March 18th, 2013
09:17 AM ET

Same-sex marriage fight in New Jersey not over

By Steve Kastenbaum, CNN

Follow on Twitter: @SKastenbaumCNN

Editor's Note: On March 26th and 27th, the US Supreme Court will hear two key cases regarding same-sex marriage. Every Monday and Tuesday in March, CNN Radio will feature stories about issues related to same-sex marriage.  

Listen to the full story in our player above, and join the conversation in our comments section below.

(CNN) - As the Supreme Court prepares to consider two landmark same sex marriage cases, gay rights advocates are targeting New Jersey. Their goal: to override Governor Christie's veto of a bill that would have legalized marriages for same sex couples.

Troy Stevenson, executive director of the gay rights organization Garden State Equality claims they are getting closer to achieving their goal with each passing day.

[2:10] "We need 27 in the Senate and 54 in the Assembly to override... we need 3 more Senators and 12 more Assembly people," said Stevenson.

New Jersey Senate President Stephen Sweeney would have to call for a vote to override the governor’s veto. He says fear may be preventing some Republicans from changing their positions.

[4:09] “Honestly, when I say New Jersey’s governor has the strongest powers of any governor in the country I’m not exaggerating. And, you know, he controls a whole lot of things.”

Several polls show that a majority of people in New Jersey favor legalizing same sex marriage. But Garden State Equality’s Troy Stevenson doesn’t want to go the referendum route.

Subscribe to this podcast on iTunes or Stitcher. And listen to CNN Soundwaves on our SoundCloud page.

Posted by
Filed under: Behavior • Justice • Same-sex marriage • Soundwaves • Stories
soundoff (222 Responses)
  1. julie

    i thinjk that same sex marrage should be alowed its there opinion on what to like what if someone told you that you couldn't like pizza or something else you don't like

    March 25, 2013 at 8:31 pm | Report abuse |
  2. FACT

    Why are we trying to to complicate issues here??? we all know that GOD created adam and eve, and gave them a command that says " Go into the world and multiply". why then did He not create adam & adam<, or eve & eve??? let us join hands together and say NO to abominations. thanks

    March 24, 2013 at 4:35 am | Report abuse |
    • Janet

      The Biblical condemnation of homosexuality is based on human ignorance, suspicion of those who are different, and an overwhelming concern for ensuring the survival of the people. Since the Bible regards homosexuality as a capital crime, it clearly assumes that homosexuality is a matter of free choice, a deliberate rebellion against God. We have learned from modern science that people do not choose to be gay or straight; hence it is neither logical nor moral to condemn those whose nature it is to be gay or lesbian.

      March 24, 2013 at 9:57 am | Report abuse |
      • Jon

        Janet , genes produces protein, it does not alter our orienttation. We know of twins, one gay and one straight. If orientation is inborn, both must be gays. So may I know your source of so called modern science ? I want to validate your source.

        March 26, 2013 at 10:32 am | Report abuse |
        • mzramia

          who decided on the myth that people are "born gay" Lady GaGa. People and politicians are justifying for their own displeasing acts. It is a disgace to even think about two men having sex, are you serious. 2 men can love each other but penetrating where and they wonder why their anus is all screwed up. That area was not designed for that purpose but to rid of waste.

          March 27, 2013 at 6:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • mzramia

      I agree, if you want to be gay keep it to yourself but I don't want my children to become gay just because he or she's gay people acting out. It is an obomination of God.. Just sick....uggh.

      March 27, 2013 at 6:54 pm | Report abuse |
  3. John

    "Fortunately, He has made His word clear – it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

    Some argue that since homosexual behavior is "unnatural" it is contrary to the order of creation. Behind this pronouncement are stereotypical definitions of masculinity and femininity that reflect rigid gender categories of patriarchal society. There is nothing unnatural about any shared love, even between two of the same gender, if that experience calls both partners to a fuller state of being. Contemporary research is uncovering new facts that are producing a rising conviction that homosexuality, far from being a sickness, sin, perversion or unnatural act, is a healthy, natural and affirming form of human sexuality for some people. Findings indicate that homosexuality is a given fact in the nature of a significant portion of people, and that it is unchangeable.

    Our prejudice rejects people or things outside our understanding. But the God of creation speaks and declares, "I have looked out on everything I have made and `behold it (is) very good'." . The word (Genesis 1:31) of God in Christ says that we are loved, valued, redeemed, and counted as precious no matter how we might be valued by a prejudiced world.

    There are few biblical references to homosexuality. The first, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, is often quoted to prove that the Bible condemns homosexuality. But the real sin of Sodom was the unwillingness of the city's men to observe the laws of hospitality. The intention was to insult the stranger by forcing him to take the female role in the sex act. The biblical narrative approves Lot's offer of his virgin daughters to satisfy the sexual demands of the mob. How many would say, "This is the word of the Lord"? When the Bible is quoted literally, it might be well for the one quoting to read the text in its entirety.

    Leviticus, in the Hebrew Scriptures, condemns homosexual behaviour, at least for males. Yet, "abomination", the word Leviticus uses to describe homosexuality, is the same word used to describe a menstruating woman. Paul is the most quoted source in the battle to condemn homosexuality ( 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 and Romans 1: 26-27). But homosexual activity was regarded by Paul as a punishment visited upon idolaters by God because of their unfaithfulness. Homosexuality was not the sin but the punishment.

    1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Paul gave a list of those who would not inherit the Kingdom of God. That list included the immoral, idolaters, adulterers, sexual perverts, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, and robbers. Sexual perverts is a translation of two words; it is possible that the juxtaposition of malakos, the soft, effeminate word, with arsenokoitus, or male prostitute, was meant to refer to the passive and active males in a homosexual liaison.

    Thus, it appears that Paul would not approve of homosexual behavior. But was Paul's opinion about homosexuality accurate, or was it limited by the lack of scientific knowledge in his day and infected by prejudice born of ignorance? An examination of some of Paul's other assumptions and conclusions will help answer this question. Who today would share Paul's anti-Semitic attitude, his belief that the authority of the state was not to be challenged, or that all women ought to be veiled? In these attitudes Paul's thinking has been challenged and transcended even by the church! Is Paul's commentary on homosexuality more absolute than some of his other antiquated, culturally conditioned ideas?

    Three other references in the New Testament (in Timothy, Jude and 2 Peter) appear to be limited to condemnation of male sex slaves in the first instance, and to showing examples (Sodom and Gomorrah) of God's destruction of unbelievers and heretics (in Jude and 2 Peter respectively).

    That is all that Scripture has to say about homosexuality. Even if one is a biblical literalist, these references do not build an ironclad case for condemnation. If one is not a biblical literalist there is no case at all, nothing but prejudice born of ignorance, that attacks people whose only crime is to be born with an unchangeable sexual predisposition toward those of their own sex.

    March 19, 2013 at 6:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jon

      1) I have problem with your authenticity. You don't have the mark of discipleship of Christ :

       And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

      March 26, 2013 at 10:24 am | Report abuse |
  4. 263 Ministers Proclamation

    As Christian clergy we proclaim: the Good News concerning Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) persons and publicly apologize where we have been silent. As disciples of Jesus, who assures us that the truth sets us free, we recognize that the debate is over. The verdict is in. Homosexuality is not a sickness, not a choice, and not a sin. We find no rational biblical or theological basis to condemn or deny the rights of any person based on sexual orientation. Silence by many has allowed political and religious rhetoric to monopolize public perception, creating the impression that there is only one Christian perspective on this issue. Yet we recognize and celebrate that we are far from alone, as Christians, in affirming that LGBT persons are distinctive, holy, and precious gifts to all who struggle to become the family of God.

    In repentance and obedience to the Holy Spirit, we stand in solidarity as those who are committed to work and pray for full acceptance and inclusion of LGBT persons in our churches and in our world. We lament that LGBT persons are condemned and excluded by individuals and institutions, political and religious, who claim to be speaking the truth of Christian teaching. This leads directly and indirectly to intolerance, discrimination, suffering, and even death. The Holy Spirit compels us:

    -to affirm that the essence of Christian life is not focused on sexual orientation, but how one lives by grace in relationship with God, with compassion toward humanity;

    –to embrace the full inclusion of our LGBT brothers and sisters in all areas of church life, including leadership;

    –to declare that the violence must stop. Christ’s love moves us to work for the healing of wounded souls who are victims of abuse often propagated in the name of Christ;

    –to celebrate the prophetic witness of all people who have refused to let the voice of intolerance and violence speak for Christianity, especially LGBT persons, who have met hatred with love;

    Therefore we call for an end to all religious and civil discrimination against any person based on sexual orientation and gender identity and expression. All laws must include and protect the freedoms, rights, and equal legal standing of all persons, in and outside the church.

    March 19, 2013 at 6:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jon

      1) I have problem distinguishing you from the world. problem is you don't pass the test of authenticity of the following verse

      John 15:18-20

      That's why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you : No servant is greater than his master, If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also.

      March 26, 2013 at 10:13 am | Report abuse |
  5. TiredODaCrap

    "We need 3 more Senators and 12 more Assembly people..." Basically means that they are ready to start paying for votes....Good to know that this group IS just like every other lobby in the US.

    March 19, 2013 at 9:29 am | Report abuse |
  6. MR J

    Are you all kidding – throw a big check at most any church and they will marry any couple.

    March 19, 2013 at 7:45 am | Report abuse |
  7. Marvin Jennings

    This issue should be dead. But it is not. If people want to marry rocks let them. How can you stop people from loving something that is not real? You can't.

    March 19, 2013 at 7:07 am | Report abuse |
    • Really?

      "something that is not real? You can't."

      The experts have proven you wrong.

      Like their heterosexual counterparts, many gay and lesbian people want to form stable, long-lasting, committed relationships. Indeed, many of them do and that large proportions are currently involved in such a relationship and that a substantial number of those couples have been together 10 or more years.

