Skip to comments.NJ Senate to consider gay marriage bill [Rejected: Update #45]
Posted on 01/07/2010 11:14:05 AM PST by freedomwarrior998
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - Hundreds of activists are swarming New Jersey's State House before a state Senate vote on whether to legalize gay marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at wfmj.com ...
What was defeated? the gay marriage bill? or an amendment?
my question too
no homo marriage for at least 6 years in NJ
Here’s a hint of what New Jersey Can expect if this goes through:
What same-sex “marriage” has done to Massachusetts
It’s far worse than people realize.
Massachusetts man fired from job over Christian belief in traditional marriage.
‘Gay History Month’ being pushed in schools during October. Radical “history” includes founders of modern porn movement.
Homosexual “Youth Pride Day” activities with kids — supported by your tax dollars.
Massachusetts now allows people to declare “gender you consider yourself to be” on drivers licenses and official state IDs.
Radical homosexual / transgender handouts given to kids in MA schools. Your tax dollars at work.
Horror stories in the schools.
Brutal fascist tactics against citizens.
Boston Globe celebrates homosexual school clubs persuading kids to “come out” as teenagers (and earlier).
It looks as if the left-wing’s attempt to further force their perverse morality on others has failed.
DID you read a comment on there?
One person stated that this should now go to the Supreme court
Not a chance. state rights and now I hope the good folks of NJ get a constitutional amendment.
I hope they start now with the signatures and stop this madness and let this be a wake up call for all those states which have not.
This crock will be coming to your state
I see in the comments the homo’, perverts, sicko’s, those for animals. those for children, those for more than one wife etc have no got their messages on there yet.
I take no offense at what you said,in fact I am agreeing w/you that we are the problem. We have been the problem in all of my lifetime & I am 69. The corruption is so entrenched that we will never dig out.
When a state of our size has almost 100k employees & untold teachers in the unions it becomes an impossible situation. They are not going to vote themselves off of the gravy train so it becomes self perpetuating.
We have considered moving out but that is not the answer. We will stay & fight to the last.
Added update to title
Yes but how is it any of our business unless we live in New Jersey?
I agree and am a states rightist myself....
....but it is a barometer of where the country is heading....Generally I don't care what one does in their bedroom as long as there are no children involved or as long as people are not being physically abused or made to do things they dont want to....
..but in the big picture, I feel that we as a nation are like other democracies and republics and we have it in our power to not wind up like Rome or Greece in there golden age....when those Republics became decadent, it was their downfall...
I hope they are spitting mad and decide to boycott us!!!!
The NEXT cloud on the Jersey skyline is the Democrat scheme to have taxpayers pay for college educations for illegal invaders.
I like the idea of marriage being one man and one woman, not one at a time. I am as much against divorce as I am against gay marriage. Wrong is wrong.
Even if we don’t live in New Jersey, we’d presumably have to accept two “married” men as validly married if they moved to our state.
So I think we have a large interest.
Doesn’t surprise me, as it is aging, blue collar white Catholics who provide the swing that keeps the Dems in power in Trenton. Don’t think the Latinos and blacks would be too keen on this either, unless they were bribed by contributors.
Marriage has been for eons. Before modernity, before the middle ages, before ancient times. For the NJ Senate to presume to redefine “marriage” is pathetic and overreach just a bit, ....! Nice try egomanics. You will be long gone, when marriage will still be marriage as nature deigns.
I don't like the careless use of the fallacious term "anti-gay marriage" nor do I like that Freepers, who ought to know better as conservatives, use it. It presupposes that "gay marriage" exists in order that it be opposed.
We must always insist on framing the terms of the debate and base them on reality. It would be better to characterize the two sides as "reason" and "anti-reason." Of course, this would be unnecessarily broad and ambiguous, so the concession could be made to refer to "pretend marriage" and those against pretense.
All this to say we should think about the language we choose to use and premises we unwittingly accept.
I agree with Marie2 that it is exactly everyone's business, especially when a state has "exportable" "marriage" (unlike what Mass. had - fake "marriage" limited to their own borders - before the legislature changed it.) And this is exactly Al Gayda's plan.
Don't think that these perverts getting "married" is because they want to commit and be as much like normal married people as possible. They are uninterested sodomites who are actively recruited by the most radical, anti-traditional culture legal thug groups imaginable to intentionally move to other states in order to press the anti-society issue in courts everywhere. Here in Texas, we are fighting just this: two homosexuals who "married" in Massachusetts (they were together 12 years when they just "decided" to get "married", which... surprise!... lasted only a couple of years) moved back to Texas and then decided to get a "divorce" under Texas law. They shopped around until they found a leftist judge who would be willing to crap on our State Constitution (Texas overwhelmingly passed our marriage amendment by over 76%) and grant them a "divorce," while at the same time calling our properly enacted law of the land "unconstitutional" and "discriminatory." The opinion of this leftist kook is being appealed by the state attorney general, with the support and help of the Alliance Defense Fund, but none of this should ever have been necessary.
Homosexual encroachment is not limited by state boundaries, and it is incumbent on decent folks everywhere to fight this societal disease.
Well I think your choice of words “reason” and “anti-reason” are silly. Who cares what words people use, the issue was defeated, that’s what’s important, not semantics.
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.