Same-sex marriage has boosted.

[Vinylic.]

(CNN) -- Proponents of same-sex marriage got a boost on two fronts Monday, when the governor of Washington signed a bill legalizing marriage for gay and lesbian couples and the New Jersey state Senate voted 24-16 in favor of a similar bill.
The New Jersey bill now goes to the Assembly, which is slated to vote Thursday. "We're cautiously optimistic" about its chances for passage, said Steven Goldstein, a spokesman for Garden State Equality, which has lobbied for the bill.
But the legislation is threatened in both states.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said last month that the issue "should not be decided by 121 people in the State House in Trenton." Instead, he favors a statewide referendum.
"I think that this is not an issue that should rest solely in my hands, in the hands of the Senate president or in the hands of the speaker or the other 118 members of the Legislature," he said. "Let's let the people of New Jersey decide what is right for the state."
If he vetoes the measure, "the battle for overriding the veto begins," Goldstein said.
Gov. Chris Gregoire's signature to legislation legalizing same-sex marriage added her state to a list that includes Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, New York and the District of Columbia.
The law will go into effect in June, when the legislative session ends, but opponents have vowed to try to halt its implementation by putting it on the November ballot.
That possibility did not appear to dampen the spirits of those who attended the bill-signing ceremony.
"We have finally said yes to marriage equality," Gregoire said to applause moments before signing the bill. "It gives same-sex couples the same right to a marriage license as heterosexual couples."
She noted that churches are not required to perform same-sex marriages under the law and expressed confidence that, if put to a state-wide vote, Washingtonians would back the measure.
"I believe our Washingtonians will say yes because it's time for us to stand up for our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters, our moms and dads, our friends and the couple down the road," she said. "It is time to give our loving gay and lesbian couples the right to a marriage license in Washington state."
But the news for same-sex marriage advocates is not all positive. In states where legislators have passed Defense of Marriage Acts, which define marriage as being between a man and a woman only, they are taking defensive action. North Carolina is set to vote in a May primary election on such an act, and Minnesota is to hold such a vote in November.
In 2009, Maine legislators passed a same-sex marriage bill that drew challenges by opponents who pushed for a referendum that ultimately overturned the law with 53% of the vote. Proponents are trying to get it back on the ballot this year. Gay rights advocates have garnered thousands of signatures in an effort to force a second referendum in November.
In California, a 2008 public vote outlawed gay and lesbian couples' right to wed.
Two years later, a federal district court overturned the voter-approved measure known as Proposition 8, saying couples were unfairly denied their rights. A federal appeals court ruled last week against California's ban, arguing that it unconstitutionally singles out gays and lesbians for discrimination.
The ban has remained in place during the appeals process and could soon get a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Similar battles have unfolded in Maryland, where same-sex marriage opponents have pressed for referenda to counter bills that appear to enjoy growing support in their statehouse.
The National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, predicted that the referenda will block the marriages from taking place.
"Ultimately, the people are going to decide, and we're confident that the people will vote to protect marriage as the union between a man and a woman," President Brian Brown said. "The legislature's decision is a decision against the will of the people."
Marriage, he said, is by definition the union of a man and a woman. "The state did not create that definition; the state merely recognizes it."
Statewide votes are not the way to handle the issue, according to Thalia Zepatos, director of public engagement for Freedom to Marry. "The question I like to pose to people is: Would you like the entire state to vote on whether you could marry your husband or wife?" she asked.
But the trend among Americans seems to be moving toward acceptance of the practice. A CNN/ORC International Poll carried out in September found that 53% of respondents said marriages between gay or lesbian couples should be recognized as valid, up from 44% in 2009. The poll had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
In September's poll, Democrats favored recognizing them as valid by 67% to 31%, independents by 53% to 46%. Just 30% of Republicans said they favored recognizing same-sex marriage as valid, versus 69% who did not. Those results had a sampling error of plus or minus 6 points.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/13/us/same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

 

[Pluvia]

Had a huge big talk about this subject last night with Jungle.

Still don't understand how it's unconstitutional for the majority to vote on minority rights, yet at the same time it's not. And how states don't have to follow amendments unless it's brought to the supreme court.

