Or you could move to Iran...they don't have gay marriage there

Alan, why is it wrong?

Same sex marriage is wrong for the same reason polygamy and marriage between brother and sister would be wrong. They wouldn't infringe or bother anyone else by their choice of lifestyle either, but it's just plain wrong. Homosexuals already have all the protections they need under the law. Marriage is for man and woman. A gay man can choose to marry any woman he wants, he's got the same rights as everyone else.

@Max, so basically you have no legitimate reason for not granting equal rights. Polygamy is having more than one marriage partner. No one is asking for that except some heterosexuals. You banal argument that a gay person can marry any women he wants is like saying we can both buy groceries but when a gay person goes there is no food on the shelves. Moreover, it doesn't even take into account lesbians. I'm sorry the it's just wrong argument doesn't stand up to Constitutional review. Try again.

CC got his marching orders from Mary Pat this AM ..and not Adam & Steve !!

Mrs. G, "love" is not a constitutional argument in favor of state recognition of a relationship. The state of New Jersey has no interest in legal recognition of or protection for friendships among any two (or more) people.

@John. while love may be an emotional reason for equality. The 14th Amendment is clear about equality. If the state grants a right to one group it must grant the right to all groups. We have already gone through this with different people. The outcome is predestined based on the past. Why not get this done and have it over with.

John, "friendships between two or more people"? That has no relevance at all to gay marriage.

marriage is not a right. i love the way people throw that word right around. civil marriage is perfectly fine . with all insurance and will and other life situations. please dont Bastardized the sacrament of marriage.

@ Anna, I just love how people throw around the word sanctity. You have to be kidding, a 50% divorce rate shows exactly what the heterosexual community thinks of the sanctity of marriage. Guess you would prefer to ignore those facts. Moreover, I do so enjoy people saying it is not a civil right when they at any time can go down file the paperwork and get married in a civil ceremony or a church ceremony. I also find it interesting that they ignore the fact that many churches around the country have no issue marrying same sex couples. So Anna perhaps the next time you make such an uninformed and ignorance latent comment you might want to consider a few of these FACTS. Furthermore, if you are going to argue that marriage isn't a civil right your should read Loving v Virginia. it may help to remove some of that film over your eyes. I suggest you start policing your own heterosexual house before you make judgement on others.

@ Gentile, I just love how people throw around the word sanctity. You have to be kidding, a 50% divorce rate shows exactly what the heterosexual community thinks of the sanctity of marriage. Guess you would prefer to ignore those facts. Moreover, I do so enjoy people saying it is not a civil right when they at any time can go down file the paperwork and get married in a civil ceremony or a church ceremony. I also find it interesting that they ignore the fact that many churches around the country have no issue marrying same sex couples. So Anna perhaps the next time you make such an uninformed and ignorance latent comment you might want to consider a few of these FACTS. Furthermore, if you are going to argue that marriage isn't a civil right your should read Loving v Virginia. it may help to remove some of that film over your eyes. I suggest you start policing your own heterosexual house before you make judgement on others.

@ David Smith. same sex marriage is an abomination its disgusting. and it doesn't matter how many heterosexual divorces there are. its not Normal !!!!!! its natural.you need the opposite sex to create a life don't U???? if we were all gay there would only be 2 people on this earth. you get your facts straight.will ya. and its not a RIGHT. civil union.

Why? He's clearly said many times that gay marriage is something that he's against because of his own personal beliefs. That's how all our elected officials vote (that, or what's best for their bottom lines, but that's irrelevant here), and in theory that's why we vote for who we do.

I don't agree with him in this case, but I will give him props for being so open about it and promising to not block a referendum on it in November. He doesn't believe in it, but if the people of NJ do then he'll abide by it.

@Common, I do agree we vote for politicians based on their beliefs. However, we also expect them to uphold the laws of the land. The governor as a lawyer is well versed on civil rights and the cases that have granted and upheld those rights. They are in effect legal 101. By sticking to his personal beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence that this particular issue is one on equality he has betrayed his education and the people of New Jersey for political gain.

Ken, don't be silly. You know that the Mayor of Barnegat is never accountable for anything.

Religion... making the World miserable for everyone.

@ Chris, as with most things if we look to the positives and reject the things that devide us religion could actually live up to it's premise of being an aid to huminity instead of the divisive element and detriment to humanity it has become.

@John, civil unions as they stand do not grant the same rights as marriage. That is a Constitutional argument. I'm sure you would agree.

@David, In what respect? The raison d'être of civil unions was equal rights. I've yet to hear an argument as to what state interest is not being met by civil unions.

@ John there are several areas where civil unions do not grant the same protections as the term marriage. That is why several people are suing the state because the law requires it but the law is not being followed or enforced by the state. Surely you are aware of these areas it's not like they haven't been brought to light.

