New Jersey Lower House Passes Senate Bill Legalizing Queer Marriages; Gov. Chris Christie Promises Swift Veto
Although I don’t agree with N.J. Governor Chris Christie’s fatuous embrace of Islam, I am more than pleased to see that he hasn’t given in to the gay agenda:
N.J. Assembly passes gay marriage bill
TRENTON— Even as Gov. Chris Christie’s threat of a “swift” veto looms, gay rights activists basked today after the state Assembly took final action on a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in New Jersey.
[…]
The Senate, which failed to pass a gay marriage bill two years ago, easily approved it Monday. The governor’s office last night would not say when Christie would respond.
Today’s 42-33 tally did not include a single Republican vote, and two Democrats from Cape May County — Nelson Albano and Matthew Milam — voted no.
Gay rights activists were joyous after the vote, vowing they’d fight to overturn Christie’s expected veto — and saying it bolsters a gay marriage court challenge in its early stages.
[…]
It will be tough, however, to overturn Christie’s expected veto. Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-Mercer), a sponsor of the bill (A-1) and one of two openly gay lawmakers, said supporters have until the legislative session ends in January 2014 to garner the nearly dozen more votes needed to override. He said it had won nearly ten Assembly votes in recent weeks.
In today’s debate, several lawmakers, including Oliver, said they initially opposed gay marriage or struggled with the decision because of their religious beliefs.
Assemblyman Charles Mainor (D-Hudson) said he had believed voting yes would emotionally harm children and force them into therapy. “I felt this way because I was ignorant,’’ he said. “And I was ignorant because I didn’t educate myself.”
Assemblyman Troy Singleton (D-Burlington), a sponsor, said that as a former altar boy at an urban Catholic parish, “this road wasn’t very easy to get to.”
Assemblywoman Cleopatra Tucker (D-Essex), a deaconness in her church, said she also struggled over her decision.
“In my final hours, I came to the conclusion that the people sent me from my district here to vote for what was right and to protect all the people … regardless of their gender, race, religion or sexual preference,” she said. “This bill today is not a religious issue. It’s a civil rights issue.”
Um… No it isn’t. It’s a sexual perversion issue. Gays have the same rights as all Americans; they can marry just about anyone they want to, provided it’s of the opposite sex. Hey, here in Missouri, I can’t legally marry a cousin or a close blood relative. Am I being discriminated against, too? I don’t think so. Nope. No civil rights issue there. It’s a moralistic and naturalistic issue.
Should we now support pedophiles under the auspices of a civil rights issue? Certainly not! You either support debauchery or you don’t. As a Christian, you either support God’s law or you don’t. Where’s the civil rights angle in that?
Republicans opposing the bill said the vote on gay marriage belongs to New Jersey residents — as Christie has urged — rather than 120 lawmakers and the governor.
“Who should be the ultimate judge on deciding this issue? Should it be the 121 of us in Trenton? Or should we let the people of New Jersey decide?’’ said Assemblywoman Nancy Munoz (R-Union) “I trust the people of New Jersey and believe that they should be allowed to voice their opinion for a vote.”
Hey, in a Libtarded politician’s mind, America is a “Great Democracy” if the majority of Americans agree with him/her. The moment “We the People” disagree with the politicians, America suddenly reverts to a Republic again and the politicians scramble to ram unpopular legislation down our throats. Go figure.
[…]
Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers in New Hampshire are hard at work repealing the queer marriage law enacted during a recent DemonRat controlled legislature.
Explore posts in the same categories: Abuse of Power, Gay Agenda, Government, Leftists, Liberals, politics, Religion
Doctor Bulldog & Ronin 
17 February, 2012 at 12:57 pm
As Dennis Prager said on his show this afternoon, soon brothers and sisters will be permitted to marry, and why not? What argument can be made against it? Once the door to gay ‘marriage’ is opened, the definition of marriage will continue to grow in absurdity. Why not marry your car? Pet? Why not allow three people to marry as a ‘unit’? There will be no end to this. Very troubling, indeed.
19 February, 2012 at 3:47 pm
As some of you know the good doctor and I had a cordial give and take on homosexuals some time ago, the doc through the lens of religion and I through the lens of history. Our POV were quite different. As far as homosexual marriage goes, I agree with the doc, but not because of the doc’s reasons.
All throughout written history and even before, homosexuals have been part of every civilization on every content of the world (except possibly Antarctica). Among the ancient people only the Jewish people and their religion considered homosexuality a criminal act. See http://epistle.us/hbarticles/neareast.html . Now Christianity because it sprang from the Jewish religion also condemns homosexuality. Even though different sects of many religions today may either frown on homosexuality or embrace it, only the cult of islam which employs a bastardized versions of Judaism and Christianity and it’s founders fantasies is homosexuality an act for which you will be killed.
The doc still likes to toss out a few strawmen to try and make his point, “Hey, here in Missouri, I can’t legally marry a cousin or a close blood relative. Am I being discriminated against, too? ” No, there are some strong medical reasons and biblical reasons for this. I tend to lean toward the medical reasons. “As a Christian, you either support God’s law or you don’t.” As a religious person I would expect that you would. BUT remember Jesus said “render unto caesar that which is caesars and to god that which is gods.” And Jesus didn’t just mean money.