      Research demonstrates that the psychological and social aspects of committed relationships between same-sex partners closely resemble those of heterosexual partnerships. Like heterosexual couples, same-sex couples form deep emotional attachments and commitments. Heterosexual and same-sex couples alike face similar issues concerning intimacy, love, equity, loyalty, and stability, and they go through similar processes to address those issues. Research examining the quality of intimate relationships also shows that gay and lesbian couples have levels of relationship satisfaction similar to or higher than those of heterosexual couples.

      A large number of gay and lesbian couples raise children. Children and teenagers whose parents provide loving guidance in the context of secure home environments are more likely to flourish – and this is just as true for children of same-sex parents as it is for children of opposite-sex parents. Based on research findings, mental health professionals have also reached a consensus that the quality of relationships among significant adults in a child’s or adolescent’s life is associated with adjustment. When relationships between parents are characterized by love, warmth, cooperation, security, and mutual support, children and adolescents are more likely to show positive adjustment. In contrast, when relationships between parents are conflict-ridden and acrimonious, the adjustment of children and adolescents is likely to be less favorable. These correlations are just as true for children of same-sex parents as for children of opposite-sex parents.

      Assertions that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children of heterosexual parents, have no support in the scientific research literature. On the contrary, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has consistently shown that the former are as fit and capable as the latter and that their children are as psychologically healthy and well adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.

      March 19, 2013 at 6:24 pm | Report abuse |
  8. love2grok

    WHY IS GAY MARRIAGE EVEN A POLITICAL ISSUE?????? It's a PRIVATE one. LEAVE IT ALONE. DO SOME ACTUAL WORK. Like fixing our abysmal transportation and education systems!

    March 19, 2013 at 12:49 am | Report abuse |
    • Shane

      Human rights issues are political by nature.

      And believe it or not, a person, business, or government is able to do more than one thing at a time. Just because they are working on this doesn't mean they aren't working on other things at the same time.

      March 19, 2013 at 1:14 am | Report abuse |
    • David

      Im totally pro gay marriage. Im even shooting on Next month!! hello my name is David Lima, and I'm a Central-Jersey based Wedding Cinematographer! Take a second to check out Jersey's Best wedding videos. http://www.jerseyvideos.com

      Ps: we finance 3X. Half at signing, and the other two a month after your big day!!

      March 19, 2013 at 2:04 am | Report abuse |
      • lvsingleton


        If your videos work like your website, which doesn't work at all, I am sure you will have many dissatisfied customers.

        March 19, 2013 at 8:57 am | Report abuse |
    • Jamie

      I agree. I am a gay man and in my late 40's. I feel that our country has more important issues than laws telling me I can marry another man to show i'm equal. Now i'm not saying that monogamous relationships are not important. My morals and beliefs are mine. I'm still old fashioned in some of my beliefs. Marriage should only be between a man and a woman to bear children and share genes and carry on family traditions. I'm not saying that the gay community hasn't got it's points but good grief...lets work on stopping world hunger and nuclear weapons.

      March 19, 2013 at 2:18 am | Report abuse |
      • LogicNLA

        You are not a gay man with that view.If you are supposedly gay, you would seek to rehab yourslef out of your gayness because you have been braiwashed to believe the thigns you said. As a human being you have the right to your opinion. As an American, you have a Constitution that says we are created equal and entitled to the same benefits and restrictions under the law. If you are religious- you will not find direct laws form God saying homosexuality is a sin-read the Ten commandments, the laws we are to live by. or teachings from Christ ever mentioning homosexuality. He in fact told us to treat others as we wish to be treated. I repeat- you sir are not gay.

        March 19, 2013 at 2:55 am | Report abuse |
        • lvsingleton

          "If you are religious- you will not find direct laws form God saying homosexuality is a sin-read"


          Leviticus 18:22 – "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

          Leviticus 20:13 – "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

          Romans 1:26-28 – "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. "

          1 Timothy 1:10 – "The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine"

          March 19, 2013 at 9:08 am | Report abuse |
        • cedar rapids

          he said 10 commandments or anything said by jesus.

          March 19, 2013 at 9:20 am | Report abuse |
        • lvsingleton

          So basically pro same sex supporters pick and choose from the bible just a much as most Christians do when they try to battle it out on message boards? Just trying to get clarification.

          March 19, 2013 at 9:36 am | Report abuse |
        • cedar rapids

          I think it shows that trying to use the bible as support or opposition to gay marriage is nonsensical.

          March 19, 2013 at 9:44 am | Report abuse |
        • Jamie

          I appreciate someone telling me that because of my view makes me non-homosexual. (I appreciate your vote of confidence), With you having the right to disagree with my opinion, I still have the right to mine....all I'm saying is I don't need the supreme court telling me I have the right as a man and woman to be married. I don't believe in same sex marriages. Being partnered or having a domestic partner to me is different than being married or having the right too. I just don't feel that my rights have been violated if I don't have a piece of paper saying I'm married. I don't think that should be taken from the fiber of society. I love and respect my parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles. I don't need their acceptance, it's already given. I don't expect my 80 year old grandmother to change her point of view, these people helped form my values and ethics. My country has served me well. I am very proud to be an American with my freedom to be who I want to be. My rights have not been violated if I'm not standing in a ceremony in my mothers wedding dress. Being gay is a part of me, not all of me....I'm also a son, friend, nephew and much, much more. I have been with the same man for over 25 years. I don't need his insurance or 401k, I have my own. I don't need a piece of paper saying we are married. (we have been together so long we look alike, lol) so have a nice day.

          March 19, 2013 at 9:51 am | Report abuse |
        • Really?

          "Leviticus 18:22 – Leviticus 20:13 – "

          Christians don't follow leviticus anymore it's the holy code for Israel priests.

          "Romans 1:26-28 – "

          You left out vs 23 of course which shows that scripture was about worshiping a pagan god using sex. It has nothing to do with a loving respectful relationship of a gay couple.

          "1 Timothy 1:10 – "

          The word ho</bmose</bxual was added by bias and prejudice scribes, the word didn't exist when the bible was written.

          March 19, 2013 at 6:28 pm | Report abuse |
      • Sane Person

        Oh bs.

        March 19, 2013 at 6:37 am | Report abuse |
    • LogicNLA

      Obviously you are not familiar with what the Supreme Court does or their athority. As for gay marriage being a personal issue, you are correct except we live in a country of laws and those laws discriminate against gay people as they are written and in conflict with the Constitution.

      March 19, 2013 at 2:49 am | Report abuse |
      • mzramia

        Why is it being accepted now when it wasn't back then? If you don't have rights it's wrong.......Enough said...

        March 27, 2013 at 7:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • Really?


      Marriage was declared a civil right by the U S Supreme court. Gays and Lesbians deserve those civil rights.

      These rights include:
      Tax Benefits
      -–Filing joint income tax returns with the I R S and state taxing authorities.
      -–Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
      Estate Planning Benefits
      -–Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
      -–Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
      -–Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
      -–Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse – that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.
      Government Benefits
      -–Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
      -–Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
      -–Receiving public assistance benefits.
      -–Employment Benefits
      -–Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
      -–Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
      -–Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
      -–Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.
      Medical Benefits
      -–Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
      -–Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
      Death Benefits
      -–Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
      -–Making burial or other final arrangements.
      Family Benefits
      -–Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
      -–Applying for joint foster care rights.
      -–Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
      -–Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
      Housing Benefits
      -–Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
      -–Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
      Consumer Benefits
      -–Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
      -–Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
      -–Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
      -–Other Legal Benefits and Protections
      -–Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
      -–Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
      -–Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
      -–Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
      -–Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
      -–Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

      March 19, 2013 at 6:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • mzramia

      Amen! Why is there a debate? Love who you desire to love and leave it alone. We should not be politically involved in a relationship. Marriage is between a man and a woman, not a woman and a woman or a man and a man.....

      March 27, 2013 at 7:05 pm | Report abuse |
  9. BenInAlabama

    H0mosexuality is an abomination. Please do the right thing and let the gay marriage ban stay.

    March 18, 2013 at 11:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • Shane

      Please explain why.

      I admit, it isn't my cup of tea, but I find absolutely nothing wrong with two loving adults that want to be married and enjoy the same protections heterosexual couples do.

      March 18, 2013 at 11:30 pm | Report abuse |
      • BenInAlabama

        The same reason why two consenting incestual couples should not get married. If one person in that incestual marriage gets sterilized ( due to possible genetic defect with offspring ) will you agree to that marriage? After all the gay rights lobby state that people should be able to marry the ones they love

        March 18, 2013 at 11:39 pm | Report abuse |
        • Shane

          As long as they can't reproduce, then there is no victim and it doesn't harm anybody.

          March 18, 2013 at 11:50 pm | Report abuse |
        • nelson

          How about polygamy if all the party are consenting adults why cant I marry 2 women?

          March 18, 2013 at 11:59 pm | Report abuse |
        • Shane

          Polygamy is a difficult one, at least where legal matters come into play, as opposed to religious.

          If all parties in a true polygamous marriage can be granted equal rights and protections (which isn't the case in a vast majority of religious polygamous marriages) then I again, have no problem with it. But i don't foresee legislature being drafted that is able to equally protect everyone involved. But if it can, then again, there are no victims.

          March 19, 2013 at 12:04 am | Report abuse |
        • Gaunt

          Inevitably, in any gay-marriage debate, some half wit will come along and try and compare it to incest, or bestiality, or pedophilia.

          Guess what? Homosexuality isnt incest, it isnt pedophilia and it isnt bestiality. And even leaving aside the logical, pragmatic and rational reasons for keeping those things illegal (none of which apply to homosexuality), there is the simple point these same half-wits are not educated enough to understand.

          There is no slippery slope. The law doesnt work that way. If gay marriage is made legal, everywhere tomorrow, incest and bestiality and pedophilia will still be illegal, and that wont change. Why should it?

          There are 50 countries around the world were gay marriage and civil unions are legal. in NONE of these have the laws affecting incest, pedophilia or bestiality changed on whit. Not one.

          Stop creating silly logical leaps where none exist in order to justify your personal bigotry.

          March 19, 2013 at 5:52 am | Report abuse |
        • cedar rapids

          'nelson – How about polygamy if all the party are consenting adults why cant I marry 2 women?'