@ John,

If civil unions were actually the same as marriages, we would simply call them "marriages." by creating a separate designation you continue to allow the space for interpretation be it by insurance providers, the IRS, medical staff etc. Take for example if one partner is injured fatally in a car accident and is brought to a catholic hospital, would they be required to allow his wife to visit? would they like wise be legally obligated to allow his partner?

I agree with this post, but then again, I feel this way about a lot of things. Legalize it, and if you don't like it, don't do it.

Thank you, Erika. That is the smartest, most common sense answer I have ever seen from a poster on the Patch. I wholeheartedly agree with you!

We think alike. The governor is shirking his responsibility under the constitution by imposing a religious belief as the guide for his decision rather than our first amendment right of separation of church and state. His beliefs are those of his church. What if the beliefs of all the churches was his guide to determning what is acceptable for signing? A referendum is imposing societies' sectarian beliefs upon us rather than maintaining our civil rights. The intolerance of sectarianism is no different than the racism that pervades our society fueled by the religion of false beliefs.

I've been saying the same thing for YEARS. Glad to see someone else thinks the same way. What marriage is depends so much on a person's personal beliefs; it's impossible to codify marriage without stepping on the Separation of Church and State.

Absolutely, Erika! Nice post!

Erika,
Excellent comment. Government needs to remove itself from the religious marriage debate. You following comment says it all "Rather than argue about the religious interpretation of marriage, the government should remove itself entirely, combining "civil union" and "civil marriage" into a singular entity which legal binds the couples into a contract of wedlock and changes their legal status. Let religious institutions decide which marriage ceremonies they want to perform and take the government out of the church."
This is an excellent idea and the Governor should embrace it and try to make this idea a law in NJ. Neither side of this debate should have a problem with this. I am going to make sure that his office gets a copy of your post and see what they have to say about it.

@Erika As I understand it we do have civil marriages and religious marriages now. It seems to me some just don't want to share the word marriage.

Erika, The issue is actually marriage vs civil union, not religious marriage vs civil marriage. Churches can decide whether to host a religious ceremony of marriage for two men or two women, but they have no standing to hold the legal concept of marriage hostage and in so doing continue to violate equal rights. Constitutional rights aren't granted by plebiscite. In New Jersey's case it looks like the right to marry, and all of the legal rights that come with it, will have to be granted by the courts. The law is trending towards equal rights in this case, but you wouldn't notice this if you have been watching Fox News or listening to the Republican Presidential debates. No, civil union does not equate to marriage in the eyes of the law in many respects. You and your sudden adherents are mistaken.

@Barzillai - you've sort of missed the point here. She's saying that the STATE should make the legal aspect of "marriage" ONE thing for all. The State has no jurisdiction over "marriage" but simply over the domestic and tax status of individuals. Those should be blind and equal for all.
The "Church" has it's own right as a private organization (under the belief system of whatever particular faith one subscribes to) to define and perform "marriage" and individuals have the right to either subscribe or not subscribe to said faith. The state has no right to tell the Catholic Church, for instance, what it's belief system should be or for whom they should perform sacraments. That is up to the Church and it's members either accept that as "truth" or not.
In the same way - the Church has no right to tell the state how it can recognize the legal status of citizens.
Therefore - the Church (whichever ones we choose) will "marry" us under God - and the state will "marry" us all the same - into a civil, and taxable (lol), union.
I like Erika's post as well. Cut and dry - plain and simple.

@DH, I don't think I'm off base. Erika suggests that marriage is only a religious ceremony, which just isn't so. You can be married before a Justice of the Peace or in a wide variety of civil ceremonies, each labeled as a marriage and each generating a certificate of marriage. She equates civil union with marriage, again not so. Equal protection under the law is leading to a change in marriage; the idea of secular union vs religious marriage is no longer a valid approach to resolution of this inequality. It's too late and untenable to change all marriages in the eyes of the law into civil unions. That idea is out the window. Churches can continue to conduct wedding ceremonies as they see fit and for whom they wish. But the term marriage is no longer set aside for their specific, holy purpose. That horse is out of the barn.

@Barzillai - thank you for clarifying. I see your point. I think ultimately this issue has been spun every which way to fit the agenda's of every single group that has an opinion and nobody will ever agree on it.
If it's a matter of equal legal rights, I don't know why anyone cares what it's called. If it's a matter of people thinking they're going to somehow gain mainstream acceptance, I think that hope is misguided. The worse things get out there, people always look for scapegoats.

"I have been just as adamant that same-sex couples in a civil union deserve the very same rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples — as well as the strict enforcement of those rights and benefits,’’ Christie said in the statement.

Really? So walk the talk, Governor. If you won't let gays marry, then it's double-talk.

Christie's suggestion for an ombudsman is a tacit admission that the current civil union provision is inadequate to "very same rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples." Otherwise, why would there be a need to create a separate bureaucracy? Creating more government seems very un-Republican when all that really needs to be done is to allow gays to marry and be done with it. If some religions choose not to recognize these marriages for religious ritual purpose, that's their privilege.

