This is a civil rights issue and as such should be not be left to the tyranny of the majority, where religious judgements would affect a vote that has NOTHING to do with religion. This will not force religious institutions to accept gay marriage. It hurts no one and should not be subject to senseless discrimination.

>> Makes you wonder why he doesn't have the guts to put issues
>> like property taxes, budgets, school funding, tenure, the tunnel
>> to NYC and other far more important issues up for a referendum.

Probably because he doesn't want to face a choice between 300% voting rate in Newark and street rioting there.

It was a Constitutional Amendment that ended slavery. It was a Constitutional Amendment that gave women the right to vote. It was a Constitutional Amendment that lowered the voting age to 18. In all of these cases, the party that was to benefit from a positive outcome of these amendments were not permited to weigh in on their passage by voting for them. Yet, they passed anyway because it was the right thing to do.

In the New Jersey vote allowing women the right to vote, women could not vote one way or the other. In a vote to permit homosexual marriage, homosexuals and their supporters will not be denied the right to cast their votes as they wish.

Recent polls indicate that more New Jerseyans agree with your position. I am not afraid to let them make the final decision. Why do you prefer this matter to be decided by such a small body of people?

Thank God you do not hold public office.

John,
You missed the point (maybe intentionally.) The right to vote is not the point: it is the application of civil rights law. You know darn well where current rights that minorities enjoy would be if it were left up to referendum. The real question is: why would someone be against granting a right to a group that would not harm anyone?

More comments on a workday, get back to work Tom the Patch isnt the one paying you...

Wow you spend a lot of energy on this site during the time you are being paid by the company you work for...

This is NOT a civil rights issue. It is a common sense issue. In 1915, women could not vote. Therefore, all votes that were cast were by men. Homosexuals WILL be permitted to vote on an amendment redefining marriage.

It *is* a smart move. He pretty much ensured that Bergen County and Highlands will massively show up to vote in November, whereas voting levels in Dem strongholds are not as affected by this particular issue. California pops up the weed referendum every contested election for exactly same reason: the measure never passed anyway but it sure gets out the youth vote.

Here!Here! RightOn Hookerman.

Tom,

Again, this is not a civil right. See; http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/lar/lar_01homosexualscivil1.html

I also would like the right thing done for your family and friends. I just believe that the right thing is to maintain the definition of marriage to be between one man and one woman. Marriage can only occur between dissimilar things: a plug with a socket, a nut with a bolt, and man with a woman. They are designed to fit together, complement each other, and complete each other. This cannot happen with two plugs, or two outlets, two nuts, or two bolts. Neither can it occur with people of the same gender. Therefore, it can never be a marriage and should never be called such.

Mr. Di Marco,

I ask you to please give me one good reason why the state should not allow homosexuals to marry. And by one good reason I mean: a reason which is not based on religion, as that is forgbidden by the first amendment to the constitution; or a reason that does not equate to "that's icky" (in other words, to quote you, "Marriage can only occur between dissimilar things: a plug with a socket, a nut with a bolt, and man with a woman." I don't see what, in any of this, defines a marriage. It may define a sexual relationship, but anyone who's been married knows that marriage is more than that.) If you cannot come up with a reasonable, coherent explanation for your opposition to gay marriage, please stay out of the conversation.

@n: Really?! You dig up the same tired, senseless argument people made when they were opposing the rights of whites and blacks to marry. You can take any argument to a ridiculous extreme. I challenge you and anyone else to state rational, NON-religious reasons why you would oppose two consenting human beings to marry. I'm waiting...

John,
Please find a rational, non-right leaning religious source to back up your nonsense.

Well thought out post during the work day, get back to work TOm

So it looks like the entire 1-2 hour was a waste, how much do you owe our company for this time "off"

Betty, look one step ahead of the events. Christie is bound to run for President in either '16 or '20. Republican primary voters are already wary of him - among other deviations from red-meat orthodoxy - for endorsing Romney. If he lets the same-sex legislation pass uncontested without a popular vote, he can as well forget his Presidential ambitions.

Natalie, while I don't have a dog in this particular fight - in fact, even a few gays that are among my acquaintances say that they couldn't care less - I was absolutely abhorred when California judge discarded the voters' opinion like a dirty sock. Regardless of the final outcome, it was a major blow to the rule of law and respect of the court. I also don't see the issue as a partisan divide; many reliably-Dem black and Latino voters are staunchly anti-gay, while fiscal conservatives like me steer clear of the matter.