          If they can work out the legal ramifications for it then I would have no issue with multiple partner marriages.

          March 19, 2013 at 9:22 am | Report abuse |
        • cedar rapids

          'The same reason why two consenting incestual couples should not get married.'

          and that is because? just want to hear what you think the reasoning is.

          March 19, 2013 at 9:23 am | Report abuse |
      • nelson

        Why couldn't they fight for civil union rights? Instead they want marriage to show people how BEING GAY IS NORMAL,its not it will never be, and I will fight these so call activist as the opposition. Keep it to urself AND GET CIVIL UNION RIGHTS NOT MARRIAGE, no religion on earth accepts homosexuality....

        March 18, 2013 at 11:57 pm | Report abuse |
        • Danielle Butters

          And all the religions on earth play a part in EVERY conflict on earth. Religion breeds hate. Period.

          March 19, 2013 at 12:39 am | Report abuse |
        • Shane

          Marriage is not a strictly religious term.

          And even in states with civil unions, they aren't on equal terms with marriage.

          I do have a question, what happens when more religions start recognizing homosexual marriage? Are you going to stomp on their religious rights too?

          March 19, 2013 at 12:54 am | Report abuse |
        • roadwalker

          There are quite a few churches that welcome gay members (and perform marriage ceremonies, in states where they are legal.)

          March 19, 2013 at 2:27 am | Report abuse |
        • Martin Loves Rod

          Neither Hinduism nor Buddhism, which accoount for 1.2 Billion of the worlds population, have anything to say about homosexuality. They have plenty, however, to say about intolerance, hatred, and animosity toward your fellow man (and woman.)

          March 19, 2013 at 8:58 am | Report abuse |
        • cedar rapids

          'nelson – Why couldn't they fight for civil union rights?'

          The last anti-gay marriage bill brought in by the religious right banned even civil unions.
          and religion doesnt own marriage either.

          March 19, 2013 at 9:25 am | Report abuse |
        • Aud

          It's likely that homosexuality has been around just as long as hetersexuality. So what is normal?

          March 19, 2013 at 4:20 pm | Report abuse |
        • Erik

          "Instead they want marriage to show people how BEING GAY IS NORMAL,its not it will never be,"

          All major medical professional organizations concur that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed, from gay to straight or otherwise. The American, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and European Psychological, Psychiatric, and Medical Associations all agree with this, as does the World Health Organization and the medical organizations of Japan, China, and most recently, Thailand. Furthermore, attempts to change one's sexual orientation can be psychologically damaging, and cause great inner turmoil and depression, especially for Christian gays and lesbians.

          The scientific evidence of the innateness of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism is overwhelming, and more peer-reviewed studies which bolster this fact are being added all the time. Science has long regarded sexual orientation – and that's all sexual orientations, including heterosexuality – as a phenotype. Simply put, a phenotype is an observable set of properties that varies among individuals and is deeply rooted in biology. For the scientific community, the role of genetics in sexuality is about as "disputable" as the role of evolution in biology.

          On the second point, that there is no conclusion that there is a "gay gene," they are right. No so-called gay gene has been found, and it's highly unlikely that one ever will. This is where conservative Christians and Muslims quickly say "See, I told you so! There's no gay gene, so being gay is a choice!"

          Many of these reparative "therapists" are basing this concept on a random Bible verse or two. When you hold those up against the mountain of scientific research that has been conducted, peer-reviewed, and then peer-reviewed again, it absolutely holds no water. A person's sexuality – whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual – is a very deep biological piece of who that person is as an individual.

          The fact that a so-called "gay gene" has not been discovered does not mean that homosexuality is not genetic in its causation. This is understandably something that can seem a bit strange to those who have not been educated in fields of science and advanced biology, and it is also why people who are not scientists ought not try to explain the processes in simple black-and-white terms. There is no gay gene, but there is also no "height gene" or "skin tone gene" or "left-handed gene." These, like sexuality, have a heritable aspect, but no one dominant gene is responsible for them.

          Many genes, working in sync, contribute to the phenotype and therefore do have a role in sexual orientation. In many animal model systems, for example, the precise genes involved in sexual partner selection have been identified, and their neuro-biochemical pathways have been worked out in great detail. A great number of these mechanisms have been preserved evolutionarily in humans, just as they are for every other behavioral trait we know (including heterosexuality).

          There are many biologic traits which are not specifically genetic but are biologic nonetheless. These traits are rooted in hormonal influences, contributed especially during the early stages of fetal development. This too is indisputable and based on extensive peer-reviewed research the world over. Such prenatal hormonal influences are not genetic per se, but are inborn, natural, and biologic nevertheless.

          March 19, 2013 at 6:30 pm | Report abuse |
        • Really?

          "no religion on earth accepts homosexuality...."

          There are religions that do allow gay marriage.

          In July 2012, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church approved a liturgy for blessing same-sex relationships.

          Evangelical Lutheran Church in 2009 voted to allow congregations that choose to do so to recognize and bless same-sex unions

          Judaism – The Reform and Reconstructionist Jewish movements have supported gay and lesbian rights, including same-sex marriage, since the mid-1990s. In June 2012, the Conservative Jewish movement approved a ceremony to allow same-sex couples to marry

          Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations in 1996, the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations passed a resolution in support of same-sex marriage.

          March 19, 2013 at 6:35 pm | Report abuse |
        • Brent

          "no religion on earth accepts homosexuality."

          Religion-based bigotry is the foundation of anti-gay attitudes in our society and in the minds of a majority of Americans, particularly persons of faith. The term religion-based bigotry was coined because it best fits the description of the problem. The term religion-based bigotry encompasses the attitudes of prejudice, hostility or discrimination that are falsely justified by religious teachings or belief. We will never see full and equal rights unless we address the root of people’s anti-gay attitude.

          Religion-based bigotry is not synonymous with bigotry. It is a uniquely vile form of bigotry as the prejudice, hostility and discrimination behind the words are given a moral stamp of approval.

          Faith in America’s core message is that religious-based condemnation and rejection of LGBT people cause great harm to LGBT individuals and our society.

          We have learned that when we focus on the harms caused by religious hostility toward gay people – its destructive role in the lives of gay and lesbian Americans and explaining that being gay is not a lifestyle choice but is how you are born– persons of faith can understand why religion must no longer be misused to justify hostile attitudes and actions toward LGBT people.

          March 19, 2013 at 6:36 pm | Report abuse |
      • mzramia

        I wonder what would these politicians feel if their children brought home the same gender companion would they like it or dislike it.

        March 27, 2013 at 7:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • Troglodytes Entertaining All

      Big words from someone who lives in a state where people marry their own sisters.

      March 18, 2013 at 11:44 pm | Report abuse |
      • BenInAlabama

        Shut up troll, go back to your bridge

        March 18, 2013 at 11:56 pm | Report abuse |
        • Troglodytes Entertaining All

          Too much truth for you?? What goes on in any home in Alabama is far more disgusting than anything any homosexual has ever done... Now go out and get a new truss for your sisterwife.

          March 18, 2013 at 11:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • micbael

      Playing football is an abomination but, lemme guess, you're the type that wants to ignore 315 Biblical abominations and keep the only two you think deal with being gay.

      Those abominations are found in the Holiness Code and not the Moral Code.

      March 19, 2013 at 12:16 am | Report abuse |
    • Danielle Butters

      Please tell me how gay marriage directly effects you. -Oh wait, it doesn't. Your close mindedness is an abomination.

      March 19, 2013 at 12:37 am | Report abuse |
    • iRex

      If its an abomination, then why do over 400 species on earth engage in homosexual acts, while only one engages in homophobia? Guess who the real abomination is.

      March 19, 2013 at 12:59 am | Report abuse |
    • sam stone

      It ia about equal rights, bubba

      March 19, 2013 at 3:56 am | Report abuse |
    • Really?

      "H0mosexuality is an abomination"

      The experts have proven you wrong. Heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."

      March 19, 2013 at 6:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • James

      "H0mosexuality is an abomination."

      The scriptures actually say nothing about homosexuality as a psychosexual orientation. Our understandings of sexual orientation are distinctly modern ones that were not present in the minds of Scripture writers. A few passages of Scripture (seven at the most) object to certain types of same-sex expressions or acts. The particular acts in question, however, are sexual expressions which are exploitative, oppressive, commercialized, or offensive to ancient purity rituals. There is no Scriptural guidance for same-sex relationships which are loving and mutually respecting. Guidelines for these relationships should come from the same general Scriptural norms that apply to heterosexual relationships.

      March 19, 2013 at 6:39 pm | Report abuse |
  10. helenecha

    It is rather boring when people say that gay rights are human rights. Gays are the human, of course, they have the rights.

    Governor Chris Christie did nothing wrong on same-sex marriage issue. He had already made it clear that the issue should not be decided by 121 people in the statehouse in Trenton and he has advocated putting the issue to a referendum. Governor Chris Christie is the most responsible leaders in the U.S. that we have ever seen, for to put the issue to a referendum is to ask the residents getting ready for accepting the choice ourselves in N.J.

    Visibly, Governor Chris Christie is one of the greatest leaders in America, who deeply respects what its people stand for and what its people believe in.

    March 18, 2013 at 10:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sane Person

      Equality should never be up for a popular vote.

      March 19, 2013 at 6:40 am | Report abuse |
      • Aud

        here! here! We need to put this on a bumper sticker.

        March 19, 2013 at 4:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • jillamerican

      Christie – Did 'nothing wrong' and a 'great leader'?? Let's back up a bit.

      The NJ supreme Court ruled the, affirimng what our State Constitution clearly states, that everyone is equal and, therefore, gays should be allowed equal rights. They stopped short on 'Marriage' and threw it back to the Legislature to decide what to call it. They decided to call it 'Civil Unions'. It means the same as marriage (in the state). However, it did not bring equality and the there is still discrimination being practiced. So, the 121 got together again and approved marriage but Christie vetoed the bill.