 

[CAOTIC]

i'm getting tired of everyone posting about a human rights issue that shouldn't be politicized the way it currently is.

i wish progressive states took the lead of countries like sweden and canada to legalize gay marriage quietly, unlike americans and australians who waste time making a media circus out of it and generating hate at the same time.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

I will never ever really understand the non-gay/lesbian side opposing same-sex marriage.

It's not like their money is being taken in anyway.

 

[Deleted member]

The only reason I can think of to oppose same-sex-marriage is if you're a bible thumper, or if you're homophobic.
They might as well be interchangeable terms.

 

[Strong Badam]

This is awful. Marriage is a terrible thing for any couple to go through.

 

[JonnyW]

This is awful. Marriage is a terrible thing for any couple to go through.

lol true that.

 

[Ussi]

I think people are thinking some people are gonna try to find loopholes with gay marriage for marriage benifits.

 

[Vinylic.]

I don't think it's that hard for gay marriage to be approved. It's just the government that gives others a hard time to approve it.

 

[Spelt]

i'm getting tired of everyone posting about a human rights issue that shouldn't be politicized the way it currently is.

i wish progressive states took the lead of countries like sweden and canada to legalize gay marriage quietly, unlike americans and australians who waste time making a media circus out of it and generating hate at the same time.

It's the gay community's fault, all of it. If they'd stop turning everything into a world war it'd probably be legalized universally by now.

 

[Veetaak]

It's the gay community's fault, all of it. If they'd stop turning everything into a world war it'd probably be legalized universally by now.

What world do you live in?

I would be raging too if I didn't have the same rights as others because of my sexuality

 

[Luigitoilet]

It's the gay community's fault, all of it. If they'd stop turning everything into a world war it'd probably be legalized universally by now.

"it's the black communities fault, all of it. If they'd stop turning segregation and racism into a major issue it would be gone by now"- some racist ****head from the 50s

 

[Vinylic.]

In other words, it's not their fault. But I don't think it's anybody else's since it's more of a debate/protest kind of way rather than a fight to the death.

 

[Spelt]

"it's the black communities fault, all of it. If they'd stop turning segregation and racism into a major issue it would be gone by now"- some racist ****head from the 50s

Where did I say it wasn't a major issue?

Oh.



"The only way to deal with an ******* is to egg his car and TP his house" - Luigitoilet.


I can do it too!

 

[Morin0]

They're kind of the same thing, brother.

EDIT:

Wait...

Spoiler

Sorry, carry on...

 

[SuperBowser]

It's the gay community's fault, all of it. If they'd stop turning everything into a world war it'd probably be legalized universally by now.

is this sarcasm?

 

[Luigitoilet]

Where did I say it wasn't a major issue?

Oh.



"The only way to deal with an ******* is to egg his car and TP his house" - Luigitoilet.


I can do it too!

Correct me if I misinterpreted, but you said that those uppity gays were turning their struggles for equality into a "world war". To me, that implies that the gays are making too big a deal out of sexual equality in your eyes, and that they should just be quiet about it.

 

[Spelt]

Making too big a deal out of something doesn't automatically mean you should just shut up completely.

 

[Pluvia]

I thought you were being sarcastic so I never said anything but I guess you weren't.

Anyway the whole point is it shouldn't be a big deal, equality isn't something you should have to ask others for just because you're different. That's why it's a big deal, because people deliberately go out their way to stop others being equal to them.

 

[1048576]

Also there is no "the gay community" any more than there is a black community or a blue-eyes community. It's a monolithic schtick formed in your own mind because there is only one difference between yourself and a homosexual (sexual orientation) so you assume that every gay person's entire gamut of hopes, aspirations, and thoughts consists of 'let me **** people of my own gender.'

 

[Spelt]

You're confusing stereotypes with basic categorizations.

If all gay people are gay then that makes them ... all gay.
put them all in a group and it's the "gay community".

You're overthinking the idea and taking offense because you're rationalizing what isn't there. Not to mention putting words in my mouth.

Categorizing an entire species as cats must mean they all act exactly the same way and do everything the same, right? Yeah, totally.
It's like our own military of perfectly identical beings that we can use to make funny youtube videos on command.




I never get to actually argue the point I was originally trying to make, because people just find it easier to jump to conclusions and twist my words around instead of just asking what I mean if they don't completely understand. And then I get accused of being dumb/ridiculous because everyone's trying to grasp at straws and change my posts to their liking.

