• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

WA and NJ will be next?

zsdersw

zsdersw

Lifer
... to allow same-sex marriage?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/politics/washington-marriage/index.html

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/01/poll_majority_of_nj_voters_sup_1.html

Good news. I hope it happens in both states.

It is true that SSM has lost every time it's been put up to a public referendum, but that's really no more relevant than the fact that it has passed in some legislatures. Both elections of politicians and votes on referendums depend on getting enough people to show up and vote... and usually the difference between YES and NO votes on such referendums aren't terribly supportive of the notion that SSM is so clearly and significantly opposed by a large majority of the public.
 
zsdersw said:
... to allow same-sex marriage?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/politics/washington-marriage/index.html

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/01/poll_majority_of_nj_voters_sup_1.html

Good news. I hope it happens in both states.

It is true that SSM has lost every time it's been put up to a public referendum, but that's really no more relevant than the fact that it has passed in some legislatures. Both elections of politicians and votes on referendums depend on getting enough people to show up and vote... and usually the difference between YES and NO votes on such referendums aren't terribly supportive of the notion that SSM is so clearly and significantly opposed by a large majority of the public.
Click to expand...


It looks like they have the votes for it to pass in both houses of the Washington legislature. Of course the usual suspects are ginning up a petition to kill it. They need a 120,000 clean signatures to get it on the ballet.
 
Chris Christie has been pretty firm in saying that he'll veto a gay marriage bill if it's passed.

I can't help but wonder if he's looking south to Washington when he says that.
 
loki8481 said:
Chris Christie has been pretty firm in saying that he'll veto a gay marriage bill if it's passed.

I can't help but wonder if he's looking south to Washington when he says that.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he will do everything except sign it into law.
 
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns...-gay-marriage-on-the-ballot-in-nj-112068.html

"Let's put the question of same sex marriage on the ballot," Christie said.

"I believe in the institution of marriage. I realize this is my personal opinion. ...Rather than have stalemate and deadlock on this issue, let's put it on the ballot."

"It shouldn't be decided by 121 people in Trenton.

"While I know I could stop this by mself, I suggest an alternative," the governor added. "Let’s be governed by the will of the people on this. Let’s let the people decide. I would urge every Republican in the legislature to put it on the ballot."
Click to expand...
 
zsdersw said:
... to allow same-sex marriage?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/politics/washington-marriage/index.html

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/01/poll_majority_of_nj_voters_sup_1.html

Good news. I hope it happens in both states.

It is true that SSM has lost every time it's been put up to a public referendum, but that's really no more relevant than the fact that it has passed in some legislatures. Both elections of politicians and votes on referendums depend on getting enough people to show up and vote... and usually the difference between YES and NO votes on such referendums aren't terribly supportive of the notion that SSM is so clearly and significantly opposed by a large majority of the public.
Click to expand...

What is most relevant is that the long term cultural trend has been toward greater tolerance of homosexuality and everything that goes with it (marriage being one aspect). This trend is not showing signs of stopping let alone reversing. I'm betting that every blue and purple state will have legalized gay marriage 10 years from now. Red states will take longer but will eventually come around to it.
 
woolfe9999 said:
What is most relevant is that the long term cultural trend has been toward greater tolerance of homosexuality and everything that goes with it (marriage being one aspect). This trend is not showing signs of stopping let alone reversing. I'm betting that every blue and purple state will have legalized gay marriage 10 years from now. Red states will take longer but will eventually come around to it.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
I like Christie's idea of putting this on the ballot. I don't have a strong view either way on gay marriage but I don't consider it a true civil rights issue. IMO it's better to deal with these kind of issues by referendum because it gives more credibility to the result than if it was imposed the legislature or the courts.
 
Same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue which closely relates to the equality between the sexes. (Try to apply this "one man and one woman" concept in any other legal context, it quickly becomes obvious how ridiculous it is) And we do not subject fundamental rights to popular votes. No one would accept the notion that her marriage could become a political football. (being valid for 4 years then invalid for next 4, rinse and repeat?)

