Reader comments · New Jersey Assembly approves gay marriage but veto may follow · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


New Jersey Assembly approves gay marriage but veto may follow

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I would be amazed if Christie didn’t veto. The odious tub of filth is only in it for himself so he will do whatever he feels will benefit him the most (so it is not totally impossible that he won’t play his “maverick tough guy” role and buck the party system. But I won’t hold my breath for that).

  2. Paddyswurds 17 Feb 2012, 11:09am

    Here we go again with Stephen Gray and “gay marriage”…There is nor ever will be gay marriage, its “MARRIAGE EQUALITY” ffs. When is this idiot ever going to learn. Is he even gay? Its Marriage Equality.

    1. Most pro-LGBT allies I know of casually call it gay marriage. The term is not as offensive as you may think. We all know it means marriage equality, but anti-LGBT activists tend to counter that by saying “marriage is already equal” because gay people can marry the opposite sex (yes, homophobes seem to actually accept such horse manure, or they just don’t care). In the face of such an attitude that gay people are somehow inherently undeserving of equality, sometimes it’s just clearer overall to discuss “gay marriage”.

    2. Commander Thor 17 Feb 2012, 5:56pm

      Homophobia does not mean it is an irrational fear – self-hatred is enough.
      Anti-semitism is not a dislike of semitic people – hating Jews is.
      Gay marriage does not mean it is a special kind of marriage – it refers to the access to the same institution of marriage that straight people take for granted, but for gay people.

      Get a bloody life.

      1. Paddyswurds 17 Feb 2012, 8:45pm

        ……..” Anti-semitism is not a dislike of semitic people – hating Jews is.”…. i suggest you look up anti semitism.
        ” Gay Marriage” is used by homophobes and opponents of marriage equality to foment hatred and homophobia especially amongst the religiously deluded. Btw I have a life and thankfully it is peopled by understanding and secure people and the only place one come across self hating homophobes is when you post the illiterate crap you do on these pages, although one only has to put up with you shyt* very occasionally……

  3. jamestoronto 17 Feb 2012, 12:22pm

    The judiciary of New Jersey has said yes, the legislature of New Jersey has said yes but still this dolt will no doubt fly into the face of reason — and history — and say NO. He should stop to think that by the time he gets to make a run for US President, a lot more states will have equal marriage. He will look more of a bigot later than he does now.

    1. Christie turned down requests to run in the GOP primaries, and is reportedly not interested in becoming president. This makes his veto threat all the more cynical.

      1. jamestoronto 17 Feb 2012, 4:47pm

        I think he is looking down the road to 2016.

  4. Robert in S. Kensington 17 Feb 2012, 12:38pm

    Why do they have legislatures if laws passed to grant rights can be immediately taken away? Thank goodness we don’t have that awful system here in the UK. These governors act like dictators, carrying out the demands of mob rule which is what this is all about. So now our brothers and sisters in New Jersey have to wait another two years to try and get an override of the veto? What are the guarantees they’ll succeed I wonder? What if it doesn’t? A terrible system if you ask me.

    1. In response to your question, I decided to do some research. State government constitutions are usually modeled in some way or another after the United States constitution, with gubernatorial powers being something of a miniature of presidential powers. In that vein, I decided to research the history and justification behind the presidential veto. It is protected in the U.S. constitution (except when overridden by a congressional supermajority), but I couldn’t exactly find out why they believed this was important. I’m not hugely familiar with the history of veto powers in the U.K., and who can use them, and how, if at all.

      1. jamestoronto 17 Feb 2012, 4:54pm

        The veto is a hold over from the days when it was believed the peoples’ assemblies could not always be trusted with making “correct” laws. In our parliamentary systems (UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc), the veto is a residual prerogative of the Crown. Technically, the monarch can refuse to sign/allow any bill of Parliament. In modern practice, it is NEVER done but it still exists in theory.

    2. I agree Robert this situation would never arise in Australia. How can our brothers and sisters in NJ get the rights they deserve when one man/woman can veto the laws which the people’s representatives have decided should be in place. I really feel for US citizens as this seems to be so unjust to me. A terrible lawmaking system. Surely it can be changed even if it may be part of the constitution ??? How can one person have so much power ???

  5. CoffeeDrinkerFL 17 Feb 2012, 2:53pm

    Of course Republican Governor Lard Bucket, who has presidential ambitions will veto the bill, and wants to put the issue on a referendum for voters to decide. Civil rights is not a voters issue. 45 years ago the US Supreme court legalized inter racial marriage, if it was left up to the voters and the states to decide, it would still be against the law.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 17 Feb 2012, 5:46pm

      And so would slavery and a woman’s right to choose.

    2. New Jersey has a history of being on the wrong side of cutting civil rightds’ issues. In 1915, women’s suffrage was to put to a vote in NJ, and was voted down by the men. Christie’s desire to place marriage equality on the ballot has run afoul of many in the state, and his veto may come back to haunt him in 2016.

  6. The fat sack of sh!t vetoed it.

    1. GingerlyColors 18 Feb 2012, 4:56pm

      Not many chubby chasers here then. Did you know that in America anybody over 300 pounds in weight is classed as disabled (they don’t use stones over there – 300 pounds would be 21st & 6lb). I refer to an episode of the Simpsons where Homer puts on weight in order to get out of having to go to work. Therefore how would Chris Christie like it if disabled people were banned from marrying as that would condem him to a life of single solitude!

  7. GingerlyColors 18 Feb 2012, 4:49pm

    Please someone tell Chris Christie that Gluttony is one of the Seven Deadly Sins before he starts quoting morals. Maybe he’s had one or two Big Macs too many – and I wonder if they sell Melton Mowbray Pork Pies in America?

  8. I would like to congratulate all of the beautiful women who would like to meet and Marry a beautiful women

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.