The Great New Jersey Civil Rights Referendum of 2012

[Former Moderate]

It's fourth and 34. Chris Christie drops back ...

... and he punts!

Christie wants marriage equality issue on the ballot

"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.

The move pushed State Sen. Bateman off the fence and into the "no" column, effectively killing the State Senate's chances of overriding a Christie veto.

[Holmes]

Oh. Cool.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Great, another referendum that will end up a narrow loss and disappointment.

[krazen1211]

This would better be called the great Steve Sweeney Senate campaign of 2014.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Great, another referendum that will end up a narrow loss and disappointment.

I doubt it at this point. New Jersey is quickly becoming fairly solid in support for gay marriage.

[Simfan34]

I'd say this will pass. However is shall be used against Christie in the wake of Romney's loss.

[Holmes]

Great, another referendum that will end up a narrow loss and disappointment.

I doubt it at this point. New Jersey is quickly becoming fairly solid in support for gay marriage.

Until the ads about how their children will learn how to have gay sex start airing. Not in my school!

[asexual trans victimologist]

Great, another referendum that will end up a narrow loss and disappointment.

I doubt it at this point. New Jersey is quickly becoming fairly solid in support for gay marriage.

Until the ads about how their children will learn how to have gay sex start airing. Not in my school!

My hope would be that the side of the angels will actually bother to run some decent advertising, too. Obviously the krazens and other such creepy-crawlies will turn out against this, but they're not the only people in the state, thank God.

[krazen1211]

Great, another referendum that will end up a narrow loss and disappointment.

They need 3/5 in both houses to even get referenum status for an amendment. After moaning and groaning and whining about how GOP legislatures were focused on social issues its very funny to see this legislature try to push their wedge issue and insult people of faith.

[asexual trans victimologist]

How is this remotely insulting to anybody? The phrase 'and Religious Exemption' is even in the title of the bill, specifically for the benefit of people who follow those benighted churches that still adhere to ungodly gender determinism.

This is not a wedge issue and it is not even really a social issue. It properly belongs to the province of rights and Constitutional law.

[Fuzzy]

After moaning and groaning and whining about how GOP legislatures were focused on social issues its very funny to see this legislature try to push their wedge issue and insult people of faith.

[krazen1211]

How is this remotely insulting to anybody? The phrase 'and Religious Exemption' is even in the title of the bill, specifically for the benefit of people who follow those benighted churches that still adhere to ungodly gender determinism.

This is not a wedge issue and it is not even really a social issue. It properly belongs to the province of rights and Constitutional law.

Dov Hikind already answered that question.

In any case, you are correct about one thing. The various states have chosen to ensure the safety of traditional marriage via the amendment process by modifying Constitutional Text. It has worked beautifully, 31 times now.

[asexual trans victimologist]

How is this remotely insulting to anybody? The phrase 'and Religious Exemption' is even in the title of the bill, specifically for the benefit of people who follow those benighted churches that still adhere to ungodly gender determinism.

This is not a wedge issue and it is not even really a social issue. It properly belongs to the province of rights and Constitutional law.

Dov Hikind already answered that question.

I don't care about Dov Hikind's opinion.

In any case, you are correct about one thing. The various states have chosen to ensure the safety of traditional marriage via the amendment process by modifying Constitutional Text. It has worked beautifully, 31 times now.

In a way that violates the Federal Constitution on its face (not to mention human rights, the Kingdom of God, and the basic decency of kindness) no matter how many elderly and confused or young and spite-filled people say otherwise, yes they have. But you don't seem to care about that as long as you and yours can keep the icky Other people out of your perfect world with its tiny problems, and I suppose I should stop expecting you to. But it is very like me always to tilt against windmills, so once more I'd like to say: Stop taking advantage of other people's genuine if confused and frightened feelings to further your own petty hatreds and amoral spite. Not only will it make things better for everybody else, it'll make things better for you as well. I guarantee it.