Natalie, I don't see inability to marry as "inequality under law", as long as civil union is a recognized institution for taxation, inheritance, hospital visitation, or pretty much any other purpose. Even family courts in New Jersey recognize the rights of same-sex partners to common property and shared adoption. Marriage used to be, and should be made again, a purely religious matter away from the power-hungry hands of the government.

Next question on the ballot since the Supreme Court decided that PAC's are people are they male or female and can they marry?

LOL, Watcher. I actually laughed out loud at the idea. Seriously though, "corporations are people" probably implies that they consist of people. Like, you know, Soylent Green.

Thanks Max but seriously the idea that a super pac can control basically limitless amounts of money to spend on campaigns infringes on my right as an American citizen since I cannot compete with them. Virtually everyone who runs for office will be courting the super pac's money. I'm more worried about who the politicians are in bed with since that usually affects laws that are passed. Watched the debate tonight and often wonder why no one asks the candidates "since we bailed out the banks and wall street and since the government lends them our money at practically zero percent why they are still allowed to charge outrageous credit card interest rates? Why not make them cap the rates (say at 5%) for the next five years? Oh well just thought I give you another laugh.

Watcher-
McCain-Feingold was the legislative abomination that birthed superPACs. The SCOTUS should have abolished the whole idiocy; instead, they created a schizophrenic world in which a candidate's hand has to pretend that it doesn't know what his other hand does. As for banks, that's too big a conversation to have it on this soundbite forum.

Natalie, I believe that the argument here is mostly about semantics, not civil rights. The term "marriage" historically refers to an opposite-sex family union; it's been around for a few millenia. What gay people want, according to your statement, is not to grant them any rights or privileges that they are entitled to, but to redefine the term itself. That right, I fear, is not covered by the Constitution.

Now, on the matter of Brown v Board, I see where the flaw in your logic is. School education is within jurisdiction of the state (even though I wish it weren't) and, as such, the state is capable of providing a remedy. Therefore, the court could rule for Brown. In your case, the state already provides gays with all legal rights that fall within its jurisdiction, such as taxation, common property, etc.; it cannot force the people to redefine an English word. Similarly, the court can establish and enforce equality of African-American citizens but it cannot outlaw the N-word, no matter how disgusting its use is.

Oh Max, how I would love to agree with you on something someday. A CU is not legally equivalent to marriage: that is the argument. If it was, this argument would not exist. The definition of marriage has nothing to do with granting gays the same rights as other citizens, it is being used as an excuse to discriminate. Again, tell me,what harm would be done?

Denobin,
Which legal rights, besides getting a cute piece of paper, do gays lack in a civil union? Name a few please. As for harm, I have already answered that question at least twice.

Max, that is what you believe. Others believe differently. Obviously.

Thanks for remembering. I was the one who gave that testimony. In response to your Loving v. Virginia citation, I showed black nuts and bolts and nickle-plated nuts and bolts. To illustrate that there is no correlation between permitting a marriage of different races and homosexual marriage, I showed that using a nickle-plated nut with a black bolt and vice versa would still achieve the same purpose for which they were designed - to hold things together. Whereas, two nuts or two bolts could not hold anything together. Marriage has a purpose. It is not intended to make people feel good about themselves.

Have you read New Jersey's civil union law? There are no deprivation of rights - hospital visitation or otherwise.

John,
Really? If you believe that then you must support and float this law: Anyone couple not intending to pro-create cannot legally be married, no matter the reason. Then you can stand by your argument. Until then, it is a poor excuse for your senseless bias. Please do everyone a favor and just admit that you have no ration reason to be opposed to gay marriage; you just don't like it. And not liking it is not a reason to deny anyone their civil rights.

Denobin, it's so good of you to remind me. Who told you that the right to marry is a civil right? I couldn't find it anywhere in the Constitution of the United States, nor in that of New Jersey.

Betty, this argument is ridiculous. "Potential discrimination" is not a good reason for legislative or court action. When you actually are discriminated against, address your grievance with the court. I have Middle Eastern appearance and can be discriminated in the airports because of it - should I demand not to show my photo (or my face) due to a CHANCE of discrimination?

>> Six states have same sex marriage, the sky has not fallen. I can't believe
>> NJ is behind Iowa! We'll all get there, it just depends on how much time
>> it takes.

Yes, we will. And then we'll get further. Polygamy, polyandry, marrying animals, rubber dolls, sexual toys... Idiocy? So was an idea of interracial marriage in Jefferson's time, or transgender identity a mere century ago.

