This is a civil rights issue and not a liberal issue, unless you want to suggest that all Republicans are haters.

For the hundredth time... this has nothing to do with religion, it is only LEGAL marriage that is affected!

Lurky lets take away YOUR ability to be insured through your spouse, let's not give YOU survivor benefits if your spouse dies, and let's deny YOUR access to your spouse when they are in the hospital. Now, how does that feel? Every other married person has all the above rights except you, because you Lurky are not as good as everyone else. How's that feel? More importantly is it the right thing to do? Is it fair? NO No No.....get it?

Can you read Selene?? Apparently not, as I have stated above, no ones right are being taken away. They passed the civil union law in 2007 AND Christie made sure an advocate was appointed to make sure of it when he vetoed the bill. Prove to me they have no rights. Who's denying them rights?? The Federal law is different from the state's and should be taken up with the FED. Therein lies the problem, not the state of NJ.

Oh and just one more thing... If you got a job that ONLY offered health Ins for that particular person working at said job and not for your entire family, does that make them wrong too for not offering coverage for your spouse and children. Would you label them hetrophobic??

If this had been written objectively as a news article, I understand your point, but that was not the case here. The standards of journalism have been deteriorating for years, and this is another instance of that. When I took journalism courses, the first rule that I learned was that you do not editorialize in a news story. Every news out let today, from the revered New York Times on down violates this principle every day, and readers have become inured to the lack of objectivity in news reporting. It is a sad state of affairs. This article was couched in terms of making a recommendation to the Democrat party. If that is not editorializing, I do not know what is.

Joe Lang

Taken from Wikipedia: On December 14, 2006, the New Jersey Legislature passed a bill providing for civil unions[6] which was signed into law by the Governor Jon Corzine on December 21, 2006. The Civil Union Act came into effect on February 19, 2007.

Same-sex couples who enter into a civil union are provided almost all of the rights granted to married couples under New Jersey state law. However, under the provisions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA, same-sex couples in marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships do not have any right or entitlement to the 1,138 rights that a married couple has under federal law.[7]

Yes, NJ DOES give the same rights as married couples, it's the FEDERAL law that does not reconize civil unions and as of June 18,2007 (one month after the bill passed), only 2 complaints have been made compared to the 270 complaints the month before. Now if you have a problem with federal law, I suggest that get taken up with Obeezy, otherwise I have no problem with the people of this state deciding wether or not to call it marriage which under federal law and out of Obeezy's own mouth that marriage is between a man and a woman.

@Lurky, operative word is ALMOST and furthermore, if there were absolutely NO problem with the current law, why would Christie recommend an "ombudsman" to help sort out complaints? The fact is that the law doesn't suffice for legal marriage in word or execution and there's no way to make treatment of gay couples consistent without consistent language and consistent status. I simply don't understand why there's such pushback about simplifying the government's involvement here; again, why is it so important to create "separate but equal" status? Do you think this is effective government? Smaller government? Job creating? Economy building? I just don't see why there's this craven lust to reject equality...like grade school bullies keeping other kids off the swings. And about as mature.

Well-said. Gay marriage will happen, here in NJ and across the US. Hopefully sooner than later, but it will happen. These kinds of discussions mean that young people grow up with more information, passion and common sense. And common sense eventually wins. So I've tried to stop wasting my energy fighting on this level. Those like Max enjoy the debate but likely won't change their minds.

Do something more productive like support www.gardenstateequality.org

Why, Nicole, I actually changed my mind -- from being completely indifferent to the whole issue just a week ago to a negative, if not particularly determined, opinion. Some people posting here achieve the exactly reverse effect of what they want to achieve. Many common-sense New Jerseyans like me don't mind gays or gay marriage, or just don't care enough; it's the aggressive, militant push and all the screeching about "haters" and "religious bigotry" that they dislike.

Max, I'm happy to read that you "don't mind gays." I wish I were as tolerant of Mondays and spiders as you are of the private lives of people other than yourself.

Dennis,

Just go back and look at the vote on the civil rights legislation in the 1960s. The bulk of the opposition came from Democrats, including the father of the man who has turned the global warming scare into a cash cow, Al Gore. Was Abraham Lincoln a Democrat?

