Chris Christie to Democrat: Stop demagoging me on gay marriage, “numbnuts”

posted at 10:10 pm on January 30, 2012 by Allahpundit

The tough-guy bravado wears ever thinner over time but I don’t blame him for being irritated at a smear this nasty. He wants to hold a referendum on gay marriage and therefore he’s … George Wallace? What?

The punchline is that Christie’s pushing the referendum not because he’s militantly opposed to gays getting married and thinks the popular vote will vindicate his position but because he’s not militantly opposed and doesn’t want to be forced to issue a veto. Watch the second clip below from last summer’s chat with Piers Morgan for the basics of his thinking. He believes marriage should be for straights only but wants equal rights for gays otherwise and won’t even commit to the belief that homosexuality is sinful. He sounds, in fact, a lot like Obama in his lack of conviction for his supposed position. His problem is that if the New Jersey legislature passes a bill legalizing gay marriage, then Christie the blue-state governor and Christie the potential Republican VP have a conflict on whether he should veto or not. The cynical solution: Punt the issue entirely by encouraging a referendum instead. If it fails, great! The people have spoken. If it passes, oh well. Not his fault. It’s not a show of principle but it’s not Christie standing in the chapel door either. (The possibility that he might have to cast this veto doubtless helps explain why he just appointed a gay Republican to the New Jersey Supreme Court.)

That said, I’d like to see the language of the referendum he has in mind. Is he proposing to let the public amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage or to specifically legalize gay marriage or to decide on both questions? His critics are hammering him for encouraging a majoritarian solution to a question of equal protection, which of course is not the way constitutional rights work. But gay-marriage supporters have been perfectly comfortable using democratic means to advance their own position, most famously last year when the New York legislature passed gay marriage. That statute is different from what Christie has in mind with a referendum — the latter would take the issue out of the courts’ hands via a constitutional amendment whereas the statute is subject to judicial review — but if the referendum is limited purely to whether to legalize gay marriage (without saying anything about banning it), then the courts could still consider the equal protection claim later on even if the referendum fails. Curious to know how Christie, who seems not terribly invested in the idea of keeping gays from marrying, feels about that.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

This is very presidential, I have no doubt. Lots of gravitas there.

promachus on January 30, 2012 at 10:14 PM

Gingrich/Christie!!

SouthernGent on January 30, 2012 at 10:14 PM

Stumping for Newt Gingrich: Herman Cain!!

Stumping for Mitt Romney: Chris Christie the heavy weight champion.

NickDeringer on January 30, 2012 at 10:14 PM

An Embarrassment to TEH PARTY.

james23 on January 30, 2012 at 10:15 PM

Chris Christie is…
Fat and Furious..

Tag: numbnuts

Electrongod on January 30, 2012 at 10:16 PM

Ahhh, that soaring oratory again. How can you hear that without thinking ‘this man is presidential material?’ Is it any wonder that Ann Coulter is smitten? He must remind her of the burly, plain-spoken custodian that she had a crush on back at her prep school.

cynccook on January 30, 2012 at 10:16 PM

in 30 years Prop. 8 and its like will be seen similar to the Jim Crow laws. Times are changing people, accept it already

DBear on January 30, 2012 at 10:16 PM

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/01/a-dolphin-could-be-romneys-undoing/

Heh. Reminds me of this…

cynccook on January 30, 2012 at 10:16 PM

in 30 years Prop. 8 and its like will be seen similar to the Jim Crow laws. Times are changing people, accept it already

DBear on January 30, 2012 at 10:16 PM

Yeah, no, “bear.”

cynccook on January 30, 2012 at 10:17 PM

But gay-marriage supporters have been perfectly comfortable using democratic means to advance their own position, most famously last year when the New York legislature passed gay marriage.

“Democratic.” My pasty white backside. You guys have the slightest inkling how much money and political favors got passed around in the NY Senate prior to that vote? More prostitution than a Nevada ranch.

A GOP state senator from my area, the Buffalo area, campaigned specifically against gay marriage. He wound up voting for it. And now, lo and behold, our Governor, Santa Cuomo, arrives with a billion dollars in aid packages for Buffalo and a guarantee on a lease to keep the Buffalo Bills in town.