Betty, the government shouldn't be in the business of marrying couples in the first place. It's been for millenia, and should be again, the domain of religion. The government should only register civil unions, whether recognized by church/temple/mosque/whatever or not.

The report you cite has been debunked often since its release.

Finally some blah blah on your own time, not mine

Tom

Right on.

Bailey Brower

Tom: Why don't you take your own advice leave an issue alone that has absolutely no bearing in your existence, besides the fact that it makes you uncomfortable? Amazing that you are so in touch with the gay community that you can read their minds and have such a clear perspective on their agenda. Your attitude clearly reflects your bias, bias that I can only guess is based on fear and superstition in light of the lack of any rational argument to the contrary.

Denobin thanks for making my point when I wrote:.."Really the issue is not about marriage, it's about homosexuals deep rooted need to be accepted by society. So they attack those that disagree with their agenda. "

In reality you're an intolerant bigot, who can not stomach an alternative point of view even in a debate with out attacking....can't wait until this goes to a public vote, you'll probably come down with a case of turret's syndrome....

Bailey is an expert on Civil Rights. Here he is getting busted for violating them.
http://cloverhillswimclub.blogspot.com/

Bailey should acknowledge his "alternative" lifestyle as he volunteered in his comments on this Chatham Patch article.
http://chatham.patch.com/articles/committee-passes-market-garden-ordinance

I'm a heterosexual married agnostic so don't really have a dog in this fight, but have certain respect for human tradition. Would you be fine with the state allowing gays to marry, or would you also force church to recognize such unions?

Max, I am curious how you or anyone force the Church to recognize a union?

In the end, who cares if they recognize it. That has nothing to do with this referendum or what is at stake. We are talking about the State recognizing the marriage between two people. Any two people.

Brady, I do remind you that Vaughn Walker's ruling in CA contained the language that could be used, for example, to force priests to perform a wedding ceremony or risk discrimination charges. That's exactly what slavery was about - forcing people to perform acts they didn't want to - and, in my view, is worse by a few orders of magnitude than not letting gays have a pretty piece of paper with the words "marriage certificate" on it.

There's one thing that the LGBT community might want to consider when pushing for another expansion of their rights. Some unfortunate day, the order and the rule of law in this country may (and in my opinion, eventually will) crumble under the weight of economic crisis and national debt. By that day, said community should have better not alienated the "silent majority" to such an extreme degree as to find themselves in hot water. Please see this as a friendly advice of a person who believes in the nature of your cause (though not the means), not as a threat.

Max, your comments are in regards to making the Church perform marriages, not recognize them.
You did not give any reasonable argument in how you can force the Church to recognize it.
Just because you may (and I am not saying they would be) require some one to perform a civil service does not automatically make it a religious one. The Sacrament of Marriage is different than a civil marriage.
The Church doesn't recognize divorce but the government does.

Church will have to recognize a ceremony that its priest performs, won't it? And yes, if the official duty of a priest involve the Sacrament (I assume they do), not performing it for a gay couple will be tantamount to discrimination under the same law as that of not hiring a gay because of his sexual orientation.

>>Church will have to recognize a ceremony that its priest performs, won't it?
No, not at all. Two completely different things.
>>And yes, if the official duty of a priest involve the Sacrament (I assume they do), not performing it for a gay couple will be tantamount to discrimination under the same law as that of not hiring a gay because of his sexual orientation.
This referendum is not about asking the Church to perform the Sacrament of Marriage.

Max, you are totally mistaken. The first amendment forbids the government from influencing church rule. This is why they cannot force any church to recognize same-sex marriage, just as a church can currently recognize same-sex marriage even if it is not legal. Two people can be legally married, and hold a valid marriage license with absolutely no religious affiliation, nor recognition from any religious institution.

The argument that churches would be forced to recognize same sex marriages if they are legal is invalid!

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/10/mounting-doubts-about-same-sex-ldquomarriagerdquo

I'm not sure what you hope to prove by this link Max. The main protagonist in the article even states; “The state cannot force a church to change its beliefs. Even gay people realize that is wrong,”.

>> I'm not sure what you hope to prove by this link Max.

I hope to prove that the concern does exist. It may not happen today but it will inevitably happen in the near future. That's why people like me who couldn't care less about morale and religion are still reluctant to give in.

It CANNOT happen as long as the constitution is observed! Once the constitution is ignored, then the whole country is dead anyway and none of this matters!