Washington is likelier than not to extend the marriage franchise regardless of putative 'gender' this year, New Jersey moderately so, and I am afraid that at some point in your life you will simply have to deal with living in a world in which your cold, anti-human, hydraulic conception of love won't carry the political weight that it used to when it comes to issues of making other people's lives worse than they have to be so you can feel better about yourself. Sorry, but you'll have to find some other way to do that when that happens. Might I suggest learning an instrument or taking up crochet?

[President Marokai]

Great, another referendum that will end up a narrow loss and disappointment.

They need 3/5 in both houses to even get referenum status for an amendment. After moaning and groaning and whining about how GOP legislatures were focused on social issues its very funny to see this legislature try to push their wedge issue and insult people of faith.

I don't usually do this, but:

[dudehere92]

I will be voting on the gay marriage law in NJ. I support domestic partership benefits for same-sex couples, but marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman and children are best raised either with 2 parents of different gender or one parent. I will be voting no.

[Former Moderate]

I will be voting on the gay marriage law in NJ. I support domestic partership benefits for same-sex couples, but marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman and children are best raised either with 2 parents of different gender or one parent. I will be voting no.

lol.

[asexual trans victimologist]

I will be voting on the gay marriage law in NJ. I support domestic partership benefits for same-sex couples, but marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman and children are best raised either with 2 parents of different gender or one parent. I will be voting no.

What could possibly make one parent better than two of the same sex, all else being equal? I ask this, you should understand, as a person who was raised by a single mother.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

I will be voting on the gay marriage law in NJ. I support domestic partership benefits for same-sex couples, but marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman and children are best raised either with 2 parents of different gender or one parent. I will be voting no.

Are you aware that the weight of credible studies from a range of sources completely disagree with this claim?  Also, do you think we should discourage gay couples from adopting children, even if they're inferior parents (which they're not)?  Tens of thousands of children in this country age out of foster care!

And why aren't straight couples subject to the same strict efficacy tests when getting married?   It's never even really been socially taboo for infertile straight couples to marry, so why do we only start caring about this (invented) norm once gay folks want to get married?

It's just such an untenably bad policy.

[Joe Republic]

I will be voting on the gay marriage law in NJ. I support domestic partership benefits for same-sex couples, but marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman and children are best raised either with 2 parents of different gender or one parent. I will be voting no.

Are you aware that the weight of credible studies from a range of sources completely disagree with this claim?

Here's some legwork I did a while back, which will support your statement:

Search for "effect of gay parents on children" in Google Scholar, and here's what you'll find just on Page 1:

• "To date, however, there is no evidence that the development of children with lesbian or gay parents is compromised in any significant respect relative to that among children of heterosexual parents in otherwise comparable circumstances."
  
  
• "In 1995 the American Psychological Association published an annotated bibliography reviewing 25 years of research on gay and lesbian parented families that overwhelmingly refuted concerns that parents’ sexual object choice alone presents a threat to children or an impediment to their development." ... "Results of these studies contribute to the growing understanding that the sexual orientation of the parent does not pose a threat to children’s emotional well-being."
  
  
• "The author's study found that adult-aged daughters of lesbian mothers did not significantly differ from adult daughters of heterosexual mothers on gender identity, gender role, sexual orientation, and social adjustment."
  
  
• "Research findings suggest that unless and until the weight of evidence can be shown to have shifted, parental sexual orientation should be considered irrelevant to disputes involving child custody, visitation, foster care, and adoption."
  
  
• "The results demonstrate no differences on any measures between the heterosexual and homosexual parents regarding parenting styles, emotional adjustment, and sexual orientation of the child(ren). In other words, the data fail to support the continuation of a bias against homosexual parents by any court."
  
  
• "The body of literature generally concludes that children with lesbian and gay parents are developing psychologically, intellectually, behaviorally, and emotionally in positive directions, and that the sexual orientation of parents is not an effective or important predictor of successful child development."
  

[Former Moderate]

The New Jersey State Senate voted to legalize gay marriage by a 24–16 margin yesterday, largely down party lines. State Senators Diane Allen (R-07) and Jennifer Beck (R-11) sided with the good guys. State Sens. Jeff Van Drew (D-1) and Ron Rice (D-28) sided with the forces of darkness.

27 votes would be needed to override a Christie veto.