If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Despite being slathered in parsley butter and accompanied by a bloomin' onion, New Jersey marriage equality bill is still vetoed by Governor Chris Christie   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 202
    More: Stupid, New Jersey, parsley, same-sex marriages, butter  
•       •       •

3014 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Feb 2012 at 2:21 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



202 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-18 11:33:37 AM
WTF is his problem? does he really think he's going to be vice president?
 
2012-02-18 12:19:08 PM
It's a weighty issue, and I'm not surprised to see him take such a heavy handed approach. After all, the legislature shouldn't be eating up so much time expanding entitlements like this, they should be trimming the fat from the bloated budget.
 
2012-02-18 01:14:42 PM

FlashHarry: WTF is his problem? does he really think he's going to be vice president?


No he wants this to be a referendum on the ballot to drive the fundies to the polls in what is going to be a seemingly lackluster turnout for the GOP this year as their candidates are all uninspiring.
 
2012-02-18 01:59:54 PM

Hobodeluxe: FlashHarry: WTF is his problem? does he really think he's going to be vice president?

No he wants this to be a referendum on the ballot to drive the fundies to the polls in what is going to be a seemingly lackluster turnout for the GOP this year as their candidates are all uninspiring.


It's both.
 
2012-02-18 02:00:19 PM

Hobodeluxe: No he wants this to be a referendum on the ballot to drive the fundies to the polls in what is going to be a seemingly lackluster turnout for the GOP this year as their candidates are all uninspiring.


Fundies aren't going to win you New Jersey. Actually, going full fundie is a fast way to piss off the huge YOOOGE populations of the NYC suburbs.
 
2012-02-18 02:05:39 PM

chimp_ninja: Hobodeluxe: No he wants this to be a referendum on the ballot to drive the fundies to the polls in what is going to be a seemingly lackluster turnout for the GOP this year as their candidates are all uninspiring.

Fundies aren't going to win you New Jersey. Actually, going full fundie is a fast way to piss off the huge YOOOGE populations of the NYC suburbs.


Yeah, we're (thankfully) not known for social conservatism here aside from the occasional strict Catholic. But if he's going national then he can't he can't have it on his record that he passed a gay marriage bill. Not that I agree with it, but that's the sad reality.
 
2012-02-18 02:13:07 PM

FreakinB: chimp_ninja: Hobodeluxe: No he wants this to be a referendum on the ballot to drive the fundies to the polls in what is going to be a seemingly lackluster turnout for the GOP this year as their candidates are all uninspiring.

Fundies aren't going to win you New Jersey. Actually, going full fundie is a fast way to piss off the huge YOOOGE populations of the NYC suburbs.

Yeah, we're (thankfully) not known for social conservatism here aside from the occasional strict Catholic. But if he's going national then he can't he can't have it on his record that he passed a gay marriage bill. Not that I agree with it, but that's the sad reality.


Wtf wtf, me me?
 
2012-02-18 02:16:10 PM

Hobodeluxe: FlashHarry: WTF is his problem? does he really think he's going to be vice president?

No he wants this to be a referendum on the ballot to drive the fundies to the polls in what is going to be a seemingly lackluster turnout for the GOP this year as their candidates are all uninspiring.


Pretty much. It's keeping on message at this point. Less, I think for the hopes of winning, than keeping money flowing.
 
2012-02-18 02:23:54 PM
I hear he did that to ensure that the vote would go on a ballot in the next elections.

Otherwise, I don't have a very high opinion of Gov. Crisco.
 
2012-02-18 02:24:20 PM
Too fat to come out of the closet I see.
 
2012-02-18 02:24:27 PM
Aziz Ansari on gay marriage (new window)

seriously, you guys. :)
 
2012-02-18 02:27:40 PM
Because Chris Christie is a douchebag.
 
2012-02-18 02:27:42 PM
www.pbs.org

Way to take a stand, Governor.
 
2012-02-18 02:28:12 PM
There are a lot of things I like about Gov. Christy.

