By Dan Gallic
First, it wasn't "tie-breaking". Ultimately the vote in the Senate was going to happen. One of the Dems who voted "no" would have voted "yes" and it would have been released from committee.
Second, his amendment was important to place in this legislation because it protects religious organizations from being held liable for refusing to perform or allow homosexual marriages from taking place on their properties. Without this amendment, if this vote were to pass, everyone would be forced to participate in homosexual marriages. This would create criminals of every practical Catholic and it's clergy. If Baroni voted "yes", without this amendment, he would deserve to be thrown out on his ear. Instead he protected fair-minded people who disagree with homosexual marriage from being seen as criminals. I know for a fact that this was Baroni's intent prior to Chris Christie winning the election, and this amendment would have been the only thing protecting churches from the ridiculousness that surrounds this issue. In as much as this legislation MAY pass, if his vote was a "deal" to get this amendment installed, it was worth it. (Bill, thanks for making sure my parish priest isn't a criminal for refusing to take part in a homosexual marriage.)
Third, by allowing this to go to the floor for a full vote, it forces dissension in the Democrat party over this issue. Dissension in the Democrat ranks creates openings for Republicans to take advantage of. One of the most difficult things, over the last ten years, that the Republican party has had to deal with was the unity of the Democrat party while the Republican Party closely imitated a Keystone Cop routine.
I'm sure that people will find fault with Baroni, but in my opinion, the murder of millions of unborn children far outweighs the fight over the word "marriage" therefore a minor foible does not make for a reason for rejection. I personally agree with Assemblyman Michael Carroll who argues that the government should be out of the marriage business entirely. It's a sacred, religious institution that should not be regulated by government.
And just so that we are clear, I am not in favor of homosexual marriage. I'm also not in favor of other issues that are more important than this issue and are more deserving of my attention and action. And, lastly, put me in the category of "I don't give a flying hoot what people do in their bedrooms."
That said, this bill MUST fail and I would encourage everyone to call your local State Senator, and demand they vote "NO".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
So when you say government should be out of the business of marriage completly I am a little unclear as to what that would mean. Do you mean no tax breaks for married people? No obtaining a deceased spouses pension or social security benefits? No involvment in the dissolution of a marriage? No laws that prevent someone from disinheritng a spouse and leaving them destitute?
What are the ramifications of what you propose?
I've made my ideal pretty clear, I thought. Marriage would be a religious distinction. "Civil" unions, regardless of gender, would would be government recognised unions.
Thats just semantics
They have that now. Any man and women can get a civil marriage ceremony and anyone (even gay people if they find the right church) can get a religous marriage.
So your solution is to change the name of a civil marriage and open it up to Gay people.
That fails to address any of the real issues. The fact that this is where the debate is headed is the faault of religous conservatives. They framed the debate incorrectly.
The real discussion should be does it benefit society to give Homosexual people the same benefits as married heterosexuals.
Not does it diminish my marriage, not is it fair to gay people but does it negativly or positivly impact society. That should be what this should be about.
If we could have this debate with out the drama and stick to the facts and if people who believe it will have a negative effect are not attacked as haters and homophobes and who knows what else... that is have an honest open debate, I would have no question about what the outcome would be
oh, please,just table it,for God's sake- we're all sick of the mentality that grabs onto emotional issues rather than "manning-up" and tackling what is actually hurting the most people!.. for once, deal with the debt and the taxes and the giveaways that are breaking us all!
The real discussion should be does it benefit society to give Homosexual people the same benefits as married heterosexuals.
How about if you applied the same logic to woman's suffage, mixed marriages, slavery, black suffage, etc...
...or if you applied to same logic to the national health care debate...does it benefit society to keep providing expensive health care to senior citizens...
....or to the crimianl justice system....does it benefit society to have a presumption of innocence and due process...
slippery slope
It doesn't benefit society to have same sex marriage in anyway. This is typical liberal feel good BS. Marriage is between a man and woman always has been always will be. If gay people want to have special rights then anyone living together, roommates, spinster sisters should all get the same rights as gay couples. All this BS trying to compare it to slavery or women's right to vote is just an example of the death of common sense and logic in this Country. Let's fix real problems before any more time is wasted on this nonsense
the ultimate question is whether or not a certain Senator (or Senators) support this bill for the fear of being "outed"?
By the way, the word "rearbacc" being used as a verification word seems a little overboard given the discussion topic!
I have been thinking about the question
"does it benefit society to keep providing expensive health care to senior citizens...
and the answer is an emphatic Yes.
Which is exactly why the government should not be in the business of health care
HEY i GOT THAT LAST POST WRONG i MEANT TO SAY THIS
I have been thinking about the question
"does it benefit society to keep providing expensive health care to senior citizens...
and the answer is an emphatic NO.
Which is exactly why the government should not be in the business of health care
Post a Comment