Erika has it backward...Each State government issues MARRIAGE Licenses, and generally, religious entities issue "Certificates of Marriage" or some such documentation that the parties have bethrothed themselves before God, etc. It is the state contract that is enforced through the legal process; religious "courts" have no standing in law in this country. (Think about how folks feel about "Sharia Law.") Marriage in this country is a LEGAL contract with a license issued by the government. Religious ceremonies are entirely the province of the legally sanctioned (but not governmental) religious authorities. Marriage is a LEGAL CONTRACT and thus must be available to every person (no, not dogs or donkeys) without discrimination. Let the religious entities issue whatever documentation they wish. However, no "marriage" is LEGAL without the State issued license. That is, you cannot be "married" by any religious entity without a government issues license.
Government=available to all without regard to race, gender, religious belief, etc.
Religious certificate=available only to those to whom the religious entity chooses to approve.

Good comment!

A church can decide not to baptize your baby because you aren't a regular attender at their worship services. They can refuse to conduct a religious burial of your mother because you haven't paid your annual tithe. And they can decide not to conduct a wedding. All that has no bearing on whether gays and lesbians can wed. Gays and lesbians won't be flocking to Roman Catholic churches with their wedding planners, even if the law is changed. Life won't change at St Benedict's and St Joseph's. But a lesbian woman will be able to file a joint tax return, calculate her joint pension and Social Security benefits, and visit her partner at Bayshore Hospital when only a spouse can be in the room. Don't worry, the church can remain in the 1st century if it wants to. The rest of us need to adjust as rights are revealed by the courts' interpretation of the US Constitution. Uganda has adopted a law that compels family, friends and neighbors to point out gays and lesbians living in their communities or go to jail. That's the ugly other end of the scale. How far towards that end of the scale are you willing to go? I intend to advocate for civil rights and condemn ugliness.

This is not meant as “flack” but rather as a means of putting things into perspective. Both houses of New Jersey’s legislature have passed this bill . . . meaning that the people have voted by and through their elected representatives. The governor should sign the legislation as the people have voted.

@ Sue. I won't give you flack but I will say that giving people the right to vote on others peoples rights is using one part of the Constitution to fight another part of the Constitution. Our right to vote shouldn't be used to limit equality. It's like putting the 1st Amendment against the 14th Amendment you have to admit that is ironic to say the least and foolish at best.

how is not letting our representative democracy work not getting personal? He, rather than allowing the legislators, is putting a civil rights question up to popular vote. I find this to be a political ruse to get more conservatives out to vote in a presidential campaign year, and is not remotely an honorable motion on his part. he's asking the people if it's ok to continue segregation of sexuality.

@paddler. Governor Christie simply cannot understand the past because he lives in modern times. His statement about a referendum in the 1960's clearly illustrates this fact. What always concerns me is someone in charge of our state and a lawyer making such an ignorant comment suggests an inability to do his job. No one that ignorant should be running the state. Don't get me wrong I don't mean ignorant as an insult rather on a education level. If anything the governors comment on a referendum in the 1960's gives a clear indication why a referendum on marriage equality should never be allowed. History doesn't repeat itself, ignorance does.

The governor believes in the popular will. That can be problematic.

@ Barzillai, I'm not sure why the governor would put himself into such a terrible position. If he veto's he confirms himself not only a bigot but unqualified to do his job. If he approves he can say the people through the legislature have spoken and his job is to not only uphold the will of the people but to uphold the Constitution. He could have said he personally disagrees but the trust the people put in him precludes him from vetoing the bill. It could have been a win win but now it's a lose lose. It will come back to bite him on the rear end. I will skip the part where I comment on how much that might hurt considering the size of that rear end. :)

@Paddler. As I understand it the President made an accommodation in regard to religious institutions directly paying for birth control However, as usual that isn't enough for the other side of the isle. They would prefer to wallow in their religious views and ignore the needs of the American people. How much sense does it make for people who hate abortions to rile against birth control. Ironic at best but just plain stupid to the educated.

What would we do without "natural law" to guide us to oblivion? If oral sex is so un-natural why do we have tongues. Shouting that gay marriage is wrong is a belief without a basis. The tyranny of natural law is the result of who defines it. You don't need a penis for pregnancy or does natural law determine you do. Has religious theology poisoned the brain to ignore reality.

@ eyeballs none of what you said has any bearing on the legal issue of marriage equality. I'm sorry but the "it's just wrong" or " look to nature" arguments are irrelevant and quite frankly childish. The first is a personal opinion the latter is one based on the premise that homosexuality does not present itself in nature. Both arguments fall well short of reality with regard to the Constitution and our laws. Once again you cannot use one element of the Constitution your 1st Amendment right to free speech to limit or restrict others 14th Amendment rights to equality under the law.