      So, as far as doing anything wrong? He did not follow the courts directive, did not follow the elected leaders and did not follow the overwhelming support by NJ residents. He fell in line with the Republican party, he did not lead.

      March 19, 2013 at 8:14 am | Report abuse |
    • cedar rapids

      'Governor Chris Christie did nothing wrong on same-sex marriage issue. He had already made it clear that the issue should not be decided by 121 people in the statehouse in Trenton and he has advocated putting the issue to a referendum'

      Those 121 people decide and vote on bills all the time, that is their job. How come he picks this one to say lets vote on it?

      March 19, 2013 at 9:27 am | Report abuse |
    • marty

      This should NEVER be left up to the voters in any state!!!! That is like saying we should also have a vote whether blacks should use separate water fountains, or whether women should wear veils! We live in a free society with EQUAL rights for all, therefore, gays should be able to marry and have all of the rights afforded to heterosexual couples.

      March 19, 2013 at 9:29 am | Report abuse |
    • Fearless Freep

      Governor Chris Christie did nothing wrong on same-sex marriage issue. He had already made it clear that the issue should not be decided by 121 people in the statehouse in Trenton and he has advocated putting the issue to a referendum. Governor................

      So, Christie doesnt like that 121 people can "vote" on anybodys rights, but a referendum does just that.
      It is A G A I N S T The constitution of The United States Of America,
      to vote away other peoples rights.

      How would you like it if i could find 51 % of people to outlaw Christians ?
      By your standards that would be fair.

      March 19, 2013 at 9:45 am | Report abuse |
    • Really?

      "Gays are the human, of course, they have the rights. "

      No, this is about civil rights and marriage was declared a civil right by the U S Supreme Court.

      March 19, 2013 at 6:41 pm | Report abuse |
  11. helenecha

    It is rather boring when people say that gay rights are human rights. Gays are the human, of course, they have the rights.

    Governor Chris Christie did nothing wrong on same-sex marriage issue. He had already made it clear that the issue should not be decided by 121 people in the statehouse in Trenton and he has advocated putting the issue to a referendum. Governor Chris Christie is the most responsible leader in the U.S. that we have ever seen, for to put the issue to a referendum is to ask the residents getting ready for accepting the choice ourselves in N.J.

    March 18, 2013 at 9:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • Michael

      The people voting would not even have a stake in the issue. It's a very rare thing for the majority to not take advantage of their position to oppress the minority... it's happened all throughout history. If the Supreme Court had not stepped in on interracial marriage, that would have remained illegal for DECADES longer. Hell, it might even still be illegal to this day. Never underestimate the power of ignorant, hateful people in large numbers.

      March 18, 2013 at 10:09 pm | Report abuse |
  12. Liz the First

    Why do gay and lesbian American citizens still have to fight for their basic human rights in the second decade of the 21st Century??? are we really that backward a country that we let religious fanaticism, ignorance, and hate justify the government discriminating against some of its citizens? why are we still listening to the morons who scream that this will lead to folks marrying their dogs??? our Pledge of Allegiance ends with 'with liberty and justice for ALL' it's time we started living up to that!

    March 18, 2013 at 8:26 pm | Report abuse |
  13. Dr Tom

    Please people, take a breath. We are talking about a law that effects civil marriage. This has nothing to do with religious marriage. No priest or minister will be forced to perform a religious marriage ceremony between two same sex partners. I hope people have heard of separation of church and state.

    March 18, 2013 at 6:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • YN

      Do away with the marriage concept and give everybody equal rights and there won't be an issue.

      March 18, 2013 at 6:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • Shane

      I agree. Nobody that I know of has been saying that they want to force a church to perform the ceremony against their will.

      Hell, I'm straight and my wife and I had to go to seven different churches to find one that would perform the ceremony for us since she was divorced in the past and I was an Atheist. Luckily we found one that didn't care, and just wanted to allow two loving people to get married (church wedding was important to my wife).

      So if they can legally say no to my wife and I, then the church can say no to anyone else that they do not want to perform the ceremony for. There's churches now that don't care, and they can always go to a judge to perform the ceremony too, or find a Pastafarian minister to perform the ceremony.

      The church does not have sole rights over the term marriage.

      March 18, 2013 at 6:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • iluvpizza

      Homosexuality is a disorder. Common sense is all you need to see that it is.

      March 18, 2013 at 8:23 pm | Report abuse |
      • Gadflie

        And education is all you need to understand that it really isn't.

        March 18, 2013 at 8:24 pm | Report abuse |
      • Liz the First

        Much smarter people than you say it's not. it's just a natural, totally benign, variation on the norm. but then folks on your side of the argument rarely let facts get in the way of their beliefs.

        March 18, 2013 at 8:28 pm | Report abuse |
      • No Bigots Allowed

        WRONG! The only "disorder" here is HOMOPHOBIC BIGOTRY and you seem to be suffering from it!

        March 18, 2013 at 11:09 pm | Report abuse |
      • SoWhat

        Should we ban marriage for everyone who has a "disorder?"
        Dyslexia, depression, anxiety, cerebral palsy, color blindness, a lisp, heart murmur, psoriasis, etc?

        March 19, 2013 at 1:28 am | Report abuse |
      • Sane Person

        The world is obviously flat. If it were round, all the water would spin off. Common sense is all you need to know this!

        March 19, 2013 at 6:42 am | Report abuse |
      • cedar rapids

        'Homosexuality is a disorder. Common sense is all you need to see that it is.'

        Funny, I feel the same way about religion.

        March 19, 2013 at 9:29 am | Report abuse |
      • Really?

        "Homosexuality is a disorder."

        The experts have proven you wrong. Heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."

        March 19, 2013 at 6:47 pm | Report abuse |
  14. SixDegrees

    "There are plenty of good reasons for fighting, but no good reason ever to hate without reservation, to imagine that God Almighty Himself hates with you, too."

    Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

    March 18, 2013 at 6:18 pm | Report abuse |
  15. Cecil Burrow

    Man has only one leader, and that is the lord God, who allowed his only son to die so that man's sins would be forgiven. If you choose to go against His word, then you will spend an eternity in misery greater than which cannot be imagined. Fortunately, He has made His word clear – it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Just because it is trendy to enjoy black 'culture' and show sympathy to illegal immigrant/ criminals, does not mean that we should embrace yet another form of immorality.

    March 18, 2013 at 5:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • GrowUp

      Get a grip on reality dude.

      March 18, 2013 at 6:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • BobZemko

      Another one firmly brainwashed.

      March 18, 2013 at 6:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Gadflie

      Sorry, some of us decided against basing our lives on a work of ficiton.

      March 18, 2013 at 6:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lol you're brainwashed

      Must be easy to live a life of ignorance letting people tell you what to believe

      March 18, 2013 at 6:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • micbael

      Let me see if I get this right. You want to proclaim what a good Christian you are but you hate gays, lesbians, blacks and Mexicans.

      You're in for one Hell of a shock when you meet Peter.

      March 18, 2013 at 6:13 pm | Report abuse |
      • Lee McBride

        Just because a person opposes the act of homosexuality does not mean that you "hate" gays. Unfortunately too many gays, however, want to play the victim in order to gain sympathy from society at large. I guess once you have labeled someone a "hater" or just another religious fanatic, you can demonize them to the point where their voice is no longer heard.

        March 18, 2013 at 6:54 pm | Report abuse |
        • huhb

          Homosexuality isn't an act – it's a sexual orientation.
          Whatever "act" you're thinking about is just that – you thinking about it.
          If it bothers you – stop imagining other people having sex.

          March 18, 2013 at 7:39 pm | Report abuse |
        • micbael

          Um, Lee, he managed to slam gay people, blacks and lesbians within a sentence or two.

          Are you really that ignorant.

          Oh, and yes, if you oppose gay marriage you are a bigot. You might think you can use God as your excuse but nobody is buying it.

          March 19, 2013 at 12:23 am | Report abuse |
    • Shane

      If the Biblical God exists then he is completely incompetent and evil.

      If man is made in his image, why are we so flawed in our "design"?
      Why would an all powerful God require a blood sacrifice in order to simply forgive someone of their sins? Couldn't he have just said "live a good life and all is forgiven?" Why go through all of the extra steps and cause even more pain and suffering on the world?
      Why give man free will and an instinct to find the truth, yet leave no evidence behind?
      Why damn all of those that were simply born in the wrong area or time to hell when they never get a chance to hear about him?
      If Hitler repented, that means he went to heaven (and if Mormonism is true, then he's already there since he was converted post death against his will) then he gets to hang out in heaven while people who actually do good works, and help people, save people, get to burn in Hell because there was no evidence, so a critically thinking person doesn't believe in his existence?

      March 18, 2013 at 6:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • Elsie

        Shane – "Why would an all powerful God require a blood sacrifice in order to simply forgive someone of their sins? " That is why God sacrificed Himself to atone for all mans' sins. There was once Hope that man would find the way to prevent that sacrifice through right living, man proved himself incapable, so God made the ultimate sacrifice, Himself.

        March 18, 2013 at 6:58 pm | Report abuse |
        • Shane

          You still are avoiding the answer, why? What is the point of going through a symbolic sacrifice when it didn't matter what so ever?
          If God is all powerful, then he wouldn't need a blood sacrifice.

          If somebody bumps into me in the hallway, do I require blood to forgive them? No, a simple, "I'm sorry" is sufficient.

          If somebody steals from me and apologizes, then I'll likely forgive them, they won't have to sacrifice anything.

          So me, as a perfectly mundane human being am able to forgive someone, yet an all powerful God requires pain and suffering in order to forgive.

          And the fact that he's offering eternal punishment for finite wrong doing just doesn't make any sense what so ever.

          March 18, 2013 at 7:52 pm | Report abuse |
        • cedar rapids

          how can a god 'sacrifice himself'? hes supposed to be a god for crying out loud. Its like a deity version of the detached thumb illusion dads do for their kids......'hey look, i am going to sacrifice myself, ooooh look at the pain and suffering im going through...now you guys be good you hear?'