The whole concept of civil rights has been perverted by the progressives who will find every way possible to intrude on individual rights. Our founders spoke of human rights that came from our Creator, not from the government. FDR tried to force through the concept of a Second Bill of Rights that was rightfully rejected because it was a list of rights granted by government. We are supposed to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people, not a country where the government dictates and controls ever increasing areas of our lives, and tells us what rights we have.

Joe Lang

I'm afraid Jow Lang has stumbled into some revisionist history. Yes, there was Democratic opposition, as well as Republican, to the '60s - era civil rights legislation, the Dems in opposition being almost all from the south. The leadeship for getting the laws passed was almost completely Dems. Good for them.

After passage, many of the Dixiecrats felt their segregationist (oops, sorry, "states rights") views were no longer being afforded enough respect in their own party. So they went elsewhere. They became Republicans.

Anyway, if Joe can name a 20th or 21st century Republican civil rights leader, I'll feel like we have something to talk about.

Equal rights indeed, Joe, not requiring government action to bestow them. How someone who really believes this could oppose giving all the same access to the benefits of marriage ...I don't quite follow.

> Anyway, if Joe can name a 20th or 21st century Republican civil rights
> leader, I'll feel like we have something to talk about.

I wonder, Dennis, if you flunked school that badly or were a tenured teacher there. Are you aware that Dr. Martin Luther King was a card-carrying Republican?

Max, I think you're trying to make me feel bad. And that was a good one. Almost.

MLK _Sr._ was clearly a repbulican. There appears to be little or no clear documentation on MLK Jr., and sources conflict. OK then, let's ask how he FELT about the political parties. This may help you get a handle on it ...

In "The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.," which was published after King's death from his written material and records, King called the 1964 Republican national convention that nominated Goldwater a "frenzied wedding ... of the KKK and the radical right."

Dennis, there is a testimony of King's niece that he was a Republican. I'm also wondering why Democrats have never elected a single African Americans from a white district, like those creepy Republicans did with Col. Allen West. Maybe the Dixiecrats are still running the show, they just forgot to tell you.

Max, I agree about MLK's neice. But MLK's son says the opposite, which is why I think the story is muddled. It's probably most accurate to say MLK never wanted to be seen as affiliated with either party, and that was probably a smart policy.

Looking back on it though, and considering how bad the southern Democrats were back then, if I put myself in the shoes of a black person living in, say, Mississippi, I might have signed up as a Republican too.

If we look at events from about 1960 forward, I think it's fair to say civil rights advances have come almost exclusively from the prodding of (non-southern) Dems, with of course the notable exception of LBJ.

Dennis, get me right. There's little love lost between me and national Republicans, and I have no intent to defend them or their record. I do know, however, that the last official KKK member happened to be a Democrat Senator, and I also know that a black Democrat candidate never won a white Congressional district. That tells me that racists should be looked for on both sides of the fence. It kinda makes MLK Jr right, doesn't it?

Sure, Selene. There's no reason to ask people's opinion, ever. These issues have to decided by the enlightened few -- they would have to agree with you to be called enlightened, of course -- and the rest should stand aside and clap enthusiastically as the rainbow parade goes by.

All religions recognize marriage, but that doesn't mean that all marriage is based on religions. An atheist can legally obtain a marriage license with absolutely no religious involvement. Thus, legal marriage has nothing to do with religion. You are correct that the first amendment forbids the government from forcing any religion to accept same sex marriage, however, the first amendment also forbids laws to be based on religions. Therefore, to reject a law allowing same sex marriage based on religious beliefs is just as much a violation of the first amendment as forcing religions to accept same sex marriage. However, no one is suggesting this, and the NJ bill explicitly forbids clergy from being forced to accept it.

As far as the country being found on Christian principles.... we've already had that argument, and you cannot find anything to substantiate that belief, other than some random quotes that are probably not even factual to begin with.

Minority group Rober??? I guess you hadn't heard that the majority of NJ voters support same sex marriage:

http://nj1015.com/poll-majority-of-nj-voters-support-gay-marriage/

If majority supports gay marriage, then Christie just threw the rainbow folk a lifeline. Let's have a referendum - as soon as the militant gays publicly promise to accept either result.

