Posted on 12/04/2009 1:50:34 PM PST by markomalley
Gay rights activists in New Jersey pressing lawmakers to approve a same-sex marriage law while there is still a governor in office who would sign it won assurances Thursday that the legislation would be posted for a vote.
Sen. Paul Sarlo, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he would keep a promise to gay marriage proponents by posting the marriage equality act on Monday. But, he said he'd vote against the bill, underscoring the proposal's uncertain outcome.
Senate President Richard Codey said he'd bring the bill to the full Senate next Thursday — if it clears Judiciary.
A similar proposal was defeated in New York on Wednesday in an unexpectedly wide 24-38 Senate decision, eight votes shy of the 32 needed for passage. It had passed earlier in the Assembly, and Gov. David Paterson had pledged to support it.
The result in New York, where some Democrats saw the defeat as a betrayal, prompted Sen. Ray Lesniak, a Democratic co-sponsor of the New Jersey bill, to declare, "This is not the New York Legislature. The New York Legislature is dysfunctional. We're better than that."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Insert pot, kettle and black saying.
It should be passed. Hope it gets through.
Why?
Because there is absolutely no good reason consenting adults should be prevented from marrying each other.
We’ve heard all your tired bromides before and don’t want to hear them again.
How about one marrying his dog? Izzat OK?
No, but consenting adults should have the ability to marry other consenting adults no matter what their sex is.
“my”
Really? I don’t recall posting on this topic here at FR.
Why? Where did you get that idea? I'm curious to know at what point marriage became redefined, or became the province of government to redefine.
My real gripe is for it to pass and then the government try to force all religious institutions to recognize and/or conduct gay marriage ceremonies.
And THIS administration WILL do this!
Assuming that they are not aleady married, are of legal age, are mentally competant, not related by blood, and are of the opposite sex, I agree.
And THIS administration WILL do this!
Y'know, I'm ambivalent about same-sex "marriage" (I generally think civil unions are OK, but I'm unsure of extending the word "marriage"), but this isn't the strongest argument against it. Clearly, there is no legal prohibition against inter-religious marriage (and, in fact, any public official who refused to marry people due to their religion wouldn't be a public official for long), but religious institutions are free to refuse to marry people of different religions - many priests/rabbis/churches/synagogues will not conduct inter-religious marriages. Why would it be any different w/same-sex "marriages"?
Yup...get it passed through while there is still time. Makes a lot of sense to me.
++++++++++++++++
The libtards in NJ are just imitating the libtard feds. That’s what they’re trying to do with death care, crap and tax and amnesty. All just prior to a devestating body blow in 11/2010. Libtards are SUCH corrupt little creatures.
Marriage is an institution of the Church, that the State has recognized. The State needs to keep its nose out of the moral business of the Church.
Legal civil unions between homosexuals is one thing. Marriage is something completely and totally different and was instituted by God for a man and woman to create a family unit in love and fidelity, for procreation and many other reasons.
To what extent should that two adults who wish to be considered "married" to each other, be allowed to compel anyone else to acknowledge or honor such "marriage"?
Also, what's magic about the number "two"? Marriages involving three or more persons, of which exactly one is male, are historically much more common than marriages involving zero males or those involving two or more. The only thing magic about two-person marriage is that exactly one participant is male and exactly one is female.
I'd advise leaving religion out of it. Although governments and religions acknowledge marriage, marriage has existed and would continue to exist independent of either. At minimum, nearly every culture that exists or ever has existed recognizes that if a woman is married to a man, for any other man to sleep with that woman would constitute a grave insult to her husband. Even in cultures without any organized government or religion, one would not sleep with another man's wife unless one was prepared to do battle with him. Marriages involving exactly one male are the closest thing one can find to a universal trait in all human societies. Gay "marriages" are not the same thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.