          March 19, 2013 at 9:33 am | Report abuse |
      • Mr Mister

        The Bible, like most religious texts, is allegorical. Interpreting it literally makes no sense because it was never intended to be interpreted literally. If you are really interested in knowing answers to your questions, find a theologian and talk to them. It will be much more productive. I am no theologian, but I will try to answer some of your questions. The Old Testament laws about offering animal sacrifices partly dealt with the idea of offering firs fruits to God and partly as a way to remind the people of their sin. Jesus came to offer a new covenant and offered himself to fulfill the Law. This is why Christians don't follow Old Testament dietary restrictions (kosher), etc.
        People are not damned to hell for not hearing about Christianity. The idea of hell is a place removed from the love of God, not necessarily the place of punishment we have made it out to be. A better interpretation is that everyone will have the chance to accept or reject the love of God when they die. The idea of being created in God's image is a tough one and has been debated many times. Think of it more along the lines of us having free will, a living spirit, and the ability to recognize God. The Hitler questions is especially hard, because we all want to believe in the idea of punishment for the wicked and reward for the just. If we go by what Jesus said, we should love our enemies and forgive them no matter what they do to us. This comes from the forgive 70×7 passage, where if I remember correctly 7 times was the most a person was required to forgive an individual under the Law. 70×7 is such a ridiculous number compared to 7 that it implies infinite forgiveness. It is difficult, but I believe if Hitler stood before God and was true in his repentance he should be forgiven. I doubt I could do it, but I would like to think I could. That is the true spirit of Christianity.

        March 18, 2013 at 10:39 pm | Report abuse |
        • Shane

          Hell isn't torture?

          Matthew 13:50 – “furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth”
          Mark 9:48 “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”
          Revelation 14:10 “he will be tormented with fire and brimstone”
          Revelation 20:15 “If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire”

          Infinite penalty seems rather of a harsh penalty.

          March 18, 2013 at 11:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • SixDegrees

      Ah, yes – the god of cruelty and hatred.

      When you type things like that or spend time worshiping him, do you catch little whiffs of sulfur?

      March 18, 2013 at 6:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dr Tom

      You are reading the Bible but using your pre-conceived notions to interpret it. I believe that most people who interpret it believe it does not forbid gay marriage. But even if you are correct, the U.S. is founded on the principle of separation of church and state. Overturning this law will have no effect on religious marriage. It only has an effect on civil law in regards to a civil contract that happens to use the same term, marriage. But this is "civil marriage" not "religious marriage".

      March 18, 2013 at 6:24 pm | Report abuse |
      • Lee McBride

        Civil at least for now. The "religious" marriage will be mandated in due time. These thing need to happen in degrees.

        March 18, 2013 at 6:58 pm | Report abuse |
        • Shane

          Churches have the right to deny whoever they want when it comes to performing marriage ceremonies.

          My wife and I had to go to multiple churches to find one that would perform our wedding ceremony because I was Atheist and she was divorced (ironically more of them had a problem with her being divorced than me being Atheist).

          Nobody is wanting to force a religion to accept homosexuality, the separation of church and state works both ways.

          March 18, 2013 at 11:37 pm | Report abuse |
      • sam stone

        dr tom: you are not using your preconcieved notions?

        March 19, 2013 at 4:01 am | Report abuse |
    • Fee Carmichael

      Then God's doing a terrible job at spreading his word.
      And if he dares accuse a non-believer of not believing, the non-believer has every excuse and every right to criticize God.

      March 18, 2013 at 7:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • sbp

      Zeus's son died for our sins? Lets face it, for all you know, Zeus is the one true god. The only reason you believe otherwise is because you read it in a book.

      March 18, 2013 at 7:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jeffsf

      Cecil...quick question...Did GOD write everything in the Bible? NO he did not. Man wrote most of it. Then in 325AD a bunch of conservative old men got together and decided what was best for them at the time. So stop spewing lies and interpretations to your fellow man. The only judge will be God at the "Pearly Gates". I for one and hopeful I will get in. How about you?

      March 18, 2013 at 8:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • Liz the First

      Sorry, but God 'made' Adam and Eve AND Steve. there is much more to sexuality on this planet than 'insert tab A into slot B. please try reading something other than your bible for a change and get acquainted with the real world. your narrow, ignorant version of the natural world is an insult to the God you claim to love.

      March 18, 2013 at 8:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • odds

      Just rolling all that hate into one, aren't you? Well, at least you're honest about it. It's a shame you've decided to selectively apply the word of your Lord God, however. You should pray that you're wrong and this God of yours is merely a fantasy. Burning in a fiery pit for eternity because your God lacks the capacity to forgive your ignorance would be justice for a person like yourself, but I think it'll be enough when you aren't around after the fact to regret or enjoy anything whatsoever. We're here and then we're gone. Live now, enjoy your life because it's all you have, and let others do the same.

      March 18, 2013 at 10:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • Slowpoke Rodriguez

      Perhaps you should read 1 Corinthians
      For who knows a person's thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God
      For, "Who can know the LORD's thoughts? Who knows enough to teach him?" But we understand these things, for we have the mind of Christ.

      Or Isaiah
      Who can fathom the Spirit of the LORD, or instruct the LORD as his counselor?

      It is prideful to claim to understand what God does and does not want. The closest we have to understand God are the teachings of Jesus. Jesus taught us to love, not condemn, and he certainly never said anything about gay marriage. Jesus' teachings are the cornerstone of Christianity. Everything else is just commentary.

      March 18, 2013 at 10:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • mountainlady

      Mr. Burrow.... and aren't you lucky to live in a country where you can have your opinion and express it freely? Even when I think your opinion is wrong. Many people disagree with your opinion, actually. These people have a right to their own opinion and to express it also. Now, explain to me why your opinion should be used to determine morality and law in preference to say... mine. I'm an American over the age of consent. I vote and I pay taxes. I have no problem with same sex marriage. According to all kinds of polls, the majority of Americans have no problem with it. Let's keep religion out of government and out of law as our founding fathers intended. Thank you.

      March 18, 2013 at 11:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jason

      Oh Please – Get a grip on reality "Gods" only son spent most of his time alone with 12 MEN – i'm sure they werent playing tiddly winks. The United States of America is not now or never was and will never be a Religious Nation. NO ONE in this country can get married without a Civil Marriage License issued by a Government Agency. ALL consenting adults that are in love deserve the same legal rights to be Married. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE is there for a reason. If the Church wants to keep up their status as a Tax Exempt entity in this country then they better start remembering that they are supposed to stay out of political affairs in this country. This is the land of the free and as such ALL citizens deserve the same EQUAL RIGHTS.

      March 19, 2013 at 3:49 am | Report abuse |
    • sam stone

      Your empty proxy threats are laughable, Cecil.

      March 19, 2013 at 3:59 am | Report abuse |
  16. Robert

    Even if the gays get their way with America, the fight will still not be over. God has already told us what his standard is but he has yet to weight in in judgment. And when he does, the USA, much to my grief, will not know what fell on it. America will be nothing but cinders. It will be like Sodom, it will have become as Gomorrah.

    March 18, 2013 at 5:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • GrowUp

      God hasn't told you a single thing–ever.

      March 18, 2013 at 6:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • BobZemko

      You sound like the same idiots who thought society would fall apart when women, Native Americans and Blacks were given the right to vote.

      March 18, 2013 at 6:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lol you're brainwashed

      God has said nothing you brainwashed dolt.

      March 18, 2013 at 6:12 pm | Report abuse |
      • Lee McBride

        I know Robert doesn't pull any punches, but the Christian Bible is clear in its condemnation of homosexual sex. In fact it is considered to be as sinful as adultery or fornication. Since the latter is rampant in today's society, it is no wonder that homosexuality is becoming the "new normal" and more widely accepted. Unfortunately the Bible also predicted that in the "last days" this would occur – it really is just another sign of the times. (If you do possess a Bible, read Romans chapter 1.)

        March 18, 2013 at 7:11 pm | Report abuse |
        • Liz the First

          If homosexuality was such a big sin, wouldn't you think God could've combined those two 'covet' commandments to save room for 'thou shalt not boink thy fellow man?' the Bible was written by people who had no scientific way of proving gay people are born that way, and their fear and misunderstanding made it into sacred texts, as were many other nonsensical things we totally ignore today. Jesus never condemned gay people. the bible as a whole is trying to teach us to love one another, not give us an excuse to persecute anyone.

          March 18, 2013 at 8:35 pm | Report abuse |
        • Shane

          Actually it is open to interpretation, and we actually don't know what the original versions said to begin with since they don't exist anymore.

          But the parts of not lieing with another man can also easily be said to be do not treat men like women, since women in the Bible basically had no rights and were more property than anything else. So don't treat men like you treat a woman.

          March 18, 2013 at 10:14 pm | Report abuse |
        • cedar rapids

          let me make a prediction right now Lee.....you will die, your kids will die, your grandkids will die and so on down the line...and the 'last days' will not have occured, and will not occur.

          March 19, 2013 at 9:37 am | Report abuse |
    • SixDegrees

      "There are plenty of good reasons for fighting, but no good reason ever to hate without reservation, to imagine that God Almighty Himself hates with you, too."

      Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

      March 18, 2013 at 6:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jonathan

      men wrote the Bible

      March 18, 2013 at 6:33 pm | Report abuse |
      • Lee McBride

        Men wrote the Bible through the inspiration of God. If you ever took the time to read it (which I doubt) you would know that "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right." 2 Timothy 3:16 (NIV)

        March 18, 2013 at 7:33 pm | Report abuse |
        • Shane

          If it is divine in nature then why are there so many errors?

          March 18, 2013 at 9:33 pm | Report abuse |
        • whitepine

          Three things ......as I am beginning to question my faith... Why isn't the birth of Jesus a story told by Mary? Who else would know and who else would tell? Heaven?? As we explore outer space and see the universe is huge? Where is heaven? It doesn't seem to be just beyond the clouds? Why did God quit talking to us 2,000 years ago i.e. why is the Bible His only word? If he is a living God, he should be still talking to us.