@ eyeballs, I noticed you didn't give any facts on how marriage equality will destroy heterosexual marriage or the children of those marriages. Moreover, I would think the 50% failure rate of heterosexual marriages and the millions of children in protective services of those unions are much more of a detriment to children. Of course those are the facts. Do you have anything else? I'm more than willing to continue to debate facts.

Your opinion.
But most gays I know had straight parents.
Marriage and faith have to strong enough to exist in a world of different beliefs.
And it's not my business what consenting adults want to do.
Why are you so concerned?

I think the governor is, as always, pandering for future votes with this decision. A honor that has been reserved for American heroes or police and firefighters who have died in the line of duty should not be extended to mere entertainers. I can appreciate Ms. Houston's musical talent and contributions despite her personal issues but to extent this honor is inappropriate. Lip syncing to the Star Spangled Banner during the Super Bowl, while inspiring, does not raise a person to heroic stature.

I have issues with opening the door to the influx of religious organizations that would be a direct result of allowing a civil rights issue to go to the polls. Can you imagine the commercials alone we would have to put up with as these organizations flood the airways with religious propaganda and other divisive tactics.

All American's should care about our Constitutional protections. If not one day we might not have them. I'm sorry but I have to disagree based on that one fact alone.

It is always easy for people who have a right to say who cares when other don't. What they fail to realize is that if a right can be voted on or restricted for one group it can be limited or restricted for them as well. I believe people have said in the past that it will never happen again or never happen to them. I think WWII should have taught us differently. History does not repeat itself, ignorance does.

The US Congress wasted tons of valuable time passing the Defense of Marriage Act, time that could have been better spent dealing with the economy. What's important these days is in the eyes of the beholder.

well than you better learn how to say I DO in Mandarin

@Oscar, considering China holds very little dept of the USA when compared with others you comment shows a lack of information.

@chrstnmichael- Once again using a 1st Amendment right to free religion to limit the equality granted by the 14th Amendment is ironic at best and hypocritical at worst. Our Constitution was very carefully written to avoid the use of Gods name and allowing for the separation between church and state so as not to repeat the atrocities that happened in Europe. Each American citizen has the right to believe as they choose with regard to religion and should not have to worry about others trying to interject their religious beliefs into the role of government. Religion simply has no role in determining the legal issue of marriage equality. In fact, considering marriage historically was a civil ceremony before it became a religious ceremony it doesn't even have the argument of being the first to instituted this practice. As always your religious beliefs are protected under our Constitution and should never be subject to a popular vote. Nor should the civil right of marriage.

Our religious beliefs are protected under our Constitution? You better go tell Kathleen Sibelius.

@PMSNBC Not sure the birth control issue is relevant on this thread but as I understand it the President has made an accommodation in regard to religious institutions directly paying for birth control. However, I always was confused why people who hate abortions above all else would have an issue with birth control. But that's me.

Since you state that marriage is sacred. Will you be pushing for repeal of divorce laws?

@ ed- We both know this isn't about making heterosexuals responsible for their marriages but rather to deny others that right. Some seem to thing that marriage is like a private club and if we let the gays and lesbians in it will reduce the value of marriage. That 50% divorce rate is something they would prefer to ignore or pretend isn't there at all. We can now add the governor to the list just got word he vetoed the bill. Ah the wheels keep on turning.

So you believe this is about staying true to your God. Did it ever cross your mind that we don't all believe what you do and shouldn't have too? I will ask you what I have asked the others who used your argument. Have you ever had sex for any purpose other than trying to have children? Have you ever looked and/or lusted after anyone other than your spouse? Have you ever masturbated? Looked at porn? Used any form of birth control?Have you had sex outside your marriage?Have you ever gambled and that includes Bingo and AC or Las Vegas? Have you been divorced? Remarried?Ever have anal sex? You should have to answer all these questions publicly. You seem to be so interested in other peoples sex lives and life styles so I guess you have no problem putting yours out there. Do unto others? An eye for an eye? Stay out of people lives and bedrooms included!This should have nothing to do with your church even if there is a God it isn't you and who the hell do you think you are to judge people that don't live and believe as you do. According to your religion, wouldn't that be gods job? I thought god was supposed to be all forgiving and all loving. I don't remember an exception to the word ALL.

Considering the accommodations at the White House I doubt she needs to be in your refrigerator. But a little humor is always welcome.

You are correct sir! She had "agents" to do the dirty work.

I hope they cleaned up after they left.

@Eugene- I just think some people mistakenly believe their religious beliefs are relevant to Constitutional protections. I have no issues with people of faith however they sure seem to have a problem with people who don't agree with their beliefs. When someone uses the excuse of sanctity of marriage to rile against marriage equality I find it particularly hypocritical considering the 50% divorce rate in heterosexual marriages. Equally hypocritical is the argument that children will be adversely effected. With millions of children in protective services once again heterosexuals have no high ground to argue from. Alas, as long as there are minorities who are different some members of the majority will feel the need to stomp their feet and shake their fists.