This is not one of those things.

/Or his drug war support
 
2012-02-18 02:30:06 PM

Guidette Frankentits: Too fat to come out of the closet I see.


I thought he came out when he ordered the Flag half mass for Whitney Houston
 
2012-02-18 02:30:33 PM
What an asshole.
 
2012-02-18 02:31:01 PM
Did the people vote for it? I heard he vetoed it because he wants it to be up to the people to decide and not the legislature. Which, iirc, is the way the government should work. Right?
 
2012-02-18 02:32:11 PM

RminusQ: Hobodeluxe: FlashHarry: WTF is his problem? does he really think he's going to be vice president?

No he wants this to be a referendum on the ballot to drive the fundies to the polls in what is going to be a seemingly lackluster turnout for the GOP this year as their candidates are all uninspiring.

It's both.


It's a dessert topping and a floor wax.
 
2012-02-18 02:32:49 PM

FloydA: It's a weighty issue, and I'm not surprised to see him take such a heavy handed approach. After all, the legislature shouldn't be eating up so much time expanding entitlements like this, they should be trimming the fat from the bloated budget.


That's such a ham-fisted statement. You're focusing on the fat of the issue and avoiding the girth of controversy. Gay marriage is a massive controversy which cannot be swallowed in a single bite.

Chris Christie is fat.
 
2012-02-18 02:35:39 PM

ctt1wbw: Did the people vote for it? I heard he vetoed it because he wants it to be up to the people to decide and not the legislature. Which, iirc, is the way the government should work. Right?



Civil rights are not supposed to be subject to popular whim. Several parts of the Constitution were written specifically to prevent majorities from voting away the rights of minorities.

If we lived in a true "majority rule" democracy, you would be correct, but the US is a constitutional democratic republic, in which specific limitations on majority rule are in place, explicitly to prevent things like putting other people's civil rights up to a popular vote.
 
2012-02-18 02:35:44 PM

ctt1wbw: Did the people vote for it? I heard he vetoed it because he wants it to be up to the people to decide and not the legislature. Which, iirc, is the way the government should work. Right?


By that logic, we shouldn't have legislature at all.
 
2012-02-18 02:35:57 PM
ctt1: Referendums are one way that government can work. But, this being a republic with duly elected representatives, the far more common (and far more appropriate, here) process is for elected officials to pass laws. Surely you're familiar with the process?
 
2012-02-18 02:36:14 PM

ctt1wbw: Did the people vote for it? I heard he vetoed it because he wants it to be up to the people to decide and not the legislature. Which, iirc, is the way the government should work. Right?


Why even have a legislature then? Let the people decide every issue.
 
2012-02-18 02:36:40 PM
So, how likely is it to get an override of the veto?
 
2012-02-18 02:38:17 PM

moops: FloydA: It's a weighty issue, and I'm not surprised to see him take such a heavy handed approach. After all, the legislature shouldn't be eating up so much time expanding entitlements like this, they should be trimming the fat from the bloated budget.

That's such a ham-fisted statement. You're focusing on the fat of the issue and avoiding the girth of controversy. Gay marriage is a massive controversy which cannot be swallowed in a single bite.

Chris Christie is fat.


I thought this was a gay pun post until the end.

/still not entirely sure it isn't
 
2012-02-18 02:39:54 PM
Ahem.
As a social issue liberal, and an economic centrist, I have to say that this will go into the books as another flub. Like the rail tunnel fiasco, he can't seem to see more than 6 months into the future and see what the dividends would be over time.

/didn't and won't vote for him
//straight Democratic ticket
/// could vote for a sane, non fundie, willing to compromise Republican if one could be found
 
2012-02-18 02:40:22 PM

OtherLittleGuy: So, how likely is it to get an override of the veto?


They have to increase the vote quite a bit, but they've got two years to do it. And the percentages keep growing in our favor, so it's feasible they'll be able to do it before time runs out.

That said, there's a lot of pissed of homos in New York City and the surrounding (Jersey) suburbs. It'll be interesting to see what the fallout is here.
 
