Gay Patriot Header Image

NJ Senate Defeats Gay Marriage

So late today the Senate in New Jersey, one of the blueist of blue states (based on recent Prez elections), defeated a gay marriage proposal.

Gay rights advocates were confident of a legislative win and they pushed for passage while defeated Gov. Corzine was still holding his bill-signing pen.

So WTF? What has happened to the gay marriage movement? If you lose in CA and NJ, where do you go now?

I think it is a dead issue. Dead.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

63 Comments

  1. How is the government in your bedroom then? I don’t follow.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 8, 2010 @ 1:52 pm - January 8, 2010

  2. Lori, are you advocating libertarian anarchy?

    Comment by heliotrope — January 8, 2010 @ 2:51 pm - January 8, 2010

  3. She seems to be arguing that because she has to pay for a power of attorney, while straights do not, that the government is therefore in her bedroom, and in order for the government to get out of her bedroom it should therefore subsidize her lesbian relationship, or perhaps nationalize the legal industry…its unclear.

    Comment by American Elephant — January 8, 2010 @ 8:24 pm - January 8, 2010

  4. No, what I am saying is that in this country, a collective makes the decision as to who may legally do what, and who must pay for it. It determines that some get breaks from the exorbitant level of taxation imposed upon us all, and of course this means more taxes for whomever is not counted, by the Borg, as being worthy to be so exalted.

    Elephant has to see everything through the same, tired “liberal versus conservative” prism, so he is either unwilling or unable to grasp what I am saying. There are a wide variety of excellent books out there on libertarian philosophy. They can easily clear up everyone’s confusion.

    I would recommend, as a starter, “Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression,” by Dr. Mary J. Ruwart. David Boaz’s “Libertarianism: A Primer” would also provide a good beginning.

    I don’t want the government to “subsidize” my relationship. I want it to stop making me subsidize anyone else’s. As for “nationalizing the legal industry,” that remark is so ridiculous I won’t attempt to respond to it. I’m a libertarian. I support de-nationalization, rather than the other way around. Anyone who had even a kindergarten-level grasp of libertarian philosophy would understand that.

    Comment by Lori Heine — January 8, 2010 @ 9:10 pm - January 8, 2010

  5. Lori,

    Thanks for the Libertarian reading suggestions. I am fairly well read on the libertarian concepts and I am always troubled by the Lyndon LaRouche, Bob Barr, Ron Paul aspects of it. If libertarians are going to achieve any level of influence they are going to have to discover a way to stop acting out the plot line of The Lord of the Flies.

    I asked if you are a libertarian anarchist, because so far as I can see, true libertarians are destined to forming some isolated colony/commune where they all agree to disagree and then set about not killing one another.

    I am a conservative and I have no interest whatsoever in your love activities. However, if you want to go all activist and mess up the playground or try to force it on public education or gross me out at church, I will confront you in full voice. Those saggy baggy geriatrics in Vermont who wander the village naked are no different than black flies. They are a reality, but you don’t have to love them. Decorum is usually not a minority construct.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 9, 2010 @ 10:44 am - January 9, 2010

  6. “The trend is still toward same sex marriage. Younger voters are much more supportive than older voters.”

    Except when the young folks grow up. This assumption is incorrect and I base it on the current abortion debate. It has been decades since abortion was legalized by the Supreme Court yet it is still controversial. Shouldn’t everyone have accepted abortion law by now? Not really. The young people have grown up and don’t support abortion today.

    I don’t think people will ever support gay marriage in America based on demographics. Maybe we should ban abortions to get gay marriage, just saying!!!!

    Comment by Anon387823 — January 9, 2010 @ 11:23 am - January 9, 2010

  7. Anon387823, I agree with your analysis regarding acceptance of abortion. If there was ever a trend towards increased acceptance, it has stalled.

    I don’t tie those two issues (abortion and same sex marriage, or gay rights, in general) together. There is no contradiction inconsistency to hold any of the four combinations of opinions on these two issues as far as I’m concerned. Further, I don’t like it when gay organizations try to tie these two issues together.

    While I can understand one changing their views on abortion (in either direction) as one gets older, I just don’t see that happening with same sex marriage, except in the direction of acceptance. At least this is what we have seen with other gay rights. Yes, I’m sure there are examples to the contrary, but it seems like there are significantly higher percentage of persons who are more accepting of gay rights as they become older than the other way around.

    Time will tell which one of us is right, I suppose.

    Comment by Pat — January 9, 2010 @ 1:23 pm - January 9, 2010

  8. Thank you Lori for the clarification.

    I can respect (if not agree) with your stance when articulated that way.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 9, 2010 @ 3:29 pm - January 9, 2010

  9. No, I am not an anarchist of any kind.

    People need to remember that even if — and it’s a huge if — the libertarian position ever became accepted, it would, by necessity, be piecemeal and very gradual in its implementation. Nobody’s going to flip a switch. Human nature simply isn’t amenable to change that happens that suddenly.