This is why it's just so much easier to troll people and purposely act ********.

 

[1048576]

I understand the point you're trying to make. You're saying if gay people were less whiny and focused on blending in, straight people would be more accepting of them. My counterpoint is that some of them do that, some of them don't. You simply notice the ones that don't, and, because of you're preconceived notions of gay people, extrapolate those behaviors to the "gay community".

If I'm wrong, please make your point clearer.

 

[Spelt]

Kinda. I don't exactly want them to blend in, but toning it down a notch, or two (or five) would be appreciated.

The problem is their entire plan is counterproductive. They're trying to convince people they're no different than anybody else and that they shouldn't be looked down upon simply because of their sexually. Yet they have things like the pride parade where the entire message is the complete opposite of what they're trying to get across. It's just giving the anti-gay marriage camp all the ammunition they need to ridicule them.

And yes, I realize there are exceptions and not all gay people are like that, just like any other stereotype. Unfortunately, though, most gay guys really are like how they are portrayed in the media. I knew 7 gay guys in high school alone and all of them minus one were extremely stereotypical.

 

[1048576]

You probably knew several more and just didn't know it. I'm guessing if you knew me IRL you wouldn't be able to figure it out, and it's not like I'd tell you out of the blue.

And I want you to pin down who you're referring to when you say "they" and "their" entire plan. Certainly Pluvia and I aren't attending pride parades and faking lisps, so it's not all gay people.

And the lazy effeminate queens annoy me too; or at least they probably would if I actually knew any. Rap culture annoys me also, as do prissy females. But I don't think black people and women should "turn it down a notch."

It's sort of like knowing nothing about black people except what's on BET. That would cause an ignorant person to be racist. The solution is to meet black people and learn that black people are people, and they share the same characteristics as every other people, save the color of their skin. I imagine the homophobes will turn when they learn that gay people are not defined by their gayness, but by their humanity.

 

[Spelt]

You probably knew several more and just didn't know it. I'm guessing if you knew me IRL you wouldn't be able to figure it out, and it's not like I'd tell you out of the blue.

Nope, unless they were in the closet.

And I want you to pin down who you're referring to when you say "they" and "their" entire plan. Certainly Pluvia and I aren't attending pride parades and faking lisps, so it's not all gay people.

Obviously the people fighting for same sex marriage.

But I don't think black people and women should "turn it down a notch."

It wouldn't hurt, but they don't annoy me as much as gay guys.

It's sort of like knowing nothing about black people except what's on BET. That would cause an ignorant person to be racist. The solution is to meet black people and learn that black people are people, and they share the same characteristics as every other people, save the color of their skin. I imagine the homophobes will turn when they learn that gay people are not defined by their gayness, but by their humanity.

No, that is not how it is at all.

Like I said before, all stereotypes have exceptions.

Most people realize this (because it should be common sense) but they just don't "accept" it. That doesn't make the stereotypes any less annoying.

And now i'm back to arguing a point I wasn't even making in the first place.





until things like pride parades continue existing my point will still stand. That part is fact.

 

[Gea]

Honest question here. It doesn't bother me that any sexual orientation be given the liberty to be married in the eyes of the government and receive all of the benefits that go along with it. However, whenever this is brought up I also have to ask, "Why is polygamy also illegal?" I can understand the thought process of a marriage should be between a man and a woman because of tradition and religion, etc. However I never really understood why people championing homosexual marriage don't just go for, "people should be able to marry who they wish" and just put safeguards around people trying to play the system.

Just something to chew on. Of all world issues, this one affects me the least so...

 

[Pluvia]

Numbers got offended because you grouped him with people who were nothing like him, which he is being a bit overly sensitive about, but at the same time he does have a point it is incredibly annoying to be grouped with people you have 1 thing in common with despite the fact they're completely different.

Anyway I agree, and I'd like to think most other people would, that pride parades should be stopped once the equality is there. There's a difference from saying pride parades do nothing but stereotype and you don't like them, compared to saying that all gay people are the same and shouldn't get equality.

Honest question here. It doesn't bother me that any sexual orientation be given the liberty to be married in the eyes of the government and receive all of the benefits that go along with it. However, whenever this is brought up I also have to ask, "Why is polygamy also illegal?" I can understand the thought process of a marriage should be between a man and a woman because of tradition and religion, etc. However I never really understood why people championing homosexual marriage don't just go for, "people should be able to marry who they wish" and just put safeguards around people trying to play the system.