I believe homosexuals should have the right to a civil union the same as heterosexuals have the right to marriage. A civil union performed by a judge or a justice of the peace. This civil union certificate would carry the same weight as a marriage license, granting them the same socio-economic benefits as heterosexuals PLUS all of the pitfalls, such as when you end a civil union you must employ the services of our modern day blood sucking vampires, better known as divorce lawyers. All the civil laws that apply to me and my wife as a “married” couple such as bigamy and adultery etc. likewise would apply to a “civil union” between two men or two women.
Remember in Genesis 1:26 God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness…” God did not make any exceptions for skin color or sexual orientations. Only man did.
20 February, 2012 at 12:54 pm
My buddy Pete had this to say about marrying blood relatives: “I tend to lean toward the medical reasons.”
What medical reasons? You are assuming that children would be born to this couple. Queers can’t have children, so that makes it alright for them to get married in your mind, right? So, what if the “kissing cousins” were sterile? Does that mean that an exception from the law should be granted to them, too? A slippery slope indeed.
Furthermore, you assume that my views on homosexuality are based solely on religious objections. That is a fallacy. My views are also based on “medical reasons.” Succinctly put, a homosexual lifestyle is actually worse to one’s health than smoking.
Cheers
20 February, 2012 at 5:33 pm
Come now doc, you know and I know that homosexuals can not procreate with each other. If you read my post I said homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, marriage has as many have said traditionally has been between a man and a woman ( with a few exceptions, most notably Roman Emperor Caligula marrying his horse in secret which may or may not be true) performed by some religious person. A civil union performed by a judge or a justice of the peace would get around that problem.
The medical reasons are obvious and that is why I said you should not and in some states it is illegal to marry a blood relative, the typical problem with having children with a blood relation is that there is too much of a potential of having recessive traits show up as a result of inbreeding. This was famously true of all the royal families of Europe who inbred and became hemophiliacs. In February, 2008, British environment minister Phil Woolas sparked a major row in the United Kingdom when he attributed the high rate of birth defects in the Pakistani community to the practice of marriages between first cousins. “If you have a child with your cousin, the likelihood is there will be a genetic problem,” (and as we can see in pakistan the vast majority of those problems are mental).
The bible also bans marriage between blood relatives and are defined in Leviticus 21:2-3. The passage speaks from a male perspective and includes mother, father, sons, daughters, brother, and one’s virgin sister. The reverse would be true for a women. The expression “To come near” has the idea of approaching a person for the purpose of sexual relations. The Hebrew words for “uncover nakedness” imply sexual relations. Ezekiel 16:36 makes this clear. Now medical knowledge at the time the bible was written was not as advanced as it is today but it is quite possible the reason the bible says you cannot marry a blood relative could be because in Egypt it was common for marriages between close relatives and for the pharaohs to marry blood relatives to keep the royal blood line in one family. The Jews who spent over 400 years in Egypt could see the many medical problems the Egyptian families had and thus put the ban on marrying blood relatives in the bible to keep the same fate from befalling the Jews.
“Furthermore, you assume that my views on homosexuality are based solely on religious objections. That is a fallacy.”
It would appear I read more into your statements and posts than I should have and made an assumption that I should not have.
“Succinctly put, a homosexual lifestyle is actually worse to one’s health than smoking.”
If you are a homosexual and live in a moslem country you are 100% correct.
ent over 400
21 February, 2012 at 1:42 pm
http://www.endeavourforum.org.au/Newsletters/2007/smoking.html
Cheers
21 February, 2012 at 5:10 pm
The info in your URL backs up what I have known for quite sometime. When I was a department manager I had several homosexuals working for me, (never had a problem with their work as opposed to some non gay workers). One day when I went into the lunch room 2 of them were discussing gay marriage, and how unfair it was that they could not have the same HR benefits as married couples. I explained that yes there are benefits to being married and also pitfalls – I explained the concepts of bigamy and adultery and blood sucking divorce lawyers. I never heard them talking about gay marriage again.
Psychologically I have found (mostly in dealing with my own children) that giving them what they want when they don’t totally know all the ramifications of what they want is best. Smoking with your friends looks cool until you smoke 2 packs of cigarettes in a row and get sick, then it’s not cool any more.
Giving homosexuals the right to a civil union with all the rights of a married couple (and pitfalls) you will at first have a huge push to be joined in a civil union. Then when the charges of adultery and bigamy start to multiply and the realization that divorce lawyers are really very costly blood suckers sets in the number of civil unions will substantially decrease as your URL points out and this fuss over gay marriage will die out, you have given them what they want, now they must live with it.
20 February, 2012 at 8:44 pm
Doc, I think your server is dumping my reply into the spam folder again. Or for some reason you deleted it.
20 February, 2012 at 8:48 pm
Ignore my last post I think I am having a problem with my computer when I read the comments , my reply was missing when I posted my last post it showed up.
21 February, 2012 at 1:34 pm
Yup. The automatic SPAM filter dumped it. I pulled it out of the trash. Sorry about that.
Cheers