          March 18, 2013 at 11:37 pm | Report abuse |
        • sam stone

          Wow, Lee, the bible is inspired by god because the bible said it was.

          Bang up logic you got there

          March 19, 2013 at 4:07 am | Report abuse |
    • Shane

      I doubt that.

      The US is nowhere near the levels of which are depicted in the Bible of those two cities.

      And in the Bible, there was only Lott and his family that was just, we still have plenty of good people in the US (both Theist and Atheist). So, no, your God isn't going to unleash his wraith upon the US.

      March 18, 2013 at 6:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • John Savins

      Your god has no powers over our United States of America, or It's laws.

      March 18, 2013 at 7:11 pm | Report abuse |
      • Lee McBride

        Yeah, "In God We Trust" has really become a joke in the U.S.

        March 18, 2013 at 7:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • odds

      Do you follow every word in the Bible? What about the ones that contradict each other (there are plenty!)? How do you determine which strictures take precedence over others? Arbitrarily? Like every other person on the planet who simply does the best they can, right? So why should I listen to you and not myself?

      MY God will burn YOUR God to cinders. So it is written (I just wrote it!)! And MY God says live your life because it's all you have and then you're gone. Let others do the same by keeping your nose out of their business. When we're both dead and gone, neither of us will be around to say "I told you so!". No fiery pits. No retribution on all the sinners in exchange for devoting your life to an idiotic idea that you use to justify your prejudice. Sorry! You live and then you die. That's it! You'll see.

      March 18, 2013 at 10:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • atroy

      Actually, God has already attacked New Jersey via hurricane Sandy because its evil governor's veto.

      March 18, 2013 at 11:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • No Bigots Allowed

      Your so-called "god" has never "told" you anything; if you honestly believe that he has your probably suffering from schizophrenia.

      March 18, 2013 at 11:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • sam stone

      "blah, blah, fvcking blah, god's gonna get you"

      sound about right, punk?

      March 19, 2013 at 4:05 am | Report abuse |
    • cedar rapids

      'Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.'

      Thats what the bible says about why sodom was destroyed, not because of homosexuality.
      And why is it that god gets so annoyed by gays that he will rain down his anger and yet did absolutely nothing during slavery? I guess god doesnt have an issue with slavery.

      March 19, 2013 at 9:40 am | Report abuse |
    • Kimberly

      "It will be like Sodom, it will have become as Gomorrah."

      It is helpful to post both passages of Jude, 1:6 and 1:7 together, as they are meant to be read this way.

      New International Version (NIV)
      6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

      Note that the humans are exhibiting the same behaviors as the angels. Note, also, that the sexual immorality and perversion mentioned isn't homosexuality. Scholars who have studied this passage have concluded that the perversion alluded to is actually rape, which was rampant.

      March 19, 2013 at 6:43 pm | Report abuse |
  17. Gianni

    Sloppy reporting. Why didn't the reporter ask GSE why they are fighting putting it on the November ballot if so many NJ citizens support it?

    March 18, 2013 at 5:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • skastenbaumcnn

      Thanks for asking. The answer to your question is the Prop 8 case that has gone through several courts and is now before the Supreme Court. Garden State Equality's director says its an example of why, when it comes to issues involving the rights of a minority, it needs to be legislated and not left up to the majority to decide.

      March 18, 2013 at 5:21 pm | Report abuse |
      • NJ

        The author's last clause of his post does seem like an oxymoron, because to legislate is to represent the majority of the people. It is the role of the judiciary to protect the rights of the minority. However, the majority/minority characterization masks the truth that marriage is religion. The baseline question that must be answered by the USSC is what is the definition of religion, and what is free exercise thereof as it relates to marriage. See post below.

        March 18, 2013 at 5:33 pm | Report abuse |
        • huhb

          You can get married without the church, but not without the state.
          But let's say marriage is religious. The law can't favor one religion over others – and there are religions that perform same-sex marriages.

          March 18, 2013 at 5:37 pm | Report abuse |
        • Lol you're brainwashed

          Marriage is not a religious institution. Keep telling yourself that....maybe it will be true one day. Probably not

          March 18, 2013 at 6:13 pm | Report abuse |
        • SixDegrees

          "to legislate is to represent the majority of the people. "

          Uh, no. If that were true, we would still have slaves and women wouldn't be allowed to vote. Our representative system of government allows leaders to at least occasionally do what is right, rather than what is popular.

          March 18, 2013 at 6:21 pm | Report abuse |
        • Jkhur

          You assume all people polled regarding their opinion on same sex marriage would vote. Only those very motivated will actually take the time to vote and, unfrotunately, you see the results of such votes in many states where those who just cant' get over their irrational dislike for homosexuality have carried the day since they were simply more motivated to vote than those who support same sex marriage but for whom the issue is just not that crticial overall.

          March 18, 2013 at 8:23 pm | Report abuse |
      • Elsie

        The fundamental rights of individuals cannot be "legislated" – they simply exists. The Courts are the bodies that declare their existence for the blind who refuse to see.

        March 18, 2013 at 7:02 pm | Report abuse |
  18. NJ

    Marriage is religion pure and simple. The question is really what religious marriages are acceptable? Or more fundamentally, what is the definition of religion and concomitantly what is the free exercise thereof. The problem with the United States Supreme Court is that it has shied away from answering this basic question. It is high tide that this baseline question is answered, so that a baseline morality can be set.

    March 18, 2013 at 5:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • skastenbaumcnn

      If marriage is a religious institution then where does that leave the many civil service heterosexual weddings performed every day? Do you not recognize those?

      March 18, 2013 at 5:23 pm | Report abuse |
      • NJ

        Nonreligious marriages came about for one reason. Some religions defined marriage in such a way that as a predicate they did not allocate the proper rights and responsibilities between spouses. Accordingly, they chafed under injustice and an improper construction of marriage by their religious authority and this was in some cases worsened by the abuse of religious powers in vertically institutionalized religions that did not permit reasonable dissolution and further fabricated religious rules to say that the marriage never took place. Even still nonreligious marriages borrowed the religious requirements of officiation and witnesses. The commentator below confirms as much only adding that so long as it is legal, that is all that matters. However, where did the marriage laws come from? From religions. The key point is to choose your religion wisely. Many people do not critically assess religion, whether it be theirs or anothers, relying on hearsay upon hearsay, the whims of time, or personal desires at the expense of community consciousness. As for your question about where does that leave Nonreligious heterosexual marriages, the answer is it depends. If those in those marriages properly recognize his/her proper rights and responsibilities and thereby uphold the proper religious and just institution that is was designed to be then good for them and bad for the unjust religions or unjust religious authorities that create more injustice. If, however, those in a Nonreligious marriage do not do that, then bad for them and for the rest of us. 😦

        March 18, 2013 at 6:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • steve

      Marriage is not religion. Marriage is a legal document. It doesn't what church you get married in...you're not legally married until the marriage certificate is signed in front of witnesses. People get married all the time without involving religion of nay kind.

      March 18, 2013 at 5:29 pm | Report abuse |
      • Elsie

        Actually, you are not legally married until that document is signed by witnesses AND properly recorded with the municipal GOVERNMENT authorities. You can go and have your religious, or non-religious, ceremony, have your witnesses sign your document and never record it with the authorities and in this country you ARE NOT married in any state in the nation.

        If you happen to live in a state that recognizes "common law marriage by cohabitation" and you thereafter live together for the required number of years and hold yourselves out as married THEN you are married...but only after the number of years has passed.

        But until then, you are NOT married.

        March 18, 2013 at 7:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • Gadflie

      Your premise is faulty. The very earliest written reference to marriage is as a civil act, not a religious one.

      March 18, 2013 at 6:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • YN

      Why not just abolish marriage? Give the same rights to everyone – tax every individual the same. So you love someone ? Do you need a piece of paper to tell you that ?!

      March 18, 2013 at 6:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • Hillcrester

      My wife and I were married in a County Clerk's office, and no religious belief was in sight. "Religious" ceremonies invariably involve the person performing the ceremony signing a civil marriage certificate as well. A 'religious" ceremony without that is not a legal marriage, but the reverse is not true.


      March 18, 2013 at 6:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • odds

      How is that the question? What country do you think you live in and what rock have you been living under that you believe Gay Rights groups are pressing for the government to legislate the religious institution of marriage? Where do you people come from?

      March 18, 2013 at 10:35 pm | Report abuse |
  19. wisdomVSknowledge

    Jesus said... "I give but one commandment, that ye love one another." Please note that he didn't tack on exceptions such as "Only if you have children", "Only if the majority of the population accept you", "Only if the modern day pharisees say so." No, he did not, religious fanatics added those terms generations later. Jesus never addressed the issue of gays because to him (and his heavenly father) it was never an issue to begin with! He that hath an ear, let him hear the truth and the truth shall set you free.

    March 18, 2013 at 4:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • cindy

      I really hate to see people quote the Bible when they have no clue what it is talking about.

      March 18, 2013 at 4:56 pm | Report abuse |
      • smitvict

        I'll remember your post when I read evangelicals interpret the bible.

        March 18, 2013 at 5:01 pm | Report abuse |
      • tim620

        I agree. I'm glad wisdomVSknowledge didn't do that. Evangelicals are the worst and taking Bible verses out of context.

        March 18, 2013 at 5:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • Nick

      This is a civil issue not a religious one, everyone does not believe in your God.

      March 18, 2013 at 5:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • GrowUp

      Evangelicals need to stop shoving their lifestyle choice down everyone's throat.

      March 18, 2013 at 6:06 pm | Report abuse |
      • Elsie

        where is my "like" button

        March 18, 2013 at 7:08 pm | Report abuse |
      • Lee McBride

        Wow and that's what they say about the militant homosexuals!

        March 18, 2013 at 7:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • BobZemko

      Here's a novel idea: why don't you start thinking for YOURSELF.

      March 18, 2013 at 6:07 pm | Report abuse |
      • Shane

        You do realize he was supporting gay marriage in his post right?