Having said that, as a matter of strategy, I do think a breakthrough at a ballot box will dramatically speed up the pace. The opponents' strongest argument - strongest in the sense that their threat actually works so that it stops the legislature and the judges from doing the right thing (they don't have a logically coherent argument*) - is that people do not want it. And unfortunately that is true in many parts of the country despite the rapidly changing attitudes.

First the opponents accused judges of activism. Now that several jurisdictions have enacted the laws by elected representatives, they shifted the goal post exclusively to the ballot box. It stands as their last stronghold that gives them legitimacy, whatever there might be left (and however unfounded). If one state approves same-sex marriage by a popular vote, the whole landscape will likely change overnight and the opponents will no longer be able to mount their case without exposing themselves. At that point the legislatures and courts around the country will feel a lot more confident in honoring the constitution.


*If there is, I don't know of one yet. (I don't mean to solicit the typical answers that I've already heard of, though.)
 
the DRIZZLE said:
I like Christie's idea of putting this on the ballot. I don't have a strong view either way on gay marriage but I don't consider it a true civil rights issue. IMO it's better to deal with these kind of issues by referendum because it gives more credibility to the result than if it was imposed the legislature or the courts.
Click to expand...

You are right. There is no credibility in the following cases:

Women voting
Women going into the workforce
Equal pay for women
Inter-racial marriage
Desegregation
Abolition of Slavery.

No credibility with them whatsoever!


They should also put a few more things on the ballot.

Official religion: Christian or Muslim

Should we invade Iraq(99% say yes!)?

Should we invade Iran?

Brilliant ideas. Majority oppressing a minority. I see you are well schooled in the formation of this country!
 
shadow9d9 said:
There are only civilized states and hick states.

Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Not really. Colorado is fairly liberal, but you wouldn't know it you went to a meeting of the Colorado Springs City Council, for example... You'd think Texas was liberal, if you'd only been to Austin... or that California was Wingnutlandia if you only experienced Orange County or Palm Springs...
 
Married couples pay more in taxes.

Let Gays marry, I am tired of seeing those rich flaming couples on HGTV looking for that $1M swingers pad.

;P
 
Looks to me like Chris Cristie isn't a fundie like people think he is.

Gov. Chris Christie today nominated an openly gay African-American Republican mayor and a Korean-American assistant attorney general to the state’s highest court.

Kwon, of Bergen County, would be the first Asian-American to sit on the state Supreme Court, and Harris would be the first openly gay justice.

Steve Goldstein, the chief executive of Garden State Equality, a gay rights organization, said he was stunned when Christie called to tell him about the imminent nomination of Harris, 60, a graduate of Yale Law School.

"As I told the governor right then and there, you could have picked me up off the floor," Goldstein said.

He said that when he met with Christie in 2010 at the governor's request, he told him that while they disagreed on the issue of gay marriage, "he wanted his administration to have a good working relationship with Garden State Equality."

"That has been the case every step of the way," Goldstein said. "Since Governor Christie took office, his administration has treated us with warmth and responsiveness. Yes is yes, no is no, and we’ll get back to you means they get back to you faster than you thought, usually with invaluable help."
Click to expand...
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/01/gov_christie_nominates_two_for.html
 
loki8481 said:
New Jersey doesn't have fundies.

but that doesn't change the fact that Christie has been consistently against the idea of gay marriage, and promised to veto a gay marriage bill if it passed the legislature.

whether he's doing that because of genuine personal beliefs or his own political future, I couldn't say.
Click to expand...
A Republican who wants to win his party's nomination for President does not nominate an openly gay judge.
I'd say the former.

Good luck winning the GOP primary in Iowa and South Carolina with that one. :whiste:
 
It is telling that politicians opposed to gay marriage always suggest putting the matter up to a public referendum, but are opposed to or don't seek to put things they agree with or want to do to a referendum.

If we're going to have public referendums on gay marriage, why not put everything to a referendum vote? Surely there are specific policies and other yes-or-no issues of as much or more importance than gay marriage that the public should have a direct vote on.

I think the salaries/benefits of politicians should need a referendum vote, for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top