@herky- How does marriage quality equate to population growth? I'm pretty sure people will keep having children regardless of marriage equality. If that was an attempt at humor I apologize.

Herky, you present a false alternative. It's not just civil, or is it just religious. In fact, marriage is a social compact that we as a society have understood requires legal recognition. The religious part is irrelevant from the state's perspective.

Okay...stop with the flag issue already! It's done! As far as the "crackhead" comment, let it go. No one you are close to ever had an addiction problem? Lucky you.

Wow, a gay racist! Never saw that before.

@no name- While I disagree with the governors decision to ask for flags to be flown at half mast because I think it should be reserved for those who make the ultimate sacrifice for the country or community. I don't think it is appropriate to speak ill of the dead it shows a lack of compassion. I can appreciate Ms. Houston's musical accomplishments despite her addiction issues. None of us are without fault. I do understand your frustration but best to keep focused on this issue not other questionable decisions the governor has made.

Don't forget those that would marry a pet :)

@ Mrgrumpass- Could you please explain how that would open the door for plural marriage or incestuous relationships? This argument is born of fear and prejudices and quite frankly a desperate attempt to withhold equality through fear mongering. The fact that your mind goes to this type of thing is much more concerning than two consenting adults getting married. Please spare us the drama Juice

@ Tonto- Please seek help your obsession with animals is disturbing. Compared to gays and lesbians I'm much more concerned with people who think like you. Very twisted.

This was the same argument when inter racial marriage was outlawed.

@Curtis- Thanks for the very relevant comparison. I'm not sure it will help some who think this isn't a civil rights issue but it does cut to the point. A plus for relevant historical fact. Your history teachers will be proud.

@john- well until the animal and plural marriage arguments came out it was civil. Now it is in line with Huff Post and Fox News blogs.

@BN Is someone asking to have plural marriage made legal? Moreover, how does that relate to two consenting adults having marriage equality? I'm wondering how you make the leap from one to the other?

Legalizing one, opens the door for the other. Let the gov't issue civil union certificates, and let the churches issue marriage certificates. You wanna call it a marriage? Join the church and aide by their rules. If not, call it a civil union and be done with it. File joint tax returns, buy curtains together, visit them in the hospital and be their benefactor when they die, but don't call it a "marriage". A husband is a guy married to a woman, and a wife if woman married to a guy. 'nuff said.

@ BN, How does allowing one open the door for the other? Two consenting adults are not three or more consenting adults no matter how you do the math. Moreover, heterosexual couples don't own the definition of marriage anymore. Get over it. Nuff said.

It's called "setting a precedent", and the polygamists (along with the bestiality crowd) will use it in court to make slavery (polygamy) legal.

@ BN two is still two how does it set a precedent? You want to see it as a precedent as a tool to deny equality. It's not a convincing argument nor has it ever been a convincing argument. The animal issue is just ranting and grasping at straws not to mention a bit sick.

Did this couple ever hear of power of attorney? If they were that close, that can always be done no matter what the relationship is. That gives the other person rights to everything and decision making on their part. That's always available for anyone. As well, get a living will. Another person or persons can be named to act on your behalf on all medical decisions. even MARRIED couples need this.

We have mixed church and state. This is why Christmas is a holiday. Schools move spring break. Bibles used to be used in courts. Church officals act as agents of the goverment when conducting marriages. There are more examples.

Hearme.....read the NJ constitution. There is system of checks and balances? Whether you agree with him or not he is within his authority as Governor. The process keeps special interests groups, like the gay lobby, NJEA, etc. from the of buying and or scaring the legislature, which they have, into distorting the process.

Spoken like a true bigot Amber.

Hear hear Amber. Religion will be the downfall of ALL civilized life within the next 100 years if we don't separate it from our laws, our government and our process of rational thinking. And America is, unfortunately, way behind some other more progressive countries around the world doing just that...

Spoken like someone who has absolutely no idea of what religious organizations do across the world to help the sick, feed the hungry, and aid in disaster recovery. Sounds like some people have some bigoted views of their own.

@ Billabong, If churches would stick to those issues the world would indeed be a much better place. Imagine how much more good churches could do if they only helped people instead of wasting millions of dollars on political issues.

@Project, I think being a bigot of bigots is a good thing.

@DavidSmith, imagine how much more good people like George Soros could do if he didn't waste millions on political issues. How about Planned Parenthood? How about they stop wasting their money on politics too? It's laughable how people are the first to tell churches how to best spend their money, like they are the only group spending on political issues.

@Billabong, Others don't get tax exempt status for the sole purpose of staying out of political issues. Churches should stick to charity and leave the political stuff to the population. We really don't need their interference.

@DavidSmith, churches don't receive their tax exempt status "for the sole purpose of staying out of political issues." What an unbelievably uninformed statement. The IRS makes a distinction between what activities constitute "attempting to influence legislation" and which do not. Churches are not permitted to conduct activities that fall into that "attempting to influence legislation" category. But no organization is granted 501(c)3 status for the sole purpose of staying out of political issues as you have stated.