KingGold on January 30, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Who cares?

ted c on January 30, 2012 at 10:19 PM

“Gay couples should have the same rights as married heterosexuals, without being actually ‘married’.”

My paraphrase of Gov Chris Cristie, from the second video.

Not really sure what to make of that.

I still like the way he ‘snapped’ at that other guy, though.

listens2glenn on January 30, 2012 at 10:20 PM

So sad that our party has to tiptoe around this issue because of the kooks who think it’s a huge deal. He strikes the right balance though imo.

Dash on January 30, 2012 at 10:21 PM

whatever Chris Christie does, or doesn’t do, doesn’t change the truth, does it? Whatever a majority believes, or doesn’t believe, doesn’t change the truth. The difference between right and wrong isn’t found between 50 and 51%…..that’s the truth.

ted c on January 30, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Mittens/Numbnuts 2012?

Doughboy on January 30, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Christie’s whole obnoxious, faux conservative, fake outrage schtick is wearing thin.

Pork-Chop on January 30, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Who cares?

ted c on January 30, 2012 at 10:19 PM

well definitely Rick Santorum, he is obsessed with gay issues more so than most gay people i know

DBear on January 30, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Mittens/Numbnuts 2012?

Doughboy on January 30, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Just keep both French doors unlocked in the WH…
Yeah…I can see that.:)

Electrongod on January 30, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Funny how they’re smearing him by saying he’s like a famous racist Democrat.

zmdavid on January 30, 2012 at 10:25 PM

The tough-guy bravado wears ever thinner over time but I don’t blame him for being irritated at a smear this nasty.

Being honest to ones values wears thin…..is this DKOS? You may find youself…….indeed! Somehow I’m not surprised…

dmann on January 30, 2012 at 10:26 PM

The difference between right and wrong isn’t found between 50 and 51%…..that’s the truth.

ted c on January 30, 2012 at 10:21 PM

So we should go by the minority’s opinion of what’s right and wrong?

Go RBNY on January 30, 2012 at 10:26 PM

i see what you did there electrongod…..

you callin’ him chubby?!/

ted c on January 30, 2012 at 10:26 PM

I am so sick of gay rights and gay marriage issues. I also am sick of the attack on all of our cultural traditions that have served us so well as a nation for so long. So long to all that, I suppose.

GaltBlvnAtty on January 30, 2012 at 10:27 PM

Go RBNY on January 30, 2012 at 10:26 PM

nope. the minority is a poor judge of that standard.

ted c on January 30, 2012 at 10:27 PM

nope. the minority is a poor judge of that standard.

ted c on January 30, 2012 at 10:27 PM

The gospel according to ted c.

Go RBNY on January 30, 2012 at 10:28 PM

I am so sick of gay rights and gay marriage issues

Ditto, the gay neighborhood around here is one of the richest sections of town, sorry if i don’t buy into the constant claims of victimhood.

clearbluesky on January 30, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Doughboy on January 30, 2012 at 10:21 PM

lol

peachaeo on January 30, 2012 at 10:29 PM

Does being the Governor of the highest-taxed and most highly-regulated gun state make someone a heavyweight conservative?

Lord on January 30, 2012 at 10:29 PM

GaltBlvnAtty on January 30, 2012 at 10:27 PM

this argument would be stronger if newt “3rd time’s the charm” gingrich wasnt in the lead for the nomination

peachaeo on January 30, 2012 at 10:29 PM

gay fng marriage. the country’s sliding off a cliff and this is supposedly a burning issue in the country. to AP & the media perhaps. to the overwhelming majority of Americans? absolutely not. this topic bores me to no end.

sbvft contributor on January 30, 2012 at 10:30 PM

not according to me RB…

ted c on January 30, 2012 at 10:30 PM

Christie makes some great points. Knocks it out of the park again. Romney/Christie!

