Comments (21) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   Clark Kent said, over 1 year ago

   Why would anybody want to get married? It complicates things.
2. 

   bob-lezeb said, over 1 year ago

   Yes Governor Chris Christie you did veto the Bill. By so doing you have made it very clear that you neither respect nor represent the will of the majority of your States electorate, an electorate whose will was reflected by and though their State of New Jersey’s elected Congressional members when, after reasonable consideration, voted for and so passed the Bill that you, Governor Chris Christie, vetoed. Therefore, by that veto you chose not only to deny the peoples will but, far worse; you denied equal access and justice to a minority group of citizen’s within the State of New Jersey.

   What is more dangerous is that your prejudices and discriminatory actions stem from your core fundamentalist, religious beliefs and dogma. Beliefs by which you are gaging and so tainting your decisions and actions as Governor and, by your veto demonstrated your willingness to openly, forcefully, and with malice to discriminate against selected groups of citizens that do not subscribe and/or conform to your brand of religious beliefs with their inherent, anti-democratic, intolerance.

   How ironic indeed is your veto denying democratic justice to a minority group of American citizen’s while, at the same time, America has its’ valiant sons and daughters in Afghanistan fighting and dying for the very ‘conceptual’ democratic principles’ that many of them will be denied when they return to New Jersey and to other American States.

   In a truly free and compassionate representative democracy, the travesty against justice so committed here by you, must not be allowed to stand least it serves as the slippery slope by which this Nation slides from democracy into an intolerant, despotic theocracy.
3. 

   ARodney said, over 1 year ago

   Christie is history.
4. 

   Jase99 said, over 1 year ago

   @Clark Kent

   “Why would anybody want to get married? It complicates things.”
   Because legally married couples have spousal protections that matter for funerary, inheritance, custody, and other important issues. The right to hospital visitation is automatic to a legal spouse. Without spousal protections, it’s up to a possibly hostile family to allow you something as basic as hospital visitation.
5. 

   Heavy B said, over 1 year ago

   @libby times 4

   Big Government is when govrnemnt interfears in people lives, deciding what they can and can not do. You can QUOTE me when I say there are no small government CONservatives
6. 

   Yassir Thasmibebbi said, over 1 year ago

   Libby meant to say “Because historically we have NOT defined marriage in our constitution”. Family law has always been state law, except for the big-intrusive-government Republicans who want anti-gay federal laws and amendments.
   
   There’s only one reason to stop gay marriage: Because you hate homosexuals and want to hurt them.
7. 

   lifebyc said, over 1 year ago

   @bob-lezeb

   Bravo. Wrote a similar piece in our local paper this week on Prop 8 in Cali.
8. 

   dtroutma said, over 1 year ago

   Sheneman had to draw him holding up an “alternate” finger.
9. 

   Radish said, over 1 year ago

   Let’s give the Republicans New Jersey so the rest of us can have a free country.
10. 

    Gresch said, over 1 year ago

    @Yassir Thasmibebbi

    Marriage is between a man and a woman.
    A civil union is between two people.

    Stop calling it marriage.

    It is the line in the sand. That is the real roadblock to national civil union rights.

    Oh by the way it was Democrats that prevented black and whites from marriage.

    If we breeders wanted to mess up gay union we would just return to enforcing the sodomy laws. We could audit the two income “non-legal” partnerships; we could institute mandatory Aid/HIV testing with penalties for not "sharing " the information with partners. That could just the start. We have done it before. We know the drill.

    The reason we do not do this is because we breeders are not against civil unions.

    After all Love is blind and being gay is a natural part of life. The percentage has been too consistent at 2 to 4 % through out history.

    Get it, got it, good.
11. 

    Gresch said, over 1 year ago

    @bob-lezeb

    You have no right to change the meaning of the word marriage. The slope starts when you re-define words. Today a smoker, tomorrow a non-person denied health benefits. You also do not seem to understand the meaning of democratic vote. It is one-person one- vote. You mean Republic representation. The same people who elected the state congress elected CC. Make up you narrow mind.

    You know true democracies do not have minority rights.
12. 

    Yassir Thasmibebbi said, over 1 year ago

    @Gresch

    You do realize there are plenty of other usages of marriage in the bible, right? Nevertheless, it would be fine with me if the government got out of the marriage business completely. Every couple gets a civil union that accounts for all the legal stuff, and then those that choose to do so can optionally get “married” in the church of their choice. Equality for all.
13. 

    Gresch said, over 1 year ago

    @Yassir Thasmibebbi

    You have to provide the references to the ones you think mean something different. The ones I find are all about the union of a man and a woman. The bible also talks about more than one wife at the same time for men. Are you sure you want to open that option up to debate?
14. 

    Yassir Thasmibebbi said, over 1 year ago

    I have no use for biblical definitions other than to enlighten those who think the one-man-one-woman version of marriage is the only one found in the bible. A quick cut-n-paste via Google:
    
    If one were to construct an amendment to the Constitution based on a literal reading of the Bible it might well contain the following stipulations:

    1. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

    2. Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

    3. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

    4. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

    5. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

    6. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe, and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

    7. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)
15. 

    Yassir Thasmibebbi said, over 1 year ago

    Wow, I can’t believe you wasted so much time on what was clearly labeled as a simple cut-n-paste…to someone else.
    I do hope you devote at least as much time to all the comments directed to you here, and not just run away again: http://www.gocomics.com/joelpett/2012/02/20/
    
    And you are still unable to answer the simple question, “When did you choose to be heterosexual, and what was your life like before you chose?”
16. Load the rest of the comments (6).