Just something to chew on. Of all world issues, this one affects me the least so...

Because that's a different argument, and a matter that affects all sexual orientations. You could also wonder why straight people don't ask that for example.

 

[Spelt]

Numbers got offended because you grouped him with people who were nothing like him, which he is being a bit overly sensitive about, but at the same time he does have a point it is incredibly annoying to be grouped with people you have 1 thing in common with despite the fact they're completely different.

Anyway I agree, and I'd like to think most other people would, that pride parades should be stopped once the equality is there. There's a difference from saying pride parades do nothing but stereotype and you don't like them, compared to saying that all gay people are the same and shouldn't get equality.



Because that's a different argument, and a matter that affects all sexual orientations. You could also wonder why straight people don't ask that for example.

at the bolded part: I never said that, or even hinted at that. :1

even in my first post on the subject i made it clear i wasn't against same sex marriage. I just said the way they're going about getting it is all wrong.

 

[Pluvia]

Yeah I never said you did, I said I agree that pride parades should be stopped once the equality is there.

There's nothing wrong with saying you don't like them, it's not the same as saying you don't want equality.

 

[Gea]

Because that's a different argument, and a matter that affects all sexual orientations. You could also wonder why straight people don't ask that for example.

I don't have to wonder. Straight people don't ask for that generally for the same reasons many do not ask for gay marriage. I would ask you to expand how it is that much of a different issue, considering it all boils down to being legally allowed to marry who one wishes.

 

[Spelt]

I don't have to wonder. Straight people don't ask for that generally for the same reasons many do not ask for gay marriage. I would ask you to expand how it is that much of a different issue, considering it all boils down to being legally allowed to marry who one wishes.

lolwat.

how does gay marriage have anything to do with polygamy, at all?

whoever who want to marry =/= how many people you want to marry.
completely different things.

 

[Gea]

Both are issues about being able to marry who one chooses. Wouldn't it be kind of hypocritical to be pro one and anti the other?

 

[Spelt]

No.

Again, who and how many are two completely different things.
gay marriage would be between TWO people. polygamy has nothing to do with it.

It's just another slippery slope argument, and almost as bad as the "but then soon people are going to want to marry dogs!" one at that. :U

 

[Gea]

Except dogs are not people. Nor am I suggesting a slippery slope. Nor have you made a case against why marriage being between two people is more important than their genders.

 

[Spelt]

Except dogs are not people.

And two people are not three people (or more).

Nor am I suggesting a slippery slope.

Yes, that's exactly what you're suggesting.

Nor have you made a case against why marriage being between two people is more important than their genders.

I'm guessing you worded this wrong, but even then there's no reason I should have to.

Same sex marriage and polygamy are two completely different situations. One is a marriage between two willing participants, while the other is a marriage between three or more willing participants.

How about you make a case showing why they're similar, cuz I'm not seeing it.

And no, "Who ever you want to marry" does not count, as I have explained multiple times already.

 

[Gea]

They are essentially the same issue. It is the government regulating who a person can and cannot marry because the general populous does not agree with it. You have not argued or explained this away. All you have stated is that they are different things. I agree, polygamy and two people of the same gender are different situations, but people who wish for one or the other are after the same overall goal and are held back by the same things.

If you're wanting to, as you have been, say that these situations are impossibly different and that gender should now be a non-issue in marriage but number should be retained, it would help to say why other than repeat that those two words are indeed different and therefore the situations are not similar at all.

Also, I think it's kind of silly that the implication you've made is that there is something inherently wrong with polygamy by comparing it to people marrying dogs. If you do believe that's the case, what makes that practice so negative? A man is certainly able to legally support two women in his private life, but once the state gets involved...

I'm not even specifically for polygamy or gay marriage. I do think that, within reason, the government shouldn't interfere with how people lead their private lives, so outlawing either is silly.

But hey, gay marriage and "regular" marriage aren't the same at all. One is a marriage between a man and a woman, and the other is a marriage between two people of the same gender. Or is this a whole 15th vs 19th Amendment situation, where you think a slightly different situation falling under the same kind of discrimination warrants two separate battles for consistent civil liberties?