Roymunson on January 30, 2012 at 10:31 PM

I like how Romney supporters mock Gingrich’s attacks on the media for its bias but faint over the awesomeness of Christie’s attacks on just about everyone else.

amerpundit on January 30, 2012 at 10:32 PM

Oh golly! I’m getting off this thread!
Dr. Telsa will be here all night.

KOOLAID2 on January 30, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Straight talk.

petefrt on January 30, 2012 at 10:34 PM

Christie’s whole obnoxious, faux conservative, fake outrage schtick is wearing thin.

Pork-Chop on January 30, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Absolutely! Being suspect of all things fat, I personally administered The Purity Test ™ on Chris Christie, and what emerged was a huge squishy Hostess product that grabbed my guns and fled to Cuba.

John the Libertarian on January 30, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Either the government needs to get out of the marriage business entirely, or they need to give gay couples the same legal rights and benefits that straight couples get.

theoddmanout on January 30, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Does being the Governor of the highest-taxed and most highly-regulated gun state make someone a heavyweight conservative?

Lord on January 30, 2012 at 10:29 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/17/nj-governor-proposes-10-percent-income-tax-cuts/

10% tax cuts for everybody and financed by spending cuts, not debt a la George W. Bush. Including ending the Planet Parenthood financing.

AP’s animosity towards Christie is so transparent it becomes hilarious. Popular referendums have been the way social conservatives all over the country have settled disputes on gay marriage. Christie does the same thing and he’s cynical. He nominates a very conservative judge, and according to AP, it’s because the man is gay.

joana on January 30, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Christ Christie is just a big fat blowhard Progressive.

There I said it, politically incorrect though it be.

I hope Romney picks him for VEEP, though it will probably be Jeb Jr (Marco Rubio).

PappyD61 on January 30, 2012 at 10:38 PM

I like how Romney supporters mock Gingrich’s attacks on the media for its bias but faint over the awesomeness of Christie’s attacks on just about everyone else.

amerpundit on January 30, 2012 at 10:32 PM

I just wanted to echo this.

Sharr on January 30, 2012 at 10:40 PM

Ge this fat f%^k of my screen

liberal4life on January 30, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Let freedom ring.

mythicknight on January 30, 2012 at 10:43 PM

The whole gay marriage thing is nothing but a political gotcha game. Come on, Elton John performed at Rush Limbaugh’s wedding, said that they agree on the issue.

Priscilla on January 30, 2012 at 10:44 PM

Ge this fat f%^k of my screen

liberal4life on January 30, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Turn the video off, numbnuts.

Good Lt on January 30, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Ge this fat f%^k of my screen

liberal4life on January 30, 2012 at 10:41 PM

I understand that blogger is still free.

this will get you started

Then you can put whatever you want on your own blog. No charge. And then you can talk to yourself all day and all night, and not bother us HotAir folks with your opinions.

It’s a win/win in my opinion! :)

JannyMae on January 30, 2012 at 10:46 PM

Funny how they’re smearing him by saying he’s like a famous racist Democrat.

zmdavid on January 30, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Don’t you know that the INGSOC Ministry of Truth aka the media changed history, George Wallace was a Republican.

tjexcite on January 30, 2012 at 10:46 PM

in 30 years Prop. 8 and its like will be seen similar to the Jim Crow laws. Times are changing people, accept it already

DBear on January 30, 2012 at 10:16 PM

Did I miss some thing…?

Marriage = Between a Man and a Woman

Civil Union = Homosexual contract with all the legal, tax, custody, and medical rights of a Marriage between a Man and a Woman.

It looks like this issue has been solved…

… Are you telling me that Teh Gheys are still not happy?

/

Seven Percent Solution on January 30, 2012 at 10:47 PM

Christie’s tough guy routine is starting to look like a Tony Soprano impersonation.

portlandon on January 30, 2012 at 10:50 PM

“Democratic.” My pasty white backside. You guys have the slightest inkling how much money and political favors got passed around in the NY Senate prior to that vote? More prostitution than a Nevada ranch.