Rights are either rights or they aren't. They are not subject to the will of the people or a public question to be voted on. Once the State has determined that they are going to legalize marraige by issuing a permit and giving certain benefits to marraige then they have to give those rights to all adult citizens. It isn't about any religious prohibitions except in that those that relate to the beliefs of that Religion. no religious organization has to perform any rite of marraige that they don't believe in but marraige has a legal and civil function. What Judeo Christian belief said that slavery was OK and that slaves were property or that women had no rights?

Well, Dan, as soon as the State make you happy by legalizing your right to marry your sister...

Christie didn't throw a lifeline... he threw the responsibility of the decision on the voters, so he could deflect responsibility off of himself.

> Christie didn't throw a lifeline... he threw the responsibility of the decision on
> the voters, so he could deflect responsibility off of himself.

Huh? And what should he have done if he doesn't like gay marriage?

Be a man who sticks to his principles, and say; "I am vetoing this bill because I don't believe in same sex marriage". However, if he did that, he'd be going against the majority view. So instead, he weasels out by throwing it on the laps of the voters.

> Be a man who sticks to his principles, and say; "I am vetoing this bill because
> I don't believe in same sex marriage".

LOL, he would be insane to do that regardless of his opinion or actual population disposition; feeding liberal trolls in the media never works well. Besides, it may even be untrue: it is entirely possible that he does support gay marriage but wants to have a chance to play to nationwide GOP politics in 2016 or 2020.

Funnily, Dennis, you just made a great point. My right to gun ownership was put to a vote many times, severely diminishing it. When gays start protecting about MY constitutional right to carry a weapon, I will consider protecting what they perceive as THEIR constitutional right; until then, I perceive the gay marriage drive as a stick-it-to-the-conservatives, and treat it accordingly.

Once again Max, you're making a vast generalization that a gay person couldn't possibly support gun rights. There could very well be gays who are card carrying members of the NRA, who support the 2nd amdnement as vigorously as you do.

Hookerman, there are two openly gay members of New Jersey legislature and I don't remember them spearheading the repeal of blatantly unconstitutional NJ gun laws.

Ok Max, let's base the views of the whole gay population on two NJ legislators. BTW, I don't see Governor Christie, who vetoed the same sex marriage bill, working hard to repeal NJ gun laws. So what generalization do I make out of that? Anti gay republicans also hate the 2nd amendment???

Christie is to Republicans what Obama is to gays: he pays lip service while throwing as little red meat as possible their way. But he's got a solid hard on for the unions, and that's what I like him for, not his gay (or anti-gay) stance.

You mean that place where they hold old geezers like you?

Listen, Dan, I kinda enjoy rubbing your nose into every pile you make, but perhaps it's time we stop polluting a relatively sensible thread. If you have a burning need to insult and be insulted, do it on your own Patch page and send me the link.

As usual, Dan, you forgot to inform people who you are. Some outside of Montville may not know yet. You are a political hack with golden-age issues who was booted out of township office in disgrace and sent out to pasture. That's all you are left with, preaching socialist ideas on a public forum and defending public unions - the hand that used to fill your trough. Tough life, eh?

You believe that gay marriage is protected by the constitution? So are my right to own and carry guns. Protect my rights, and I'll be much more enthusiastic protecting yours.

When people are losing a debate, they usually resort to one of two tactics; A) Hurl personal insults at the person they disagree with, or B) divert the topic of discussion to another subject.

Max is using tactic B) here.

Goebbels and Alinsky taught you well, Hookerman - if arguments fail, lie about your opponent.

Obviously, Selene, you did not bother to answer my question. Will you support open carry law for NJ if I support gay marriage?

Now, regarding your quote. APA are a bunch of self-serving politicized hacks. Not so far ago, they published an article that declared criticism of government as a symptom of psychological disorder. And these are the people you quote for an unbiased opinion? Phew.

Louise, the petition may be written from a pure heart and with good intent, but it is full of typos and grammar errors. Rules for private texting and public appeals tend to be different.