I think we'll all need to put our comfortable panties on, as it's going to be a long ride. The Gov's plan is to put this up for public referrendum, the results of which (however it goes) will be contested I'm sure, and it'll end up in higher court just like what's happening in CA. Then again, most weddings take at least a year to plan...

No one is denying a love relationship or a civil union in gay relationships, but MARRIAGE, which is integral to and embodies procreation, is between a man and a woman. Progressives will always try to change the meaning of words to fit an agenda.
Gays have no more "right" to marry than they have the "right" to procreate. Gays have the God given right to the pursuit of happiness in a loving relationship where they may choose to raise children. Do they really need to have the word "married" in their nomenclature which has an unequivocal definition? When natural law provides for gays to procreate on their own, then we could discuss using the term "marriage".

As usual, the foes of this will continually move the goal posts to compensate for their ever-weakening position.

It should be decided in the courts, until the courts rule in favor of it.

Then it should be put to the legislature, until the legislature approves of the bill.

Of course, at that stage a referendum is what's appropriate, until the issue reaches the tipping point and foes of gay marriage find themselves in the minority (38% in NJ).

So they say it should be handled nationally under Federal Law, until they lose the White House.

At which point they say it should be up to the states, except when they legislatures or citizens support it.

And round and round and round and round we go.

This is poison for Christie unless he can get a handful of Republicans to join the legislators who have already signed on in order to over-ride his veto. It will not be hard to find a few in Northern NJ (fiscal conservatives, social moderates) to make it happen. His veto will be over-ridden, he'll win in 2013, and remain viable for 2016 since he technically didn't "sign" the bill into law. This is 100% political theater. It's over.

Sure, you're probably correct, Porter, the courts think and act like they can change natural law and subvert the will of the people all the time.

So marriage is integral to procreation? Hmmm. Not really. People can procreate without benefit of marriage. It happens everyday. According to the CDC, 41% of births are to single women. And married people, like my brother and my co-worker, can marry and not procreate.

Whether or not marriage has a special place in our nation is not the point. In fact, marriage does have a special place. Oh, and the divorce rate is lower than that misguided 50% divorce rate that is so often inaccurately quoted. If you can say that gay couples can "marry" then you can say the sun is cold and green. Webster can even change the definition of marriage, but it is still not Natural law to say that same sex couples can enjoy the conjugal and procreative components of that which is the essence of marriage. Get over it!!! Why not change the laws to make gay unions have the same financial benefits of marriage? But no, the progressive elites want to tear down all that is sacred and good in society so the powerful few can call the shots and dictate what's right and wrong. Too bad your parents weren't gay so there would be a lot less of you derelicts with no common sense around.

I hear you, Porter. I love my older brother dearly but the man has been married three times, and two of those marriages ended in divorce. None of those marriages led to them procreating. And in the course of one year, he was engaged to marry three different women. Ah, the sanctity of marriage. Yet my partner and I, who have been in a committed, loving relationship for 17 years have to make due with a civil union, something that many in this state don't understand, respect, or honor. I'm speaking from personal experience having been flat out denied information about my partner's health despite the fact that we're in a civil union.

Strange how marriage is so sanctified yet holds so little value to the people that have it. I see in the schools that I have tought in the OVERWHELMING amount of children who have different names than their parents when I've had to call home. The forced Brady Bunch's that never work and the sad, angry children who are the result of these sad "marriages". At the same time, I've been monagamously with my partner for 11 years as has so many of our friends who share homes, mortgages, bills, life and death but do not have the same rights as every other person. Why complain? We do have civili unions...and Rosa Parks could still ride the bus.
Most of us have no plans to run down your church aisles in two tuxes or dress in drag or whatever so many people imagine; we just want the same legal rights and representations that frankly, civil unions neither guarantee nor allow.

Will, for every monagamous long term homosexual relationship, there are 20 monagamous long term heterosexual marriages. I have been married for 23 years to the same person, so am I supposed to say my marriage means nothing because the ratio of public school children whose parents are divorced is high? "Sad" broken marriages do not change the sanctity or essence of marriage. Again, why doesn't the gay community start working to change the civil union laws. If you feel that marriage "holds so little value to the people that have it", why do you want it? The fact is that it is so valued that Christ himself elevated marriage to a Sacrament. I take it seriously and many others do also. So please don't make the spurious argument that because some people don't respect it, it can be changed. I wish you all the best.

Robb,
There are more people who do respect their marriage and their vows than those that don't. Even if only one couple on earth remained faithful to their marriage vows and the rest didn't, marriage would still be a union between a man and a woman. If the majority of people said that black is white, black would still be black and white would still be white.