A GOP state senator from my area, the Buffalo area, campaigned specifically against gay marriage. He wound up voting for it. And now, lo and behold, our Governor, Santa Cuomo, arrives with a billion dollars in aid packages for Buffalo and a guarantee on a lease to keep the Buffalo Bills in town.

KingGold on January 30, 2012 at 10:18 PM

I was wondering what that was all about. Since when does Albany give to hoots about us Buffalonians? I’m guessing that our legislator was key to getting several others on board. Sickening. I knew the fix was in, but this is just ridiculous.

Also, nice to see another Buffalo area native on Hot Air. Talkin’ Proud baby! :)

wearyman on January 30, 2012 at 10:51 PM

Are you telling me that Teh Gheys are still not happy?

/

Seven Percent Solution on January 30, 2012 at 10:47 PM

It’s an excuse to go after the Church.

John the Libertarian on January 30, 2012 at 10:54 PM

Fat RINO Chris Christie bloviating: zzzzzz
Allah pushing the loser gay agenda: ZZZZZZ

Double snoozefest

Norwegian on January 30, 2012 at 10:59 PM

Gotta love how all the Hot Gas folks here in this thread have nothing better to do than to make Fat Boy Jokes about Chris Christie, while at the same time many of them are In Lovey with Fat Boy Newt Gingrich, who is almost the same age as John McCain when he ran in 2008.

Keep Shoveling! It’s Great Entertainment to us folks here on Planet Earth.

Del Dolemonte on January 30, 2012 at 11:00 PM

wearyman on January 30, 2012 at 10:51 PM

That’s not even the worst of it. Mark Grisanti, the senator in question, just got himself a nice big redistricting present, as pesky Democratic Niagara Falls just got snipped out of his district. Seems Antoine “Dodson” won’t be making a comeback any time soon.

Interesting to think about, given the Allen West situation on the earlier thread.

KingGold on January 30, 2012 at 11:00 PM

I like how Romney supporters mock Gingrich’s attacks on the media for its bias but faint over the awesomeness of Christie’s attacks on just about everyone else.

amerpundit on January 30, 2012 at 10:32 PM

I don’t think anyone is fainting over this, but the difference is at least Christie doesn’t talk tough, then capitulate and then pretend like he never wavered from his original position.

He’s also married 2 fewer women.

The Count on January 30, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Christie’s tough-guy image isn’t wearing thin on me. Allah just gotta protect that squishy cred.

deepelemblues on January 30, 2012 at 11:05 PM

Fat RINO Chris Christie bloviating

Norwegian on January 30, 2012 at 10:59 PM

Is it wrong for a man to love another man? Because I love Chris Christie.

-Rush H. Limbaugh III

KingGold on January 30, 2012 at 11:06 PM

What difference does a vote matter? Even if the majority rules against gay marriage, they’ll shop a Judge to over turn the popular vote.
Same as what happened with Proposition 8 in CA.

Belle on January 30, 2012 at 11:07 PM

People, look at the video.

Christie is many things but he certainly isn’t wearing thin

e-pirate on January 30, 2012 at 11:09 PM

liberal4life on January 30, 2012 at 10:41 PM

We’re pretty tolerant of trolls around here, but I think it’s time to show this kid the door. Who do we need to contact to kill his account?

The Count on January 30, 2012 at 11:10 PM

You religitards need to stop obsessing over “Gay marriage” have the hetros done it better HELL NO. Remind me, you lunatics, what’s the divorce rate again? In fact you religious maniacs need to just shut up entirely. Your hillbilly inbred snake handling jerkiness will guarantee Barry’s second term and allegedly you don’t want that right? you’re all a bunch of fools total and complete fools with your religious stupidity.

Your Mamma loves me on January 30, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Lucca Brazzi strikes again!

Let the homos marry each other. Just keep them away from young boys.

Without “converts” they will eventually disappear.

Horace on January 30, 2012 at 11:11 PM

Either allow all couples, gay or straight to marry, or have the government get out of marriage entirely and have it only recognized by religious organizations. You can’t have it both ways.

If you want the government to recognize marriage and give you special benefits because of it, then why should you get to determine who is and isn’t qualified based on your religious ideals?

