freakoutnation.com — New Jersey lawmakers gave their approval to legalizing gay marriage for the first time as the state Senate passed a bill that would allow marriage for same-sex couples even in the face of defiant Gov. Chris Christie’s promise to veto the legislation.
Feb 13, 2012 View in Crawl 4
skews13Feb 13, 2012
What a year so far for social conservatives. Lets review: Prop 8 overturned in California. Gay marriage bills pass in New Jersey, and Washington, with the governor of Washington signing the bill into law. Catholic Bishops, and Evangelical Christians lose the fight on contraception coverage. Evangelicals still reeling from failure of personhood amendment in Mississippi. And it's just Febuary. Wait until a lot of the far right anti abortion legislation that has been rammed down peoples throats by far right state legislatures is overturned in federal courts. Looks like the American Taliban isn't going to have a good year.
anomaly100Feb 13, 2012
I asked someone that supports Personhood in the South if they would go after birth control next. My 'friend' said, No I don't think so. Here we are.
usarugulaFeb 14, 2012
As with slavery, the North gets it before the South.
kcast985Feb 14, 2012
seriously that was a terrible comparison
salbatrossFeb 15, 2012
How so? The abolition of slavery was a step (albeit on an entirely different scale) in the direction of equal rights. So is this.
cme884Feb 15, 2012
The north OKed slavery before the south? Your wording is poor.
beverlystilesFeb 14, 2012
Occasionally I am proud to live in Jersey!
kcast985Feb 14, 2012
Congratulations New Jersey on passing gay marriage too bad you have a bigot in office who will veto the bill
reverantFeb 14, 2012
Conscience? pfft
more like votes with bias
atomheartmotherFeb 14, 2012
So a vote for the measure is by decree a vote of conscience rather than politics, and votes against it were the opposite?The veracity of the issue aside, that is an asinine contention.
Then again it's a FON submission, so I guess that's redundant.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
reaper527Feb 14, 2012
you've been here long enough to know that a vote supporting a liberal agenda is voting based on conscience and anything that opposes it is merely obstructionist ;)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rsmongeFeb 15, 2012
i'm just going to come out and say it...
you make a valid point. it is unfair to call one side a vote of conscience simply because it supports your agenda.
however, to call it asinine, is also unfair. this is how people in politics frequently frame their decisions.
if this is asinine, then conservatives live and die by asinine behavior.
atomheartmotherFeb 15, 2012
"i'm just going to come out and say it..."
I appreciate the candor, but is it really that difficult to admit when someone who isn't from "your side" has a valid point? It's almost as if it was painful for you.
rsmongeFeb 16, 2012
the point is correct regarding that particular criticism, however, the larger point is that restricting marriage to only heterosexual partners is discriminatory, bigoted, and offensive.
if i have any resistance to expressing that your point was valid, it is simply that i don't want my statement construed as support of a law that offends the very idea of rights.
atomheartmotherFeb 16, 2012
Fair enough, although I strongly disagree that restricting marriage to heterosexual partners is any of the things you claim. By definition, marriage is and always has been the union of male and female.
I have no problem granting same-sex couples all of the rights which marriage brings, but that union is not a marriage.
rsmongeFeb 16, 2012
there is no difference between the racist laws against mixed couples getting married we once had, and this bigoted law against same sex couples. none.
and we already know that calling something by another name inherently makes it unequal. marriage has changed in the past, and will continue to change. deal with it.
your grandchildren will be embarrassed of you. please write them letters telling them why you believed what you did, so it will never be forgotten how you promoted laws which support discrimination.
atomheartmotherFeb 16, 2012
"there is no difference between the racist laws against mixed couples getting married"
Sure there is. Marriage was still a union of male and female, but some were being discriminated against based solely upon their skin color. In that case, the institution itself wasn't being redefined, people were simply being shut out.
And please don't tell me what my grandchildren will think, you presumptuous a-hole.
rsmongeFeb 18, 2012
and you're advocating restricting rights based on their sexual preference. there is no difference.
i'm telling you right now that had you lived 50 years ago you would be against mixed marriages.
i'm telling you right now that had you lived 100 years ago you would be against voting rights for women.
i'm telling you right now that had you lived 2 hundred years ago you would be against the abolition of slavery.
that's the legacy of people such as yourself. you never see the correct ethical path. rights are universal. you can't take them away without a very, very, very serious reason. being gay, is not even a vaguely serious reason.
rsmongeFeb 18, 2012
i dare say, confidently, that you yourself will look back 20 years from now, after there is marriage equality for everybody and you've lived with it a while, and say:
'i was wrong to oppose marriage equality.'
and you'll feel kind of dumb. might as well figure it out right now because there's no stopping it.
chassupFeb 14, 2012
New Jersey already has a bad smell, this makes it worse.
tomasiiFeb 14, 2012
It's only conscience if you support gay marriage. If you are against it, it is politics...That's the message here isn't it?
grannysrightFeb 14, 2012
pure politics. Conscience had nothing to do with this.