2012-02-18 02:42:46 PM
LOL....the same retards complaining are the same ones that would call for a referendum if it was reigning public sector unions like they did in Ohio.
 
2012-02-18 02:43:14 PM
He was/is still my first choice for the presidency, in a field full of lightweights (heh). I see nothing wrong with this (but then again, I'm one of those guys that doesn't think the government should be handling marriage/baptism/etc in the first place)
 
2012-02-18 02:43:52 PM

moops: FloydA: It's a weighty issue, and I'm not surprised to see him take such a heavy handed approach. After all, the legislature shouldn't be eating up so much time expanding entitlements like this, they should be trimming the fat from the bloated budget.

That's such a ham-fisted statement. You're focusing on the fat of the issue and avoiding the girth of controversy. Gay marriage is a massive controversy which cannot be swallowed in a single bite.

Chris Christie is fat.


The libs can blubber all they want and there will be whaling and gnashing of teeth in the capitol rotund a, but unless they want to bring a law suet against the governor, he can just sit and drink another stout.
 
2012-02-18 02:46:52 PM

Elephantman: LOL....the same retards complaining are the same ones that would call for a referendum if it was reigning public sector unions like they did in Ohio.



In this case, it's a right wing governor who wants to prevent people from having rights, whereas in Ohio, it was a right wing governor who wanted to prevent people from having rights.

I can understand why that confused you.
 
2012-02-18 02:47:32 PM
Here's an article on the subject with a bit more content:

Link (new window)

Refusing to dictate policy on the most controversial issues in favor of an open referendum? That sounds an awful lot like government actually working.
 
2012-02-18 02:48:28 PM
www.theblaze.com
Ask Pres. Obama where he keeps his leftovers. Ask him!
 
2012-02-18 02:50:21 PM

STRYPERSWINE: He was/is still my first choice for the presidency, in a field full of lightweights (heh). I see nothing wrong with this (but then again, I'm one of those guys that doesn't think the government should be handling marriage/baptism/etc in the first place)


The government doesn't have the option to NOT handle marriage, because marriage affects a person's legal rights. Just a silly little example: if a man is accused of a crime, his wife has the right to refuse to give privileged information on the stand. The court (the government) HAS to have a decision whether a person is a spouse for the purpose of trial procedure. Same for income tax, etc. Gov't has to have a rule for who it will consider a spouse.
 
2012-02-18 02:50:27 PM
I hate this fat fark. I'm glad I don't live in NJ anymore.
 
2012-02-18 02:51:56 PM

FloydA: It's a weighty issue, and I'm not surprised to see him take such a heavy handed approach. After all, the legislature shouldn't be eating up so much time expanding entitlements like this, they should be trimming the fat from the bloated budget.


Quit it! You're making me hungry.
 
2012-02-18 02:52:13 PM

My Bologna Has A Maiden Name: Here's an article on the subject with a bit more content:

Link (new window)

Refusing to dictate policy on the most controversial issues in favor of an open referendum? That sounds an awful lot like government actually working.


Nope, it sounds like a Governor refusing to stand up to support the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
 
2012-02-18 02:54:59 PM

My Bologna Has A Maiden Name: Here's an article on the subject with a bit more content:

Link (new window)

Refusing to dictate policy on the most controversial issues in favor of an open referendum? That sounds an awful lot like government actually working.


What a crock of shiat.
 
2012-02-18 02:55:44 PM
 
2012-02-18 02:55:57 PM
Another overzealous staffer projecting. DOUGHBOY FOR PRESIDENT!
 
2012-02-18 02:56:37 PM
Chris Christie thinks he knows were the penis goes. Looking at his own is a different matter.
 
2012-02-18 02:58:33 PM

peterquince: ctt1: Referendums are one way that government can work. But, this being a republic with duly elected representatives, the far more common (and far more appropriate, here) process is for elected officials to pass laws. Surely you're familiar with the process?


