be Unconstitutional for the government to regulate marriage if it is not about forcing a man to financially support his biological children. 

Basically, the government has no right regulating what gay couples can and cannot do. 
People need to be free, and gay people need to be free from government oversight and enforcement.
If the government regulates gay marriage, then it would have to enforce gay monogamy.  In some cases, the government may choose to make gay adultery illegal.  The government may imprison gay people for gay marriage fraud. 

Getting marriage benefits is not a right.  No person has a right to be subsidized by the government.  Every government agreement is a quid pro quo.  Biological marriage enforces a man to financially support his wife and child.  Biological marriage is anti-bigamy.  That is why it is regulated by the government, because the government (and married women) do not want men running around impregnating every woman in sight and have millions of bastard children. 

There is no Constitutional reason that says that gay people need to be married to gay people in order to have sexual relations or impregnate each other (which they can't). 
The government should not and cannot play a role in regulating the private lives and financial lives of gay people. 
America is about freedom, and each person should advocate less government programs and regulations and not more. 

Milhouse, you're pulling at whatever strings you can, however retarded they are, to justify your opposition to gay marriage.  The fact of the matter is, unless you're a religious nut or a chimp, there is no sane justification for opposing gay marriage.