@N You're correct I didn't phrase that correctly. However, I must thank you for pointing out that churches should no longer be given tax exempt status. They are clearly trying to influence legislation. Thanks for pointing out that churches have used their positions to get involved in the political realm and should be held to the same standards as everyone else in the country.

@David, good luck with trying to get the tax exempt status of churches revoked...and on your journey, say hi to Nurse Ratched. I don't think you phrased it incorrectly as much as you simply don't know the IRS code.

@BN I'm sure you don't understand how schools run either but I would have let your admission of a mistake go by without comment. Moreover, you're the one who admitted that churches get involved in politics even though they agree not to in order to keep that status.

America's government is not a democracy, its a constitutional republic.

...and it has no place in our schools, churches, or doctor's offices.

@BN Why doesn't the government belong in our schools?

BN, I agree government has no business in churches (or any religious organization) or doctor's offices. (Remember that next time abortion is brought up as a political issue...)
But since schools are "public" and managed and run by our government/taxes to be ideally as unbiased and non-religious as possible, it belongs there.

Actually BN, America's government / system is more of a "constitutional democracy" than anything else.

But let's not split hairs. You knew what I meant....

Federal and State government don't belong in our schools...I stand corrected.

@ Mattie. The actual name of our government is kinda weird. A Democratic Republic with Constitutional controls or a Constitutionally controlled Republic with Democratic features. It's not a pure republic, a pure democracy, or completely Constitutionally controlled. Quite brilliant but as you say why split hairs. It clearly is not a theocracy as you stated.

@ David Smith- Thank you for clarifying it. Leave it to America(ns) to keep it simple, huh? ;-)

@BN actually the state does belong in our schools because that is one of the rights of the state and they should set standards for education. However, what the state shouldn't do is continue to push unfunded mandates onto our local schools. I do agree 100% that the Federal Government should butt out because it is not within the scope of the Constitution for the Federal Government to stick it's nose into education.

BN..how much wood could a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

Depends on how many weeks the fetus is.

Your right John so once there are children no divorce till they are adults.

@ Eugene- I speak for the equality of my fellow Americans. Some will think I speak for God some will think I speak for Satan. The only Gods or Devils are in the mirror anyway.

A recent poll said that 57% agreed with gay marriage. That said, you DO NOT put civil rights issues to a ballot. Just look at the mess in California before and after prop 8. Do you really want the airwaves filled with religious and LGBT ads about this issue? cause it will consume all medias and will attract millions in spending. for a vote that has been ruled unconstitutional.

and frankly, why do you care?

@ Winston- It proves quite the opposite.

Erric, I think you misunderstood a quote from Christie... What he said was "I did veto a bill on gay marriage, not on gay rights". To even suggest he vetoes this bill to protect the LBGT community is sheer ignorance. What does marriage give away? It's like saying allowing a couple of mixed race to wed, takes something away in terms of rights...

Patrick, based on all of your responses, you haven't actually read the bill.

this bill? http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2010/Bills/A4500/4130_I1.PDF

ok, I'll bite... what did I miss that is taken away?

Well its funny you bring up Scallia... he wrote this in regard to Lawrence vs Texas " "If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is 'no legitimate state interest' for purposes of proscribing that conduct, and if, as the Court coos, '[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,' what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising '[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,?' This case 'does not involve' the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court."
So you can probably forget about his vote on any case in from of SCOTUS.

as for the what's next argument.. lets be adults. there is no what's next is there really.

and you still haven't answered the question. how does a gay couple marring effect your everyday life.

and how do you go from calling gays rabid ( I think you meant that not rapid) to loving and caring? Gays are a mixed bag like anyone else. Lets not try and stereotype what people are like by race, creed, religion or sexual preference. That is best left to comedians.

@ Joe- Incest and the animal thing will never be allowed. Moreover, no one is asking for that.

@Joe It's becoming clearer with each post that you are just a uneducated bigot but thanks for making it clear for us.

Joe. get a lawyer, and stop stereotyping.

So because you feel your civil rights have been stomped on your answer is to do it to another group. Project much Joe? It seems clear to me why you had such a hard time in court. Who would want kids around you? The only angry person on this board is you. What a pathetic existence you must live.

@ Joe- Please don't tell other to take a course on the Constitution you obviously haven't read it nor do you ever make a Constitutional argument.

@Joe what does that have to do with marriage equality?

So it's not the sex it's the HPV. That's why girls get shots for HPV now.

and what does this have to do with gay marriage?

You can't change the subject and think it somehow clarifies this issue. You can get herpes from kissing... but what does that have to do with anything? If you want to post to patch about the cancer dangers in sexual relations then write a blog post. It has NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. END OF.

