Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 74

Thread: Chris Christie vetoes bill allowing same-sex marriage bill

  1. #1

    Chris Christie vetoes bill allowing same-sex marriage bill

    AP

    [QUOTE]TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - NJ Gov. Chris Christie vetoes bill allowing same-sex marriage a day after Assembly passes it[/QUOTE]

  2. #2
    [QUOTE=Mantle & Namath;4371546]AP[/QUOTE]

    Yeah.

    That sucks for you, Tyler. Sorry.

  3. #3
    As a citizen of CT this should continue to help keep our wedding halls and catering establishments full. Thanks Chris!

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4371553]As a citizen of CT this should continue to help keep our wedding halls and catering establishments full. Thanks Chris![/QUOTE]

    NY is closer.

  5. #5
    Lets hear the Christie supporters defend this. This a pure political bs, he wants to run for President and would rather deny a certain groups rights, so he can appease the right.

  6. #6
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Old Bridge, New Jersey, United States
    Posts
    1,162
    [QUOTE=cr726;4371650]Lets hear the Christie supporters defend this. This a pure political bs, he wants to run for President and would rather deny a certain groups rights, so he can appease the right.[/QUOTE]

    I support him ....this is meaningless to me

    Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=cr726;4371650]Lets hear the Christie supporters defend this. This a pure political bs, he wants to run for President and would rather deny a certain groups rights, so he can appease the right.[/QUOTE]

    I won't pretend to know Christie's intentions, but is it really impossible he sincerely shares an opinion that many other people subscribe to?

    Or is it automatically BS because you don't agree?

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=OCCH;4371657]I won't pretend to know Christie's intentions, but is it really impossible he sincerely shares an opinion that many other people subscribe to?

    Or is it automatically BS because you don't agree?[/QUOTE]

    I think it is political BS because he isn't really a strict social conservative, or at least, has not really displayed that part of his persona.

  9. #9
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,504
    [QUOTE=sackdance;4371550]Yeah.

    That sucks for you, [B]Tyler[/B]. Sorry.[/QUOTE]

    No way.

    [QUOTE=piney;4371667]I think it is political BS because he isn't really a strict social conservative, or at least, has not really displayed that part of his persona.[/QUOTE]

    That's not totally true. He has references his pro life/anti gay marriage positions since before he was elected. He just doesn't ram it down everyone's throat like a typical social conservative.

  10. #10
    1. This was an absolute political move by the governor who has had eyes on much bigger prizes then being governor of NJ.

    2. So that puts him in the same class as almost every politician I have seen/read/studied.

    3. From a non-political perspective this move is a disgrace. It is, without question, a civil rights issue and he put his personal aspirations ahead of it.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,786
    LOL. I can't believe people are still threatened by gays. Who cares if they get married? This never made any sense to me.

    I tend to be more conservative and I have no issues with gay marriage.

    Where is McGreevy when you need him?

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,786
    [QUOTE=cr726;4371650]Lets hear the Christie supporters defend this. This a pure political bs, [/QUOTE]

    Please don't force-feed your ideologies. You are no better than Christie when you do this.

    People are entitled to opinions. Doesn't make them bad people. I think Christie is good for NJ. This is not that big of a deal. They can come to NY and get married. NYC will gladly take the revenues.

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=DDNYjets;4371708]Please don't force-feed your ideologies. You are no better than Christie when you do this.

    People are entitled to opinions. Doesn't make them bad people. I think Christie is good for NJ. This is not that big of a deal. They can come to NY and get married. NYC will gladly take the revenues.[/QUOTE]

    It's a big deal if you are gay.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=cr726;4371650]Lets hear the Christie supporters defend this. This a pure political bs, he wants to run for President and would rather deny a certain groups rights, so he can appease the right.[/QUOTE]

    Marriage is a right?

  15. #15
    I have no problem with gays and gay relationships, but marriage is another matter. This is a door that need not be universally opened. It is not necessary and sets a bad precedent.
    It does have a negative financial effect - things like insurance coverage.
    If a gay person wants to ive with another fine. Leave them money - fine. Just put it in writing. Visit you in a hospital - fine. Put it in writing. Pull the plug. Same. No loss of rights or lifestyle limitaions.
    From another standpoint. How about marriage becomes freewheeling. One man, two women. Or more. One women, two men or more. How about 4 men married to each other? Twelve year olds - no problem with consent. Where does it end? Standards need to be maintained.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4371750]I have no problem with gays and gay relationships, but marriage is another matter. This is a door that need not be universally opened. It is not necessary and sets a bad precedent.
    It does have a negative financial effect - things like insurance coverage.
    If a gay person wants to ive with another fine. Leave them money - fine. Just put it in writing. Visit you in a hospital - fine. Put it in writing. Pull the plug. Same. No loss of rights or lifestyle limitaions.
    From another standpoint. How about marriage becomes freewheeling. One man, two women. Or more. One women, two men or more. How about 4 men married to each other? Twelve year olds - no problem with consent. Where does it end? Standards need to be maintained.[/QUOTE]

    Whoop wool....straw man appearance! How about a man marrying a dog...you know that's what they want next!

  17. #17
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,792
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4371750]One man, two women. Or more.[/QUOTE]

    And what's wrong with that?

  18. #18
    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4Z7tl7Vy8U[/url]

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4371750]I have no problem with gays and gay relationships, but marriage is another matter. This is a door that need not be universally opened. It is not necessary and sets a bad precedent.
    It does have a negative financial effect - things like insurance coverage.
    If a gay person wants to ive with another fine. Leave them money - fine. Just put it in writing. Visit you in a hospital - fine. Put it in writing. Pull the plug. Same. No loss of rights or lifestyle limitaions.
    From another standpoint. How about marriage becomes freewheeling. One man, two women. Or more. One women, two men or more. How about 4 men married to each other? Twelve year olds - no problem with consent. Where does it end? Standards need to be maintained.[/QUOTE]

    It boggles my mind in the 21st century people still talk like this.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=Ernie;4371746]Marriage is a right?[/QUOTE]



    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia[/url]

    In its decision, the court wrote:
    [QUOTE]"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."[/QUOTE]

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zablocki_v._Redhail[/url]

    Justice Thurgood Marshall stated:
    [QUOTE]"the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals."[/QUOTE]
    Last edited by Mantle & Namath; 02-18-2012 at 02:02 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us