Inverness on January 30, 2012 at 11:12 PM

Oh golly! I’m getting off this thread!
Dr. Telsa will be here all night.

KOOLAID2 on January 30, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Please look at userscripts.org in two or three weeks. I’m working on a javascript program to deTelsaify your Hotair experience! If you can’t find my script in the next month, please ask me where it is.

thuja on January 30, 2012 at 11:13 PM

Your Mamma loves me

Such elegance and class. Very eloquent statement. The highest in stating a position with knowledge and integrity.

Didn’t know homos were that smart. Must come from sharing body fluids and feces with each other.

Horace on January 30, 2012 at 11:13 PM

Christie has his eyes on that nice house with the pillars in D.C. ;) It makes no sense for him to take a stand on this. Signing it would make enemies with the part of the base (cough… South Carolina… cough Rich Santorum..) who think that gay people give out cooties. Vetoing it would make it seem intolerant to indies in the general. So he punts. Smart, but cynical politics. Considering the fiscal mess the U.S. faces, I’d prefer Christie focus on reducing the debt and shoring up Social Security and Medicare rather than focusing on gay marriage.

Illinidiva on January 30, 2012 at 11:15 PM

He believes marriage should be for straights only but wants equal rights for gays otherwise and won’t even commit to the belief that homosexuality is sinful.

Someone should inform the governor that gays already have equal rights.

xblade on January 30, 2012 at 11:15 PM

Didn’t know homos were that smart. Must come from sharing body fluids and feces with each other.

Horace on January 30, 2012 at 11:13 PM

Oh, you mean — no. I just can’t do it.

cynccook on January 30, 2012 at 11:17 PM

Someone should inform the governor that gays already have equal rights.

Are you referring to the separate but equal concept of civil unions?

Inverness on January 30, 2012 at 11:18 PM

People do not have rights bestowed upon them only with their peers say so. They are rights innately. People currently have these privileges, or they have been withheld from them, it is that simple. Putting it to a popular vote would not change the outcome. I mean think about it. If we put a referendum on taxes to the people, they would all disappear. That does not change how the world works. Its a scam by Christie to not make a decision because he may have a future in mind where he bends over to the Tea Party folk.

RanchTooth on January 30, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Please look at userscripts.org in two or three weeks. I’m working on a javascript program to deTelsaify your Hotair experience! If you can’t find my script in the next month, please ask me where it is.

thuja on January 30, 2012 at 11:13 PM

It’s probably easier to compile a list of his greatest hits, including “I don’t trust black Republicans,” “my gay roommate molested me (no he didn’t j/k j/k j/k),” or similar pieces in that vein.

KingGold on January 30, 2012 at 11:21 PM

At least he doesn’t stipulate conditions for his debating the media or his political opponents.

Christie can speak clearly and forcefully enough in defense of his own positions, historically and rhetorically, that he doesn’t need to whine about things being stacked against him.

A good Secretary of State?

profitsbeard on January 30, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Didn’t know homos were that smart. Must come from sharing body fluids and feces with each other.

Horace on January 30, 2012 at 11:13 PM

Guess again! Ya know, if you gave it a try (the shit smearing, as you seem to think it is, which is so juvenile) and maybe we could have a real conversation about Christie rather than your hatred of raunchy gay men having sex with each other. Because, admit it, gay sex freaks you out.

RanchTooth on January 30, 2012 at 11:22 PM

I don’t know what’d I do if I were face to face with a NJ Democrat right now. Blocking the damn referendum because “We can’t vote on rights.” That’s a complete load.

Apparently, when it comes down to it, Democrats would rather play politics than allow me the privilege of marrying my SO. This is why I’m conservative.

Someone should inform the governor that gays already have equal rights.

Haha, that’s hilarious.

ZachV on January 30, 2012 at 11:24 PM

Christi(Romney) is signalling that they DON’T need conservatives to win the White House this Fall. Interesting concept but, it won’t work.

Fat Bas$%#^ and Romney are going to destroy the Republican Party!

jjnco73 on January 30, 2012 at 11:31 PM

It would have been nice if he would have ran.