Catlady1 It's called a civil union. Just like Common Law marriage. Remember blacks were not the only people discriminated against. At one point Catholics could not vote. What you are describing are CIVIL rights, having sex with the same sex is not a civil right

@Joe- Cosidering the issue is marriage and not sex you continue to wander off topic.

Sorry joe... I forget that straight men having sex with men doesn't mean that only they will get aids. So will all the women they have sex with sorry...

@ Winston- That would make them Bi men not gay or straight men.

@ Joe R. Winston has a long record of just taking extreme stances. He eventually will turn his attacks personal or become increasingly offensive with his comments until the Patch warns his to stop or get banned. He has behaved lately and considering his past rants he is doing better. Unfortunately, his ignorance and bigotry continue to permeate his posts.

What does that have to do with my comment that world wide HIV is growing more in the heterosexual community. Sorry Joe you stuck you foot in your mouth one two many times don't try an wiggle out of it now. Moreover, it is irrelevant to marrige equality.

well lesbians have the lowest rate of HIV. and that is half of your sample sooo.

So can a lot of other things. What's your point.

@ Hearme, Now Joe will say your have no intelligence or some such nonsense. Whenever confronted with facts he runs home to the same banal argument. He seems to have disappeared for now probably copying and pasting his next argument from some right wing religious site. He owes the entire board an apology based on our previous debate but I'm sure he won't be man enough to actually provide one. I also notice he keeps saying people call him names when he is the one doing all the name calling. People like him often play the victim. Oh poor me people won't just let me say all these hateful, bigoted, and ignorant comments and keep quiet while I do. What a world, what a world.

so then you are ok with stealing? Nothing wrong with it, I need it, you have it. No moral argument there....

@ Joe, sorry you must stay on topic. Where is that apology?

@ Joe- Sorry Joe no deflection stay on topic. If you are a man of your word you will apologize to the board and shut up.

what u do in your bedroom is none of my business, when you try and force your social issues down my throat ( no pun) it become my fight!

@ Joe- Once again you provide no evidence why it would effect you in the least. Where is that apology?

@Portia, nor should ignorance, bigotry, prejudice, hatred, or stupidity. However if you look here you will see all of these conditions.

Joe google "gay marriage, Judge Scalia" it will blow your mind.

@Joe, I can read and you ignored the statistics on Africa. In fact you wouldn't even look at them because how did you put it. "And don't use Africa their still playing with voodoo dolls" So Joe is not a man of his word. Big surprise there. LOL Oh and that should be they are not their.

Oh look Joe managed to get a personal attack and play victim in the same post.

@ Joe , Perhaps you should take a writing course. Your comments get worse and worse by the minute.

Joe, I stated that seniors are the fastest going group of people being infected with STD's. I never said they have a higher incidence of HIV or AIDS. At least as of yet. I don't think I need that statistics course, but you might want a refresher course in reading comprehension. I understand they have adult education classes locally if you need to find them just let us know and I will post a link for you. A link is something you can click on with your cursor (The little thing that blinks on your computer screen.) and your computer will have a new page pop up right in front of your eyes. If that is to difficult for you I can make it a bit more simple if needed.

@Joe LOL you know you got them on the ropes when all they can do is swear and whine. Need some cheese with that Joe?

It's Davey not Davy. LOL duh

Okay you got the facts lets hear the apology. Are you man enough?

@ Joe, You just make it too easy there Joe. Ignorance is an easy target. In fact, it paints it own target.

Okay Joe I'll check back later for that apology.

So you will not apologize even after I have proved my point and given you the facts. Joe it's one thing to disagree but when you can't be a man about being wrong you're worthless.

A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.

@Joe- A more relevant question would be is English your second language. I'm sure you can manage that apology in your best writing.

@ Joe, That's the most intelligent thing you have said on the entire thread. I must be wearing off onto you. :)

I klnow it stings Joe but best to get it done quickly. Come on be a man and admit you were wrong.

@ Joe, I didn't copy and paste anything I gave you a link. A link that you asked for I might add.

Joe, here's the problem. You want facts on something that has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is law. Christie vetoed an attempt to create a new law. This raises not moral judgements but legal ones. You can't go in front of the Supreme Court and say this is immoral. You have to prove why its immoral based apron laws. I cited Justice Scalia decision in Lawrence Vs Texas where he said, "no legitimate state interest" i.e. unless the action of marriage is in some way conflicts with laws on the books with the state there is no reason for this not to pass. Christie said he did not disagree with the bill, but felt it should be put to the people. In other words he handed off the ball. This is why you saw in the early 2000's persons trying to pass marriage bills where marriage was only between a man and a woman. get it?
So you can get angry and you can bring up where and how our laws were developed, and you can even state an opinion, but at the end of the day... its just that. an opinion.
Will never change the fact of how and why bills become laws. So. unless you can find a legal reason for gay marriage to no exist, or how the act of same sex persons marring impacts your civil rights ( not your social mores) then you are just moaning about something you disagree with. get it. You have every right to disagree and no one will ever begrudge that.