Lib...Thats just the point, I think many of us do so respect it that we value the essence and the meaning that it brings to a relationship. Their is an attempt to change the civil union laws as you suggested; to marriage equality. The word makes people like you uncomfortable because of your religious background. I was raised Catholic but as I've grown up, I began to see that things are different outside the bubble when you walk in another's shoes. To make your point, their were many people throughout history that belived things should not change beacuse they were so...we may not have cures for diseases, people would still be owned, women would not be allowed on the internet and people that practiced different faiths would be killed. Your arguement can't just be that "this has always been the way it was...for me and most of the people I know so therefore it is and always shall be". I wish you the best as well but you need to understand the plight of people who were born to love different than you. This was how Christ made us; not a choice...no "choice" would be this hard to exist.
I wish you the best as well.

librsic, it is clear that you have not followed the course of this law. In NJ, civil unions are SUPPOSED to have the same rights as marriage, but, if you look at the evidence given to the legislature, that has NOT been the case. Time and time again, civil union couples have been denied the same rights as marriage, which is why the legislature changed the law.
Natural law...there was a time when "natural law" dictated that a wife was the property of her husband. After all, how could women possibly be capable of being equal to a man. There was a time when "natural law" dictated that there could not be interracial marriage. After all, how could you preserve the god-given system of races that had been here since creation. There have even been times in history and cultures where "natural law" would have been interpreted as allowing for polygamy. Marriage is a social construct, not a natural one. It has evolved over time as societies and our understanding of the human psyche has chaged over time. It's as simple as that.

Will and Robb, natural law is a real issue as is common sense. I'm simply stating the reason behind how I feel and how others feel. Marriage is not just a social construct and I never made the argument that marriage is between a man and a woman because "it's always been that way" or gays were created inferior to straights. Interracial marriage was never against natural law. Again, marriage has the conjugal and procreative foundations that can not be naturally coerced in homosexual union.

First, support for keeping marriage between one man and one woman is not a fringe opinion. Over half the country supports this position, so it isn't fringe. And I found it rather disappointing to read yet another media piece interviewing only those in support of gay marriage. There are numerous intelligent people who disagree, and it would have been nice if even one were quoted in the article.

Second, with marriage comes responsibility, and marriage was traditionally thought of as the institution where a woman became a mother. "Mater" in latin means mother, and there is nothing about a gay union that brings motherhood to a woman. While there are many straight couples who do not adhere to this traditional definition of marriage, the potential is always there. It seems silly to consider using the term "marriage" to describe a union that has nothing to do with "motherhood" and everything to do with rights. It just isn't the right word.

Finally, society should work towards promoting marriage unions that emphasize and reward responsibility. We are a rights without responsibility cuture. Perhaps we should consider making it a little more difficult for straight couples to get married, and attach more expected responsibilities to the union. The next generation of children need good strong marriages from their parents, and they deserve a father and a mother who love one another and live in their home. We should work towards policies that create this environment for children.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx

Pay attention to the "Independents" trend.

I've seen the call for increased strengethening of the civil union laws by some on this post as well. That is another problem with having "different laws" throughout the land: stronger civil unions in NJ; NONE in Arizona and marriage in New York. When heterosexual people travel across the country, they will never face their marriage and union being "non existent" in another part of this country. Stronger civil unions just say Rosa may sit closer to the front but, by God!..NEVER in the front because that is reserved by and for the majority. Thomas jefferson said the majority should never govern the minority.
The fear you have of loseing the word that you claim is in your own minds.
Think of this...If I were a heterosexual male, I can...meet a woman online this weekend. We could go to a courthouse on Monday and get married. Nobody would ask how long we've known each other...if we are prepared or willing to raise children, how we plan to support our health benefits nor even if we actually are in love at all? Yet, thousands of gay Americans who have been with one person through thick and thin for decades do not have the same right.
Is that fair?

Porter, 1)we live in a Republic, not a Democracy 2)same-sex couples being "married" does not alter my perspective on the meaning of my marriage at all. You keep trying miserably to make points that are either erroneous or have faulty premises.
You really don't like me, do you? Why the anger? Relax. Think about how great our economy is coming along and how we deserve higher and higher gas prices because you progressives have drunk the Marxist Socialist kool aid.

Was I whining for a referendum? Whose complaining? I'm stating my position. The truth does not change based on referendum or complaining about "fairness". You'd rather I just shut up. Sorry, not going to happen.

Folks - another word on decorum here. I enjoy lively debate and appreciate a multiplicity of viewpoints. It's less productive for us to engage in name-calling and ad hominem attacks. I'm not in favor of moderating these discussions because I believe in the free flow of conversation. But let's do keep a civil tone, please.

Anyone who makes a statement like you just did about business and capitalism proves you don't know what you're talking about. You should move to a Socialist run Country and see how many websites they let your sorry little a$$ vent on. Gas prices are going through the roof because of the Federal Government's refusal to make us energy independent. President Obama did great damage to this country when he refused to give the go-ahead to the Keystone XL Pipeline.