Sultanofsham on January 30, 2012 at 11:32 PM

Curious to know how Christie, who seems not terribly invested in the idea of keeping gays from marrying, feels about that.

I do believe that Christie would tell you bluntly that HIS feelings/beliefs are irrelevant. He’s letting the voters decide.

GarandFan on January 30, 2012 at 11:37 PM

Chris Christie – Since 2009 treating the Democrats will all the respect they deserve!

alchemist19 on January 30, 2012 at 11:43 PM

Fat Guys 2012

baldilocks on January 30, 2012 at 11:46 PM

…why should you get to determine who is and isn’t qualified based on your religious ideals?

Inverness on January 30, 2012 at 11:12 PM

It’s not religious, it’s biological. (Note the word “logical” in
“biological”.)

VBMax on January 30, 2012 at 11:51 PM

1. Civil unions for all (government).
2. Marriages provided by the churches based on their beliefs (religion).

Seems like a winner to me. It won’t happen, since that wouldn’t get the activists on both sides all ginned up and distracted from the real issues. Can’t have that, can we?

El Dillo on January 30, 2012 at 11:56 PM

AP’s animosity towards Christie is so transparent it becomes hilarious. Popular referendums have been the way social conservatives all over the country have settled disputes on gay marriage. Christie does the same thing and he’s cynical. He nominates a very conservative judge, and according to AP, it’s because the man is gay.

joana on January 30, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Allah’s not against Christie, per se. He just can’t bring himself to admit that he’s for Federal power when it reinforces his positions, and against it when it does not.

The punchline is that Christie’s pushing the referendum not because he’s militantly opposed to gays getting married and thinks the popular vote will vindicate his position but because he’s not militantly opposed and doesn’t want to be forced to issue a veto.

So, if Christie were the governor of, say, South Carolina, and pushed a gay marriage referendum, he would be a conservative state’s rights hero, but pushing it in New Jersey, where it might just pass, makes him a squish?

Here’s a thought experiment. Tomorrow, the Supreme Court invalidates Roe vs. Wade. Abortion becomes a state issue once again. South Carolina holds a state referendum, and makes abortion illegal. New Jersey holds a state referendum, and abortion remains legal. Then Nikki Haley’s a hero, and Christie’s a schmuck? What are we looking for there, Allah? A Federal mandate outlawing abortion. Gay marriage?

State’s rights party, my ass.

Mr. Arkadin on January 30, 2012 at 11:56 PM

I used to enjoy Chris Christie and his attacks, but now, with those teats and all that sweat, I think he’s just going through menopause.
It’s getting old and now that you played your RINO card, it’s time for your harmones, pork chop.

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on January 30, 2012 at 11:58 PM

It’s not religious, it’s biological. (Note the word “logical” in “biological”.)

Let’s not make excuses and/or pretend the arguments against gay marriage are anything but religiously motivated.

Inverness on January 30, 2012 at 11:59 PM

It’s an excuse to go after the Church.

John the Libertarian on January 30, 2012 at 10:54 PM

This is it.

Mirimichi on January 31, 2012 at 12:02 AM

I’m working on a javascript program to deTelsaify your Hotair experience!

thuja on January 30, 2012 at 11:13 PM

I’ll pay good money.

John the Libertarian on January 31, 2012 at 12:03 AM

Too light in the loafers for me.

mkenorthshore on January 31, 2012 at 12:05 AM

If you want the government to recognize marriage and give you special benefits because of it, then why should you get to determine who is and isn’t qualified based on your religious ideals?

Inverness on January 30, 2012 at 11:12 PM

Not just based religious ideals. Biology. Female + Male = reproduction. That’s a natural way of continuing the human race. That’s the definition of marriage.

As has been pointed out, homosexuals can have civil unions. Why isn’t that good enough? Why do they have to bastardize the definition of marriage to be satisfied?