So if you really disagree call your state congressperson and ask for a law of traditional marriage. good luck.

no. but you also can't marry a man and a woman at the same time. So you should get that divorce finalized.

wow u need to read your post, take it to a counselor and get help! Listen to your anger and hatred? And u blame Christians??? wow lady I fell for your children

@ Joe, Do you (fell) bad for her children there Joe? Perhaps a typing course would round your education off a bit. P.S. Apology still outstanding.

you give him too much credit... I just described this exchange to my wife and she described him as an oxygen thief. She has a way with words.

@ Joe- So you arn't going to man up Joe?

@ Patrick. Funny how Joe seems to think the country was founded on Christianity when even Thomas Jefferson specifically said that it was not. Hey Joe you want a link to that also? Where is that apology you owe the board?

arrrrgggggghhhhhhhhhh.. Joe.
where in the laws of New Jersey does it say, a man can't marry a man and a woman can't marry a woman. Stay focused here. THAT is the issue. nothing else.
what LAW .

and no. you don't have the right to marry 4 women, unless you move to another country. ok move past that thought and focus, FOCUS on what law makes same sex marriage illegal. remember focus.

@ Patrick, Joe has been trying to get by on the slippery slope fallacy but I slapped him down. I am waiting for him to say the education link I sent him is another left wing liberal conspiracy.

The slippery slope thing is so funny. I can't imagine how his mind works but I bet it would be a great horror movie. Joe, if you were "Allowed to marry more than one women" (And women would be allowed to marry more than one man.) I don't think you would need to worry. I would be shocked to find that you could find that many women that would marry a man as closed minded as you and so against her having any rights.
Lets see that slippery slop has to include drugs, prostitution, multiple partners. bestiality, abortions, birth control, women going to school and being allowed to vote. OMG we already allow some of this! That's that slippery slope you were talking about. First they allowed women to vote and walk beside their husbands and then birth control and even allowed them to have jobs. I just knew this would lead to this slippery slope I'm telling you that bestiality and women holding positions in government are next! We can't have that OMG THE INHUMANITY OF IT ALL!!!!

@ Joe- I'm surprised you managed to spell Constitutional correctly. You as a teacher of anything is truly a scary thought. Being able to teach requires knowledge and understanding something you obviously lack. I'm sure you think you know the Constitution but as usual you have not made an argument based on the Constitution or the precedents set by the SCOTUS. P.S. that apology is still outstanding.

Loving v Virginia. I'm glad you finally admitted your education is lacking. TTFN.

its not in the constitution. but i'd love to hear your take on the 3/5th compromise.

@ Hearme, Joe is under the delusion that he can interpret a document as complicated as the Constitution with his limited knowledge and the help of Sunday School.

@ Joe, sorry your not my type I prefer humans not ring wing religious robots. So when can we expect that apology?

@ Joe. sorry you have to do better than the slippery slope fallacy and expect to get it past intelligent people. What else you got?
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

Here is Joe's only argument. Argumentum ad nauseam.

Joe, I'm sorry. But... You are either learning disabled with a comprehension problem, or a moron. I have a difficult time even understanding what you write, and maybe its the language barrier, do you speak Spanish, but this is a circular conversation I just can't handle any longer. I just can't explain it to you any longer... I understand your side of the argument better then you do... sooo

She was curious why I was laughing at my computer (you) and I explained what you where saying.... actually reading your words verbatim and she responded with "oxygen thief".
But she is a very smart women, and she is now getting upset that I am wasting my time here... I explained its like staring at a car wreck (you) of personal debasement.

@ Joe, Seriously the slippery slope fallacy is your only argument against marriage equality? Still looking for you to be a man.

@Hearme, Joe is just like a little child trying to get the last word in an argument so he can continue his delusion of superiority. If you have noticed he seems to think he is more intelligent than everyone on the board despite his lack of debate skills, knowledge, critical thinking skills, or facts. Ah well here is hoping better of the next generation in his family.

@Hearme, The funny thing is when asked directly all those questions you posed they never have a answer that doesn't basically boil down to "because I said so". No facts, no logic, no compassion, no understanding, no empathy. It's rather pathetic to know we continue to have people like this in our society.

Joe go ahead and marry 5 wives. I really couldn't care less. The law may think differently.

Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814,

... the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced or knew that such a character existed.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Major John Cartwright, June 5, 1824

The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Jeremiah Moor, 1800

If] the nature of ... government [were] a subordination of the civil to the ecclesiastical power, I [would] consider it as desperate for long years to come. Their steady habits [will] exclude the advances of information, and they [will] seem exactly where they [have always been]. And there [the] clergy will always keep them if they can. [They] will follow the bark of liberty only by the help of a tow-rope.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Pierrepont, Edwards, July 1801,

I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Elbridge Gerry, 1799

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813

“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion”
George Washington quote