    Think, for a moment, about this. Libertarians KNOW there’ll be no flipping of a switch — that we’ll need to see our ideas implemented gradually. Which means…what? Well, that we’re pretty confident in them. If they don’t work, they’ll be strangled, so to speak, in the crib.

    The other day, yet another of my many liberal friends was warning me of the Apocalypse to come if libertarianism were ever to succeed. All roads, he assured me, would be toll roads. Dogs and cats would be biting everybody and giving them rabies. We would have a Mad Max world.

    I asked him to breathe a moment. Just breathe. Then I asked him to consider why, if people are so dumb they cannot be trusted to govern themselves without Nanny Sam, they could ever be trusted to run the government.

    He had no answer. Then he started the stuff I usually hear, from the Left, about how the libertarians “shill for the rich.”

    I reminded him that the rich (by whom I assume he means the legendary “evil rich,” as opposed to people who are merely successful because they serve society better than the average folks do) are quite savvy about politics. They know which parties serve their interests and which ones don’t. Which is why both the Republican and the Democratic Parties are major parties.

    The Libertarian Party? Please. Follow the money.

    No barking cats, no meowing dogs, no Mad Max, no rabies. We’re willing to put our ideas to the test. And given the constant statist propaganda blitz against us, we have quite an uphill climb.

    Comment by Lori Heine — January 9, 2010 @ 4:40 pm - January 9, 2010

  10. he is either unwilling or unable to grasp what I am saying

    Oh I suspect I grasp what you are saying better than you do. But I would hate to misrepresent the nuances of your position.

    She seems to be arguing that because she has to pay for a power of attorney, while straights do not, that the government is therefore in her bedroom, and in order for the government to get out of her bedroom it should therefore subsidize her lesbian relationship stop subsidizing marriage which has absolutely nothing to do with her bedroom since she isnt married.

    There, fixed it. And it’s still dumb. Possibly even dumber.

    Meanwhile, in the real world, marriage matters deeply to society and we all benefit greatly by promoting it.

    Comment by American Elephant — January 10, 2010 @ 8:07 pm - January 10, 2010

  11. Elephant, how long are you going to go on posing as a conservative? You are nothing of the kind. If you believe it is the government’s — and the taxpayers’ — duty to “promote” an institution that has gotten on quite well for thousands of years without it, then you are a socialist.

    There, fixed that.

    Like your hero, Saul Alinsky, you slime anyone who disagrees with you. Like most socialists, you’re more interested in attacking other people than in promoting your own ideas.

    What a phoney.

    Comment by Lori Heine — January 10, 2010 @ 10:43 pm - January 10, 2010

  12. Actually Lori, conservatives accept the fact that there are proper roles for government, it is only LOSER-tarians and anarchists who reject that idea. And ALL the available evidence supports the fact that it is good for society to support and encourage marriage and very bad for society to discourage or even ignore it.

    You see any conservative worth spit knows that the more you reward an activity, the more you get, and the more you punish an activity the less you get.

    The facts make very clear that rewarding marriage works, and we ignore it to our detriment. The less society emphasizes marriage and the more “accepting” society has become of alternatives, the less marriage we have gotten which invariably results in increased out of wedlock birth rates and all the social ills that go along with it– increased crime, violence, poverty, illiteracy, school drop outs, etc, etc, etc….

    I hate to burst your losertarian bubble, but history has proven Dan Quayle right.

    But I am sure conservatives, the vast majority of whom support marriage, and support supporting marriage will be very alarmed to find out that their position is indeed socialist. Either that, or they will just agree with me that you are a very angry woman who doesn’t have a clue what socialism is, or what shes talking about.

    There, fixed that.

    Comment by American Elephant — January 13, 2010 @ 1:43 am - January 13, 2010

  13. No explanation from Elephant, of course, as to why the government must subsidize heterosexual marriage. Of course not, because there is no rational explanation for it. Again, it has been going on for thousands of years without the State having to confiscate tax funds, at gunpoint, from single people so that straight marrieds can get a tax break.

    This is a problem that was caused by government meddling in the first place. We all have high taxes, and none of us like them. Therefore, the United States of Santa Claus will take more from some so that others can keep more — and the gullible sheeple will thank Santa accordingly, thinking they’ve really gotten some goodies.

    Elephant’s basic problem is that he doesn’t understand libertarianism. He is indeed a closet socialist, as are many “social conservatives.” But on their way to establishing a United States of Soviet Santa America amenable to their ideals, they will of course lie and deny this.

    Of course they get their argument garbled up, as liars usually do. If I wanted — as Comrade Elephant continually attempted to assert — to have the government subsidize my marriage, there is obviously no way I could hope to keep it out of my bedroom. The very reason government subsidizes certain activities is because it wants to invade and regulate them.

    The difference, of course, is that I said I wanted it out of my bedroom. I never said anything about wanting it to subsidize my marriage.

    Oh, what a tangled web is weaved by people who must desperately cast about for a foil for their deceptions.

    Comment by Lori Heine — January 13, 2010 @ 1:56 am - January 13, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.