        March 18, 2013 at 6:51 pm | Report abuse |
  20. wisdomVSknowledge

    If gay people in America are not provided equal rights, then why do they pay equal taxes? I bet you married couples would pitch a mad fit if you had to pay for rights that only gay people get, now wouldn't you?!

    March 18, 2013 at 4:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • tim620

      Except that gay people in long term relationships do not pay equal taxes. They do not get the same tax breaks married heterosexuals get. Once homosexuals are able to marry and be recognized as such on the federal as well as state levels and receive all the benefits of straight married couples, then we will see equality.

      March 18, 2013 at 5:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lee McBride

      Well actually that may really happen some time in the future.

      March 18, 2013 at 7:41 pm | Report abuse |
  21. wisdomVSknowledge

    By the way... Christie is an obese white bigot. Nobody can argue with those facts.

    March 18, 2013 at 4:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • bgjtenn

      By bigot, you mean he doesn't agree with you.

      March 18, 2013 at 5:10 pm | Report abuse |
      • GrowUp

        Bigot means ignorant and filled with unreasonable hatred toward others.

        March 18, 2013 at 6:09 pm | Report abuse |
  22. WhocaresAnymore

    The pope, Syria, and gays. Seems that nothing else in this country matters....

    March 18, 2013 at 4:36 pm | Report abuse |
  23. wisdomVSknowledge

    Gay marriage is pointless you say!? Marriage is about a committed relationship... children have nothing to do with it. I know several older married couples that never produced any children. Is their marriage pointless also? Honestly people, if you don't have any common sense at least know when to keep your mouth shut!

    March 18, 2013 at 4:35 pm | Report abuse |
  24. Hillcrester

    Christie's problem in getting the GOP Presidential nomination is bigger than the conservatives' view that he is unacceptable–he may not be re-elected as Governor.

    March 18, 2013 at 4:25 pm | Report abuse |
  25. pliberato

    Actually, in this life, other than sharing love with one another, everything is pointless. I see marriage as a monument to the love between two human beings, nothing more. If there is no love, such a monument is pointless, even if they give birth to a thousand children.

    March 18, 2013 at 12:58 pm | Report abuse |
    • baptist_deacon

      Really? A "momument" ? Sorry, but this is so much flowery nonsense. Marriage is about love, but also children, family, extended family, heritage and genetics. Gay marriage is only about love. The rest is impossible for gays. This is the biggest misunderstanding about marriage, making it about love and nothing else. This is why arranged marriages last longer than love marriages, because the focus is on the rest of what marriage is, not on love. Civil unions suits the needs of gays and they should have been satisfied with that.

      March 18, 2013 at 4:38 pm | Report abuse |
      • Cora

        I'm a heterosexual female and my boyfriend is sterile. I guess we shouldn't be allowed to marry either?

        March 18, 2013 at 4:48 pm | Report abuse |
        • GrowUp

          Apparently not. The religious police will arrest you.

          March 18, 2013 at 6:10 pm | Report abuse |
        • Shane

          I'm in the same boat, although already married.

          We can't have children, I guess our marriage should be nullified. You know, the right to visit your spouse in the hospital, and the other spousal rights are only there to promote religion and child rearing. How could I have been so blind.

          I know technically it is a slippery slope, but it is a much more realistic one than "whats next, allowing pedophiles to marry their victims and farmer bob to marry his sheep".

          March 19, 2013 at 12:11 am | Report abuse |
      • john smith

        deacon, it is odd that you don't recognize that homosexuals have families, extended families, often children, and heritage. since marriage is offered for no other reason other than love, there is no legitimate reason to deny it to homosexual couples.

        March 18, 2013 at 4:52 pm | Report abuse |
      • ellid

        Please produce evidence that arranged marriages last longer than love matches.

        Also, you're a homophobe hiding behind tradition. Shame on you.

        March 18, 2013 at 4:53 pm | Report abuse |
      • Elsie

        So, deacon, the extended family is extinguished with every gay marriage? I'll have to inform my very lesi step-daughter that her father and I no longer exist. I will also have to tell my grandson that he too is worthless in you eyes. As a professed "man of the cloth," I have to say, you should expect a nice long vacation in a very warm place for your after life. My GOD loves me very much. He died on the Cross for me AND my step-daughter. Her sins have all been wiped clean FOREVER. I am thinking that you don't actually know Jesus. You might want to get to know Him, as I understand Hades gets a lot hotter than any Baptist Church on Sunday morning.

        March 18, 2013 at 7:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • Shane

        "love, but also children, family, extended family, heritage and genetics."

        Ok so a gay marriage actually has 4 out of your six things identifying what marriage is. And the two missing are pretty much the same thing (genetics and children).

        Many couples, including myself also have those 4 out of 6. Does that mean that I shouldn't have been able to get married because I can't have children? Should I have just remained single for my entire life?

        Your argument fails miserably, especially when you bring in the fact that gay couples can have children (females can get in vitro, males can have a surrogate) or can even adopt. So in any of those cases, that brings the gay couples up to 5 out of six, or even six out of six in some cases (science can join two female eggs via a process to create an embryo) which is more than with my wife and I.

        March 19, 2013 at 12:16 am | Report abuse |
  26. Reality

    Gay marriage is pointless.
    Marriage between a man and a women can produce children. Children take a tremendous amount of money and time. Marriage as an institution is designed to make it easier on the parents to do what needs to be done for the kids.
    A gay union is biologically incapable of producing children, so there's no reason to recognize a gay union.
    If a gay couple has children, then there is an opposite-sexed parent out there somewhere that should be providing child support–in other words, you have a situation analogous to a divorced heterosexual couple.
    Marriage is not designed primarily as a way to provide benefits to the non-working spouse of a working spouse. If you are relying on your partner's work benefits, and you do not have kids, then go get a g*d-d*mned job!!

    March 18, 2013 at 11:23 am | Report abuse |
    • skastenbaumcnn

      @Reality Are you married and do you work? Are you in a corporate work environment that provides benefits to you and a spouse? Do you pay into social security? Do you have health insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, etc.? Has your spouse ever wound up in the hospital for a major health issue? If you answer yes to any or all of these questions you might want to take a look at how they and many more things are impacted by or pertain to marriage. Can you support your belief by pointing to specific information that shows that civil weddings were created specifically to address parenting issues?

      March 18, 2013 at 11:37 am | Report abuse |
      • Reality

        All red herrings.
        Your benefits should come from your own workplace. If your spouse winds up in the hospital, for instance, THEIR insurance should cover the cost. To rely on your partner's benefits is, in a way, discriminatory against single people who don't have a partner whose benefits they can enjoy. Again, in a heterosexual married couple, one (or both) partner(s) will be making major life choices (in terms of work) either to deal with, or in anticipation of dealing with, children. Gay couples will not face this, unless they are bringing in a child from outside their union–in this case, there is a third person (i.e., the other biological parent) whose benefits can be sought to support the child. Once again, we are back to a situation analogous to a divorced heterosexual couple.

        March 18, 2013 at 12:01 pm | Report abuse |
        • skastenbaumcnn

          I'm not sure what you are saying... that it's okay for a wife to stay at home and rely on her husband's work-provided health insurance but it's not okay for a same sex couple to have that same option? Or are you saying mothers should all go out and work so they can get their own health insurance and not be dependent on their husbands? Also, many same sex couples who have experienced a major health crisis have found that while civil union laws protect their rights to make healthcare decisions for their partners, in practice they often come up against obstacles in hospital environments. Also, your suggestion that a biological parent of a child should be responsible for that child's needs runs counter to laws in most states that concern surrogacy. These laws apply to both heterosexual and same sex couples who either use a surrogate or use a sperm donor.

          March 18, 2013 at 12:18 pm | Report abuse |
        • Reality

          Yes, actually. If the wife is staying at home because of children or in anticipation of children, then she will have no access to her own work-provided health insurance. Getting on her husband’s plan seems fair enough. Are there women who stay home with no intention of ever having children? Presumably. But setting up a system that only offers benefits to spouses with children or to those intending to have children would be impossibly complex to administer, necessarily intrusive, and offer little serious benefit.
          In regards to concerns about obstacles in hospital environments, what about those in care-taker roles who are not in any position to marry the person for whom they are providing care? Not far from where I live, for instance, two elderly sisters, one a widow and the other never-married, dote and care for each other as if they were spouses. You’re not seriously suggesting that these two sisters need to “marry” in order to have the level of input into each other’s healthcare decisions that I’m certain they would like to have? Expanding marriage to gay couples as a way of addressing this particular concern only leaves people such as these two sisters that much further out in the cold.

          March 18, 2013 at 1:37 pm | Report abuse |
        • Shane

          @Reality, you do realize that it generally costs more to cover your spouse with insurance than if your spouse was paying for their own, and in many areas, this extra cost is significant.

          So its actually taxing the married with one working more. Have you ever thought that there may be a good reason why the spouse may be on the spouses insurance. Some companies don't offer anywhere near decent insurance, some people wouldn't be able to afford insurance, and if they are a small business owner, then they may not be able to afford insurance either.

          March 18, 2013 at 4:08 pm | Report abuse |
        • ellid

          @Reality – sorry, but two sisters holding each other's health proxies cannot be denied access to each other because they are related. Same-sex partners who are not legally married are not considered relatives, and (and frequently are) denied access to their partners. The two situations are not remotely parallel, and you know it.


          March 18, 2013 at 5:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Swiftian

      Bravo, Reality, finally, an educated take on the opposing side. Too often the debate is simply a cluster of raving, emotional youths that are merely looking for easy benefits and taking revenge on anyone who opposes their lifestyle.
      Those who suffer worst are the children, and the "ex-gays." Ex-gays, in other words people who followed the homosexual lifestyle from start to finish and realized what a mindless game it is, are dealt with severely by almost all sides in this subject. If anyone is "in the closet" and "bullied" to emotional extremes, it is those who have turned their back on that lifestyle. When a study at last came around showing the real consequences of homosexuals raising children, again, the extremists scoff and scorn. When one is an extremist or, for lack of a better word, complete slacker, nothing is satisfactory...