 

[Dre89]

Gay marriage and polygamy can be grouped together because they both deviate from the traditional definition of marriage, which is a union between a man and woman.

Considering that neither deviation is harming anyone, it's a fair point.

Polygamists don't have equal rights, despite not harming anyone with their intended practice. This was basically the argument for homosexual marriage.

And I always find it interesting when gays and pro gays complain about stereotyping, because when I used to think homosexuality was immoral people used to call me all sorts of insults and assume I was a Christian biggot who thought homosexuality was a choice before they even heard me out.

 

[Spelt]

They are essentially the same issue. It is the government regulating who a person can and cannot marry because the general populous does not agree with it. You have not argued or explained this away. All you have stated is that they are different things. I agree, polygamy and two people of the same gender are different situations, but people who wish for one or the other are after the same overall goal and are held back by the same things.

Oh.
My.
God.

No.

For the billionth time. The government isn't regulating who a polygamist can marry (except for people of the same sex harhar) they just don't allow someone to marry multiple people. Gay marriage and straight marriage are both between two consenting adults. There's no deviation there. There IS a deviation when you add more people.

What's not to get?
I'm not explaining that again, especially because you haven't even disproved it in any of the 467876543267 times i've brought it up.
Move on already, that argument is flawed.

If you're wanting to, as you have been, say that these situations are impossibly different and that gender should now be a non-issue in marriage but number should be retained, it would help to say why other than repeat that those two words are indeed different and therefore the situations are not similar at all.

Here you go:

gen·der/ˈjendər/
Noun:

(in languages such as Latin, Greek, Russian, and German) Each of the classes (typically masculine, feminine, common, neuter) of nouns...
The property (in nouns and related words) of belonging to such a class: "adjectives usually agree with the noun in gender and number".

num·ber/ˈnəmbər/
Noun:
An arithmetical value, expressed by a word or symbol, representing a particular quantity and used in counting, calculating, and for...

Now you explain why gender and number should be treated the same.
Which you can't, because they're obviously two different concepts as the definitions above clarify.

Also, I think it's kind of silly that the implication you've made is that there is something inherently wrong with polygamy by comparing it to people marrying dogs. If you do believe that's the case, what makes that practice so negative? A man is certainly able to legally support two women in his private life, but once the state gets involved...

Nope.
Not what I said at all.

I'm not even specifically for polygamy or gay marriage. I do think that, within reason, the government shouldn't interfere with how people lead their private lives, so outlawing either is silly.

I agree.

But hey, gay marriage and "regular" marriage aren't the same at all. One is a marriage between a man and a woman, and the other is a marriage between two people of the same gender. Or is this a whole 15th vs 19th Amendment situation, where you think a slightly different situation falling under the same kind of discrimination warrants two separate battles for consistent civil liberties?

You realize you just did what you were criticizing me for, right?

Gay marriage and polygamy can be grouped together because they both deviate from the traditional definition of marriage, which is a union between a man and woman.

That is obviously true but it has nothing to do with the point. GI joe and barbie getting married also deviates from the traditional definition, guess we should legalize that too.

Considering that neither deviation is harming anyone, it's a fair point.

Again, true but irrelevant.

And I always find it interesting when gays and pro gays complain about stereotyping, because when I used to think homosexuality was immoral people used to call me all sorts of insults and assume I was a Christian biggot who thought homosexuality was a choice before they even heard me out.

You were wrong, no matter your rationalization.

 

[Deleted member]

Gay marriage and straight marriage are both between two consenting adults. There's no deviation there. There IS a deviation when you add more people.

and then later down you agree with Dre.'s line of thought they are both deviations.
troll detected, move along people

 

[Spelt]

Wow, are you kidding me?

I was saying there's no deviation between two people of any gender getting married and then I agreed there was a deviation between the standard definition of marriage we currently use.

I never get to actually argue the point I was originally trying to make, because people just find it easier to jump to conclusions and twist my words around instead of just asking what I mean if they don't completely understand. And then I get accused of being dumb/ridiculous because everyone's trying to grasp at straws and change my posts to their liking.

This is why it's just so much easier to troll people and purposely act ********.

I think i'm just going to put this in my signature so people know how idiotic they're being without me having to spoon feed it to them every time.