>> It CANNOT happen as long as the constitution is observed! Once the
>> constitution is ignored, then the whole country is dead anyway and
>> none of this matters!

The Constitution is already ignored. Between SOPA, Patriot Act, TSA gropefest, draconian gun restrictions, ObamaCare, and other legislative manure both parties are generously showering us with, what's left of it?

I don't care whether the church people are holy angels or Satan's representatives on Earth. They are American citizens, and they also have rights granted to them, one of them being freedom of opinion. If you are unwilling to respect their rights, why should anyone respect yours?

Carol-
In addition to the arguments already mentioned, gay marriage opens the door on adopting children into same-sex families. I'm not convinced that a child can grow normally without being exposed to traditional - and I mean about 350,000,000 years of tradition - roles of family members. It'll take a LOT of studies to convince me otherwise. But I guess the children are worth caring for only when teachers' benefits are in play, right?

Max, do you not know that gay couples are already legally adopting children, even if they are not legally married??? If the argument is that marriage laws are for the purpose of providing protection for children, then that's one big argument FOR same-sex marriage.

Hookerman, whoever allowed the adoption by gay couples should be thrown out of whatever office he or she currently occupies. It's abhorrent to gamble with children's lives for the sake of pleasing a vocal minority.

And it's better to shuttle them from one foster home to another, with absolutely no stability whatsoever? That's a far bigger gamble than putting them with a dedicated and loving gay couple. Ask any expert.

I'll grant you that; foster care is even worse than a gay family can ever be. I would be willing to grant gay families the adoption right in two cases: when biological parents are personally agreeing to it (unless deprived of parental rights by social services), or when no "regular" family is willing to adopt. I see it as an application of "lesser damage" principle, not the matter of inequality.

Ok Max, well if even you concede that there are situations where it makes sense to place children in the care of same-sex couples, then there is the argument for same-sex marriage. Often these kids who gay couples adopt are the ones that 'regular families' (as you call them) don't want... ie; disabled kids and non-Asian minorities. Don't they deserve the same legal protection as all other kids???

>> Ok Max, well if even you concede...

_Even_ me? I'm a sworn agnostic; even though I see religion as part of human tradition, I couldn't care less for Adam & Eve fairytale. You have a much tougher folk to convince in a statewide debate.

>> ...disabled kids and non-Asian minorities. Don't they deserve the same
>> legal protection as all other kids???

They definitely do, but you cannot force people to adopt children they don't like; even North Korea didn't go _that_ far. If gays were willing to step in, they'd earn much more goodwill with the "regular" (I prefer this word to "normal") society than by waving rainbow flags in meetings and demanding special rights.

That's exactly what I'm saying! Gay couples have stepped in and adopt kids that no one else wants. In fact, I know a gay woman at work who's adopted two special needs kids with her partner.

If there were no other families willing to adopt, that coworker lady of yours is a better argument for gay marriage than anything said so far on this forum.

Gadfly-
Bigotry or not, Christie will undoubtedly cherish an opportunity to wipe his considerable behind with this bill. It's a perfect boost for the '16 or '20 Republican nomination.

Brady, the benefit of being with a natural parent far outweighs any potential damage from the parent's choices or preferences unless they directly threaten the child's well-being. Most single family parents have naturally-born children; it is extremely unusual for the court to grant adoption to a single parent. Similarly, if a child is conceived prior to or within (by a surrogate) gay union, the damage of taking such child away would be far greater than that of exposure to "alternative lifestyle".

Lexi, I can be a very agreeable person when presented with facts. These days, the government doesn't dig a ditch without an extensive environmental research, and we have some children futures at stake. Can you point me to any studies comparing successful family life (measured by marriage duration, divorce rate, career achievements, etc.) of children adopted by gay families opposite other adoptions or general population? Until such research is performed, count me a skeptic.

Max, over 80 studies have been done.

Here is a quote for you though, "[The research] pretty much shows that almost no study that has been done on this topic has confirmed this common sense assumption that gender is critical or that a father-mother household works better for kids than a same-sex household," said Brian Powell, a sociologist at Indiana University,

Brady, I'm a statistical analyst. I'll take numbers over words any day. I assume the article from which you quoted had links; I'd like to see them.

Max, if you cared to find them I am sure you know how to search. Don't blame me for a lack of knowledge if you don't seek it.

Let me guess, Brady: you don't have any, don't care to admit it, and want to spin it into an insult. Right?

Max, spin this how ever you want. I know how to do research and do it when it matters to me. Educating you is not that important to me right now.
Have a good weekend.