      March 18, 2013 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse |
      • Shane

        Care to tell us who did this study?

        Because most that I've heard showed little to no difference between gay and straight couples raising children.

        March 18, 2013 at 4:09 pm | Report abuse |
        • ellid

          S/he can't, because there isn't any such study.

          March 18, 2013 at 4:57 pm | Report abuse |
      • ellid

        I hate to tell you this, but I'm 52 and straight, so calling me a "raving, emotional youth" will not work. Sorry.

        March 18, 2013 at 5:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • CM46

      Gay relationships come in all kinds. Some couples raise children that may or may not be biologically related to one of them or either of them. In some relationships both partners have health insurance and in others, one does not even though both work. Some do not have children but the point is that they have committed to a long term commitment to each other.
      Currently in California, gay spouses are entitle to access to their spouses insurance but they pay extra federal taxes on that benefit but heterosexual couples do not. How is this fair? Just to note, I am straight and Catholic but firmly believe in the separation of Church and State.

      March 18, 2013 at 3:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • Shane

      So what you are saying is that my wife and I shouldn't be able to get married because we can't have children (we're straight).

      March 18, 2013 at 4:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • dc777

      "Marriage between a [infertile] man and a [infertile] women can[not] produce children" – so by your logic, men and women with physical fertility issues shouldn't be allowed to marry? Old people, who can't have children shouldn't be allowed to marry? Perhaps we should require fertility tests, along with the blood tests for marriage licenses? (that would sure increase the marriage rates) What about sex offenders, or pedophiles? Will they be barred from getting married on the grounds that they shouldn't have children, and therefore don't fit your class of appropriate brides and grooms? Will single parents will be considered automatically 'married' to the other parents of their children since they have already proved their 'eligibility'?

      March 18, 2013 at 4:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • john smith

      reality, "marriage" is a civil contract that makes no other demands on the participants other than a commitment, which is dubious at best. none of your assertions has any bearing on the argument.

      March 18, 2013 at 4:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • ellid

      In that case, why are post-menopausal women allowed to marry? Ditto impotent men. And why aren't fertility tests required before a marriage license is issued? Or married couples given a certain number of years to produce a baby before their marriage is automatically annulled?

      Unless and until you can produce evidence that ANY of the above applies, your argument comes down to simple bigotry. Shame on you.

      March 18, 2013 at 4:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dr Matrix

      So then according to your logic, divorced or widowed men and women beyond child bearing age shouldn't get married either. Your idea that the only time a woman should be on her husband's heath insurance is to have kids and stay home and take care of them. One can only hope you find yourself alone in your later years living out your values with Rosie Palm.

      March 18, 2013 at 5:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • tim620

      By your logic, there is no reason to recognize the marriage of straight couples who can not have children or choose to not have children. If the only reason for marriage is children, then there are a lot of straight marriages in trouble (and shouldn't be recognized according to you). Marriage is not primarily about children. I'm not saying children aren't loved and aren't a great benefit for many couples. But if the only reason you get married is to have children, you are going to have some serious marriage issues.

      March 18, 2013 at 5:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • Nick

      So straight couples that choose not to have children should not be able to marry? Your argument is not valid, marriage is a civil a legal issue which does not require procreation.

      March 18, 2013 at 5:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • GrowUp

      Hetero marriage certainly seems pointless. Sky high divorce rates, fathers who simply abandon their families, leaving their kids unsupervised to get drunk, pass put in public, rape, the list goes on and on and on. You realize that this whole marriage thing is a slippery slope. Once you allow men to marry women where does it stop? Men marrying multiple women? Their sisters? Their mothers? Their dogs? Better put an end to this pointless deal now.

      March 18, 2013 at 6:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • Lee McBride

        Well, if we can create "marriage equality" by affirming "gay marriage", why not include polygamy? Don't they have rights too?

        March 18, 2013 at 7:46 pm | Report abuse |
        • Jkhur

          Potentially but it would be up to someone who attempts to legalize a polygamus marriage and is denied to raise and adjudicate the issue. Permitting same sex marriage makes it no more and no less likely that polygamus marriages would be recognized, any more than opposite sex marriage does.

          March 18, 2013 at 8:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jeffsf

      Reality...Yeah..but you want me to pay more taxes so you can get deductions to support a wife to stay at home and put your kids through school. I am tired of paying more so you can mate and breed... oh yeah and go to your tax exempt church.

      March 18, 2013 at 8:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • odds

      So gay couples can't adopt, have children from previous heterosexual relationships/marriages, or utilize modern medicine to procreate? Oh, but of course they can! So there's your reason for recognizing gay marriages. Don't believe gay couples are capable of raising well-adjusted children? Don't take my word for it. Just look it up. It's not like this is a new phenomenon that nobody has studied!

      Educate yourself or man up and admit that this is really about you being uncomfortable with other people living their lives the way they want to. Don't worry about society. We'll be fine without you and your kind to press for legislation that tells us how we should live by providing incentives for behaviors you think are healthy. I suppose you support that stupid soda ban, too, right? LoL

      March 18, 2013 at 10:47 pm | Report abuse |
  27. Superfluous Bob

    The Constitution of the United States already provides for people whom desire the company of the same sex to indulge in concentive activities in the privacy of their own homes. Same Gender Marriages are only being championed so that a legal means of divorce can be pursued; to claim otherwise is either denial or ignorance. As an example the two women who championed same sex marriage for nearly a decade divorced one year after marriage. Proving their entire argument for marriage was just so they could sue one another in divorce court. Hypocrisy knows no bounds. I support privacy laws; I do not support superfluous laws for the purpose of exploitation.

    March 18, 2013 at 10:31 am | Report abuse |
    • skastenbaumcnn

      @Superflous Bob, You might want to read up on the federal aspects of marriage law and how same sex couples in some instances don't enjoy the same rights/benefits that heterosexual wedded couples do. Also, on your argument about divorce... is that, then, the only reason we have laws and statutes concerning heterosexual marriage; so that a husband and wife can sue each other for divorce when it doesn't work out?

      March 18, 2013 at 10:37 am | Report abuse |
    • Wilbur

      Divorce? So what? Are you saying people don't have the right of divorce either? Give me a break. Get it through your thick skull that this is what these women want. They want to be married to the people they love and not the people that society thinks they should love. Please come into the 21st century.

      March 18, 2013 at 10:40 am | Report abuse |
    • ellid

      Actually, the strain of the lawsuit was what caused the Goodridges to split up a couple of years after they legally married – and they were the exception. Other plaintiff couples are still married.

      Also, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, regardless of whether the marriage is between same-sex or opposite-sex partners.


      March 18, 2013 at 4:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • ellid

      One more thing:

      Define "concentive." It's not in my (or anyone else's) dictionary.

      Thank you.

      March 18, 2013 at 5:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • GrowUp

      "Consensual". Get an education before you deign to pontificate–foolish knave.

      March 18, 2013 at 6:16 pm | Report abuse |
  28. Wilbur

    Your mom, immoral? I tell you what is immoral. Giving opposite-sex partners the right of marriage while denying that same right to same-sex couples. If anybody wants to get married to another person, they have a right to do so. They shouldn't be told by you or the government who they are allowed to get married to. Nothing that same-sex couples do will affect you life anyway so why are you people so obsessed about it. The views of people like you becoming the minority in places like New Jersey.

    March 18, 2013 at 10:30 am | Report abuse |
  29. your mom

    here at cnn, non news network, wolf and the gals, obomas buddies, we think that the immoral homosexual agaenda that steven sweeny of new jersey pushes upon his state residents. we won't allow the people to vote on this issue because we know what they want, and we are not going to accept there wisshes, we are going to force minority views on the najority. oops, but when it is time for re-election, we will be voted out of office. and cnn has been channel blocked by most n. jerseyens!

    March 18, 2013 at 10:21 am | Report abuse |
    • skastenbaumcnn

      When it comes to civil rights issues isn't that what lawmakers do, pass legislation that protects the rights of a minority group? Also, poll after poll has shown that a majority of New Jersey residents approve of legalizing same sex marriage and the numbers have been growing.

      March 18, 2013 at 10:32 am | Report abuse |
      • Freebird370


        Yeah, we heard that same polls garbage about how the California voters supported homosexual marriage. Guess what ? The polls which are media driven were wrong. Prop 8 against same sex marriage passed and is now in the Supreme Court.

        March 18, 2013 at 10:44 am | Report abuse |
        • Bekabran42

          Well, when you have organizations (Mormons and others) coming from outside your state, who donate millions of dollars to vilify your opponents, it does change things a bit, and thus Prop 8 became more of what these outsiders thought than what the people of the state actually wanted. Justice Walker and Prop 8 proponents agreed, that the campaign against prop 8 was meant to demonize gays and lesbians and create fear and confusion among Californians.

          March 18, 2013 at 4:14 pm | Report abuse |
        • ellid

          Proposition 8 passed only after a months-long smear campaign by the LDS and Catholic Churches. FAIL.

          March 18, 2013 at 5:02 pm | Report abuse |
        • Lee McBride

          Until a homosexual judge through it out.

          March 18, 2013 at 7:49 pm | Report abuse |
        • Jeffsf

          Lee....so a black judge should not be able to rule on race descrimination case. Your argument completely falls apart as soon as you start blaming the judge. Did you ever read the transcript of the Prop 8 trial? The defendants did a terrible job presenting their case. By the end of the trial it was almost sad. Please know what you are talking about before you slam a judge who dedicated many years on the bench.

          March 18, 2013 at 8:35 pm | Report abuse |
      • Lee McBride

        Yeah, so pretty soon they won't be a minority anymore.

        March 18, 2013 at 7:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Djona

      -35 for logic
      -25 for spelling
      -20 for grammar
      -10 for being from NJ

      March 18, 2013 at 10:33 am | Report abuse |
    • ellid

      Please stop using Google Translate when attempting to translate your postings in acceptable English. The above post was all but unreadable because the grammar and spelling were so poor.

      Thank you.

      March 18, 2013 at 5:01 pm | Report abuse |