The capitalist one, because my tax dollars would not be going to a government picked solar energy company whose auditors have said it was a bad risk. If we were energy independent, we wouldn't need Iran's oil. Most of our oil comes from N. America anyway. Why did our President give Brazil 2 billion tax dollars so they could be energy independent. He said it loud and clear: it would be good for us to buy our energy from Brazil. Gas prices would drop OVER NIGHT if the President announced he would start the Pipeline project. When Pres. Bush announced his lifting the ban on drilling, gas prices plummeted. Before Pres. Obama was elected gas was below $2.00 per gallon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lib, I think we are skating the topic on this thread by involving our world political views. You have not addressed the issue of fairness yet? You claim "natural law" presides but you have not mentioned anything about what is actually fair? My personal feelings are that you are inwardly homophobic even if you do not know it. You may even have gay friends and be quite a nice person but brass tax, you feel this way: You can call it whatever you want and have all the same rights but NEVER call it marriage because you people could never really have the same relationship with your partner as I do with my spouse...its just not the same type of love. What does that come down to? The things we do in our homes behind closed doors makes you "uncomfortable"; it somehow threatens your belief in Christ's sacraments...which I hope ALL religions believe in ( and they do not).
I ask again...should we not have the same civil rights to marry...ya know...get that lil' piece of paper...as you do?

Will, I've clearly presented my position, but because you seem like a sincere, well intentioned man I'll say it again. (I'm not homophobic. If I felt you were being harassed or maligned I'd be the first person to come to your defense. And if you knew me you know that I would.) Firstly, I'm saying that marriage is not a question of "fairness". Natural law dictates that marriage is between a man and a woman for conjugal and procreative "purposes", hence the on going generation of mankind. Is it fair that if people chose to build a house below sea level and one day nature delivers a devastating hurricane that wipes out their home? Can one say "it's not fair Mother Nature did that"? One can be upset at Mother Nature, but eventually one will accept that hurricanes and destruction are a normal course of nature. You seem like a reasonable person and yet you can not and will not accept my position based on objective fact. One does not have to be a homophobe to disagree with gay marriage. From what I've been told, Elton John, who is one of my all time favorite musicians, does not agree with gay marriage. Secondly, it's not even an issue about love. Gays can love each other just like straight people can and maybe some gays love more than some straight people do. Furthermore what a person does behind closed doors in none of my business and I couldn't care less. Please don't blame me for the Natural Law in the universe.

Will,
I also want to add that you and every other gay person are beloved children of God. Don't ever forget that. You may get to heaven before I do. I will keep you in my prayers and I hope you keep me in yours.

lib: For the facts: Elton John strongly supports gay marriage...not that it matters. There are plenty of straight folks that don't believe in straight marriage. It really has no bearing on the discussion.

Here's my problem with the whole natural law thing. Who decides what is natural law? Does it come from nature? If that is the case, there are substantiated cases in nature of same sex couples (such as penquins) sharing lives together (and even "adopting" the offspring of other penquins unable to take care of their own. What if natural law is not about procreation, but is actually about attraction and love? You have a definition of natural law as defined by a very specific religious tradition. A strong religious tradition that has a powerful influence on our society, but it is, a religious tradition that has defined this "natural law" in a very specific way.
And, if natural law dictates that the purpose of marriage is procreation, than you really need to deny anyone who is no longer of child bearing age from marrying...not to mention anyone who knows they cannot bear children prior to marriage.

The same tradition that holds the "natural law" argument also uses it to deny contraception. Should we then, in a pluralisitic society, make contraception illegal for everyone because in the eyes of a religious tradition it is against "natural law?"
Prior to the supreme court ruling of Greenwald v Connecticut, that was exactly the argument the state used to deny the selling of contraceptives.

Rich, you're correct about Elton John. I should have verified before I wrote that. Anyway, if a person is outside of child bearing age or can't bear a child, it does not make or break the marriage because the complimentary anatomical bodies of a man and woman allow for conjugal union and the openness to life is present. We have all heard of women who are "over the hill" conceiving children. Also, contraception is a prime example of how nature responds slowly over time to its interference. We are seeing a staggering drop off in birth rates among Europeans and Americans. Muslims, who reject contraception, have a tremendous growth rate in population. So, over time, nature will "reward" Muslims for their respect of the Natural Law. Be careful what you wish for: Islamic countries are by no means "gay friendly". (Your statement: Should we then, in a pluralisitic society, make contraception illegal for everyone because in the eyes of a religious tradition it is against "natural law?" NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT MAKING CONTRACEPTION ILLEGAL. The White House, who runs ABC CBS and NBC, had George Stephanopolus ask that question to Mitt Romney to start an issue that doesn't exist. Why? To take the focus off the economy.)

But doesn't "natural law" mean that if one is sick or even terminally ill that we should just let "nature" heal them instead of intervene? One must also be careful how "natural law" is taken out of context. When the Europeans arrrived both in America and Australia, they killed and uprooted the natives because we were naturally more advanced than the savages living off the land. Hitler belived that by nature, Germans were superior and Jews were inferior? As pointed out by Rich, "natural law" as well as biblical interpretations are most often left to interpretation.

No, natural law does not mean not intervening to replenish health to the sick. Hitler's ideology was his belief in eugenics (purge a society of undesirables).. Margret Sanger, the foundress of Planned Parenthood, wanted to rid society of blacks through abortion and contraception. No, natural law is using common sense and reason and seeing, through the natural world, that 1+1=2.