JannyMae on January 31, 2012 at 12:06 AM

“Gay rights” are an equal protection issue? Great – so I don’t have to wait until I’m old to get Social Security and Medicare and my federal income tax rate will be 0% next year just like many other Americans! Right?

gwelf on January 31, 2012 at 12:07 AM

We need a hot gas poll on the use of the term “lame stream media” and “mittens”. Gay or not?

rubberneck on January 31, 2012 at 12:07 AM

If you want the government to recognize marriage and give you special benefits because of it, then why should you get to determine who is and isn’t qualified based on your religious ideals?
Inverness on January 30, 2012 at 11:12 PM

It’s not religiously based for one thing – straight couples have the potential to create and raise the next generation of citizens.
And they are special benefits – not rights. Just like Social Security, Medicare, affirmative action, the tax system and a whole host of other government programs and laws.

Gays already have the right to get married. There isn’t a state that stops them from having a private or even public ceremony, living together etc. That is as far as their rights extend and they aren’t denied any of this.

gwelf on January 31, 2012 at 12:13 AM

Not just based religious ideals. Biology. Female + Male = reproduction. That’s a natural way of continuing the human race. That’s the definition of marriage.

If that was so important, then sterility would disqualify anyone from marriage. Also, don’t throw ideas like love out the window.

As has been pointed out, homosexuals can have civil unions. Why isn’t that good enough? Why do they have to bastardize the definition of marriage to be satisfied?

Because religious groups believe that marriage should be recognized by the government and that they should be given special privileges for being married. A civil union is merely a “separate but equal” concept.

There are two solutions here. Either allow both gay and straight couples to get married, or have the government stop recognizing marriage entirely and only recognize civil unions. In that case you would leave marriage up to the religious groups and have them make whatever exclusive rules they want without anyone else caring.

Inverness on January 31, 2012 at 12:15 AM

Let’s not make excuses and/or pretend the arguments against gay marriage are anything but religiously motivated.

Inverness on January 30, 2012 at 11:59 PM

Then let’s not pretend that a major motivation for same sex marriage advocates is to force religious people and institutions to accept homosexual “relationships” as equal to heterosexual marriage.

JannyMae on January 31, 2012 at 12:18 AM

People do not have rights bestowed upon them only with their peers say so. They are rights innately. People currently have these privileges, or they have been withheld from them, it is that simple. Putting it to a popular vote would not change the outcome. I mean think about it. If we put a referendum on taxes to the people, they would all disappear. That does not change how the world works. Its a scam by Christie to not make a decision because he may have a future in mind where he bends over to the Tea Party folk.
RanchTooth on January 30, 2012 at 11:19 PM

People also don’t have their rights bestowed of them the state. Exercising all if your rights happens completely independently of the state too. The state only has the power to either protect your rights from being infringed on by other citizens or it curtail them.
“State marriage” is not a right but a collection of subsidies, benefits and some social and governmental convieniences. Just like a lot of other government programs and legal constructions.

gwelf on January 31, 2012 at 12:21 AM

Not just based religious ideals. Biology. Female + Male = reproduction. That’s a natural way of continuing the human race. That’s the definition of marriage.
If that was so important, then sterility would disqualify anyone from marriage. Also, don’t throw ideas like love out the window.
As has been pointed out, homosexuals can have civil unions. Why isn’t that good enough? Why do they have to bastardize the definition of marriage to be satisfied?
Because religious groups believe that marriage should be recognized by the government and that they should be given special privileges for being married. A civil union is merely a “separate but equal” concept.
There are two solutions here. Either allow both gay and straight couples to get married, or have the government stop recognizing marriage entirely and only recognize civil unions. In that case you would leave marriage up to the religious groups and have them make whatever exclusive rules they want without anyone else caring.
Inverness on January 31, 2012 at 12:15 AM

You’re cool with polygamists right?

gwelf on January 31, 2012 at 12:23 AM

If that was so important, then sterility would disqualify anyone from marriage. Also, don’t throw ideas like love out the window.

No, it would not change the whole reason for the definition of marriage. That is a falsehood. And love requires marriage? Really?

And marriage being divorced from government is not what homosexuals want. They want their relationships endorsed by the government. That is why they are not satisfied with civil unions. If you think the “gays” would not still be suing religious institutions for “discrimination” then you don’t understand what motivates the activists.