I saw a bit about California's structure of doing far too much- just about anything- by referendum. It's democratic, yes, in fact technically a pure form of DIRECT democracy, but absurdly chaotic form of government decision-making. The unfunded mandates exist independent of any overall strategy. And you may think that representatives are corrupt because they can be bought, but direct-democracy can be bought even easier. And it's basically a surprise answer. Nobody thought Prop 8 (banning gay marriage in California) was going to pass, so it was considered unnecessary to spend a lot of money fighting against it because it was just stupid trolling. But someone (Utah) spent a lot of money promoting it anyways, and "surprise!" suddenly it's law.
 
2012-02-18 02:58:59 PM
He's pissed because there are no chubby chasers in NJ
 
2012-02-18 02:59:25 PM
peterquince:
The government doesn't have the option to NOT handle marriage, because marriage affects a person's legal rights. Just a silly little example: if a man is accused of a crime, his wife has the right to refuse to give privileged information on the stand. The court (the government) HAS to have a decision whether a person is a spouse for the purpose of trial procedure. Same for income tax, etc. Gov't has to have a rule for who it will consider a spouse.

There's nothing there that a civil union couldn't solve. That way ANYBODY could have those rights, if they choose. Teh_Gheys, senior citizens, roommates, etc. Let the churches decide who they want to marry or not marry. The government can handle legal partnerships.
 
2012-02-18 03:00:16 PM

ctt1wbw: Did the people vote for it? I heard he vetoed it because he wants it to be up to the people to decide and not the legislature. Which, iirc, is the way the government should work. Right?


No, we are representative democracy not a direct democracy, which is a good thing . It is easy for an uninformed population to back something. Minority rights will always be trampled in a direct democracy.
 
2012-02-18 03:00:39 PM
Oops, sorry about the bold.
 
2012-02-18 03:01:57 PM

special20: I hear he did that to ensure that the vote would go on a ballot in the next elections.

Otherwise, I don't have a very high opinion of Gov. Crisco.


Hardly. He was trying desperately to get it on a referendum, so he wouldn't have to commit to a position on it.

/Suck it, Gov. Tubby
//Looking forward to his impending concession speech.
 
2012-02-18 03:06:47 PM

STRYPERSWINE: peterquince:
The government doesn't have the option to NOT handle marriage, because marriage affects a person's legal rights. Just a silly little example: if a man is accused of a crime, his wife has the right to refuse to give privileged information on the stand. The court (the government) HAS to have a decision whether a person is a spouse for the purpose of trial procedure. Same for income tax, etc. Gov't has to have a rule for who it will consider a spouse.

There's nothing there that a civil union couldn't solve. That way ANYBODY could have those rights, if they choose. Teh_Gheys, senior citizens, roommates, etc. Let the churches decide who they want to marry or not marry. The government can handle legal partnerships.


I like that you compare gays who are in loving and committed till-death-do-us-part relationships to roommates. That's awesome.

My biggest response here is that adding a separate designation of "civil union" causes lots and lots of extra work for the government. Consider this: a person's marital status affects his rights under 1,046 separate statutes at last review. In order to add "civil union" into the legal code of this country, Congress would have to re-write every single one of those laws. That's lots and lots of hours that you'd have to pay the gov't lawyers who do the actual drafting. HUGE waste of money.

I'll also add that governments have been in the business of regulating marriage MUCH longer than religious groups have (particularly Christianity). So if someone wants to change a term so that civil and religious marriages have different names, that's fine with me. But the churches should change theirs.

Bottom line is this: The government has a legal/social program that it calls marriage. I am effectively barred from this legal program solely because of my sexual orientation. That is unconstitutional and flat-out immoral. And changing the term so that I still can't have access to it doesn't solve that problem.
 
2012-02-18 03:11:36 PM
i44.tinypic.com
 
2012-02-18 03:11:37 PM
www.sportsblink.com

I GOT OPTIONS AND A CHOICE OF TOPPINGS
 
Displayed 50 of 202 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report