Comments on: Withers: New Jersey pulls back from marriage

By: Dr. Ian

Dr. Ian — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:03:57 +0000

Democrats take us for granted. I for one am not contributing my money or time to the local and national Democratic party until I see some REAL CHANGE!!

By: Harry Hay

Harry Hay — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 20:14:39 +0000

S SAxon said: Equal Treatment is the Constitutional RIGHT of every American– Gay or straight, black or white, man or woman–and this right should NEVER be determined by the popular vote.

What the constitutiobn says, is Equal Treatment is the Constitutional RIGHT of every American– black or white or any race, man or woman–and this right should NEVER be determined by the popular vote.

That appears to cover everyone. Trying to create a sub-class, simply makes gays appear as sub-humans, and that is clearly not the case.

Gays work, have parents, siblings, go to movies, drink, do drugs, get sick, cry tears of sadness, die, have loved ones die, and struggle with issues such as choosing to act on sexual impulses. That makes them just like everyone else,in these senses, but it also makes polygamist, pedophiles, incest couples, rapist, and bestiliaty practices the same.

The difference is morality, and the rights of societies to form their own definiton. Without these rights, individuals such as pedophiles, polygamist, rapist, and gays can make their own laws.

By: Harry Hay

Harry Hay — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 20:04:57 +0000

What you do not get is, that marriage laws have been defined by the states. It is a gay issue, when gay people now wish to change the laws. This can only be accomplished by a popular vote within state boundaries.

Without the vote, marriage is simply between a man and a woman.

I warned gay groups years ago, that a gay for for inclusion was simply an attempt to live in the closet openly. Trying to wear a disguise that makes gays appear as straights is simply cowardly and a form of living in the closet.

Instead of here “I am, I’m queer and happy to be”, the new cry appears to be “I’m gay but I can appear straight”.

By: S Saxon

S Saxon — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:49:08 +0000

Emily, This is why the issue should not be put to the popular vote! It is not up to the American people to approve or deny Gay marriage! The “voice of the People” was never meant to be used to deny the rights of a minority!

The Constitution protects the rights of the few from the prejudicial will of the majority! This is not a popularity contest. This is about equal treatment which is promised by the Constitution. It should never be put to the vote of the people!

What part of this do we not get!?

By: Emily Anderson

Emily Anderson — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 01:03:20 +0000

Mr. Goldstein’s idea that a delay in the fight for marriage equality could cause a rift between the Democratic Party and the entire progressive base, although exaggerated, could potentially be true throughout upcoming civil rights actions nationwide. I consider Maine’s refusal to provide marriage equality as a major speedbump on the road to equal rights and played a large role in New Jersey’s circumventing the issue of gay civil rights. The unfortunate side effects of this are now evident with Christopher Christie in office and a struggle is ahead of lawmakers in New Jersey.
I think that once gay civil rights leaders stop trying to make everyone happy and truly fight for the equality every person should be born with. This can still be done in a non – violent and respectful way to garner support, rather than animosity. Moreover, this should not be a movement that can be easily quieted by saying that “the time isn’t right” and will eventually supply a leader that doesn’t focus on popularity and celebrity, instead on progress and moral change.

By: Mark Schmaling

Mark Schmaling — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:45:37 +0000

Its clearly time to go back to the Courts in NJ. The ruling stating that we must have the same rights and its clear now that that will only happen if we get marriage.

By: Drewski

Drewski — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:13:22 +0000

Morgan, I won’t be entirely surprised if Christie does try to repeal civil unions.

I have to wonder…what would happen if gays in New Jersey simply didn’t donate to either major party in the midterm elections? We may not be large in numbers, but our cash makes a difference. How many times have you seen somebody über-gay and über-rich like David Geffen host a fundraiser for the Dems? (Yes, I know he’s in California.) What if New Jersey gays showed their displeasure by not donating, by not hosting fundraisers? I’m not suggesting that people don’t vote–never EVER view that as a valid protest, because it’s giving away what voice you do have. But I do wonder just how much New Jersey Dems would be sweating if there was a public campaign for gays to withhold support and donations from them? I know it sounds kinda lame, but it gets to the core of it. You wanna stab me in the back? I got ways to get to you too. And that’s what Dems in Jersey need to hear and to know. Let the GOP remind them of it too–pointing out that the Dems are being boycotted by one of their own core constituencies. We have no obligation to support parties which will sacrifice us without a thought. If they want our money to run their campaign, we want action. No action=no cash.

By: Morgan

Morgan — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:06:06 +0000

Very Well, the Democrats can’t count on my automatic support anymore.

They blew the narrow window of time between Corzine’s last days in office where he would sign if such a bill came to his desk and Christie coming in who will never allow such a thing. That means another Dark Age of 4 year of no equality for New Jersey same-sex couples. If Christie tries to sack NJ civil unions (at least those aren’t yet lost)however inadequate they are, then it’s time for rallies and demonstrations for same-sex civil rights month in and month out in front of the NJ statehouse in NJ’s capital city of Trenton

By: Peter Formaini

Peter Formaini — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:52:21 +0000

Were I a New Jersey resident again, I would be done as well. Of course, being a New Yorker now, I can also complain, but our legislature is not Democrat-controlled in its entirety (the Senate is tied), so at least they have some excuse for not passing marriage equality quite yet.

But the old, “You have to support us, because the opponents are worse” argument does not cut it.

When the DEMOCRATS are pussies and do nothing, what practical difference is there in the end whether it is their asses in the sets or some right wing bigots? And who cares if the vote is 35-34 against or 60-9 against?

The end result is precisely the same.

Were I a Democrat in NJ, I would shift over to the Libertarian or Green tickets.

By: michaelandfred

michaelandfred — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:39:13 +0000

I hate to say it, but I’m done. It seems everyone in this country votes on single issues while I have tried to be a responsible citizen. I’ve voted Democrat because while I am gay, I also think there are huge differences in the Republican and Democratic platforms and also like to think of myself as an “American.” Because I do I’d like to think I care about what also affects the lives of others and not just myself.

No more. Sorry folks but I don’t have employment problems, I don’t have children, I have health insurance and am a full American citizen. The PROBLEMS I have in this country all have to do with my sexuality and my partner of 23 years who is NOT an american national. So, since no one seems to care about me, quite to the contrary, even those in our own party vote against my rights, I’ve decided to vote MY conscience as well.

I’ll be finding a third party candidate who supports MY needs and supporting and donating to them. “Better than the Republicans” has gotten me better than nothing.

I’m out.