JannyMae on January 31, 2012 at 12:25 AM

It’s not religiously based for one thing – straight couples have the potential to create and raise the next generation of citizens.

gwelf on January 31, 2012 at 12:13 AM

That’s just an excuse to avoid the issue, one that implies that marriage is only about procreation. If you think this is actually relevant to the argument then I have to ask: do you believe sterile people should be denied the right to be married? Should we look down on married couples that don’t contribute children to the human race?

Then let’s not pretend that a major motivation for same sex marriage advocates is to force religious people and institutions to accept homosexual “relationships” as equal to heterosexual marriage.

JannyMae on January 31, 2012 at 12:18 AM

I don’t know about others, but I think I’ve made my stance clear. I think the government should leave marriage up to religious groups and only offer civil unions to all couples of both orientations.

Inverness on January 31, 2012 at 12:25 AM

Ranch Tooth

I don’t hate people for exercising their free will by engaging in smearing feces on each other’s sexual organs. That is their business, not mine.

Also, homo sex doesn’t “freak me out.” I’m not sure what that even means. Conideration of the actions involved in homo sex makes me sick to my stomach and almost causes vomiting, but it isn’t a part of my reality, so I hardly ever give it any thought.

Homo sex reminds me of plugging a cord into an electrical outlet. There is a way that works and provides electricity and there is the homo way, which provides very filthy body parts, infectious diseases and no electricity.

But, as I said, it is their business. Just as long as they leave the young boys alone.

Horace on January 31, 2012 at 12:25 AM

You’re cool with polygamists right?

gwelf on January 31, 2012 at 12:23 AM

Let’s avoid red herrings.

No, it would not change the whole reason for the definition of marriage. That is a falsehood. And love requires marriage? Really?

I didn’t say that. I meant that people get married for love, not just because they’re concerned with or are required to procreate.

And marriage being divorced from government is not what homosexuals want. They want their relationships endorsed by the government. That is why they are not satisfied with civil unions. If you think the “gays” would not still be suing religious institutions for “discrimination” then you don’t understand what motivates the activists.

JannyMae on January 31, 2012 at 12:25 AM

Perhaps I don’t understand what motivates the activists, but I can’t see civil unions as anything but a “separate but equal” institution that exists so religious groups can have their cake and eat it too by having marriage both recognized by the government and subject to whatever conditions their religion places on it.

Inverness on January 31, 2012 at 12:30 AM

It’s not religiously based for one thing – straight couples have the potential to create and raise the next generation of citizens.
gwelf on January 31, 2012 at 12:13 AM
That’s just an excuse to avoid the issue, one that implies that marriage is only about procreation. If you think this is actually relevant to the argument then I have to ask: do you believe sterile people should be denied the right to be married? Should we look down on married couples that don’t contribute children to the human race?
Then let’s not pretend that a major motivation for same sex marriage advocates is to force religious people and institutions to accept homosexual “relationships” as equal to heterosexual marriage.
JannyMae on January 31, 2012 at 12:18 AM
I don’t know about others, but I think I’ve made my stance clear. I think the government should leave marriage up to religious groups and only offer civil unions to all couples of both orientations.
Inverness on January 31, 2012 at 12:25 AM

It’s not an excuse to avoid the issue just because you don’t want to deal with it. The rationale for a “civil union” or state marriage is to offer government support for the most basic unit of society – parents and families.

Also, it’s redefining what a right is. No one has the right to a government benefit. Otherwise I could argue that I should benefit from affirmative action and that I should start collecting social security. What gay people have the right to is live together, has a ceremony among like minds people and have a life together. This doesn’t have anything to do with the state.

gwelf on January 31, 2012 at 12:37 AM

Ge this fat f%^k of my screen

liberal4life on January 30, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Oh no not again! The fat one with the bib and the diaper is you lobotomy4life! How many times have I told you… not to put the mirror, by your screen! You’ve been so confused, since the operation!

KOOLAID2 on January 31, 2012 at 12:38 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3