Chris Christie on Friday vetoed a bill that would allow same-sex couples to wed

[Brett85]

Lol, yes, that's what he did.

He vetoed a bill that expanded government into what's a private, religious institution between a man and a woman. He took the small government position.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Well if you want to make everything equal, what's wrong with the marriage bill? Then gay and hetero can both call it a marriage.

I want to make everyone pay an equal share of Federal Income Tax: zero. Even though that is unlikely to happen I am not about to advocate that every American pay an equal 50% just to 'make everything equal.' Government needs to get out of ALL marriage, period. Expanding the government's role in marriage from current status quo just to make everything equal is going the wrong direction.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

He vetoed a bill that expanded government into what's a private, religious institution between a man and a woman. He took the small government position.

Oh come on, you know good and well that's not why he did it. He did it to satisfy the social cons who want government to force their understanding of morality onto the general public. Whether it accords with your and my understanding is irrelevant, government has no role claiming authority over the dominion of God.

Liberals have tweaked on the tax code until nearly 50% of Americans pay no Federal Income Tax. Pretending that Christie vetoed this bill to take a 'small government position' is like claiming that progressive liberals made 48% of the population pay zero income taxes because they oppose income taxes.

Let's be realistic here.

 

[ryanmkeisling]

He seems to want the people of NJ to vote on it. Let's see if that happens.

There was a video somewhere around the other day where he says it should be put to a referendum. I don't see him as a true conservative.

 

[bill1971]

Good for him. He stood up for limited government by vetoing this bill.

How is preventing someone from getting married, small govt? Govt is still in the marriage business.

 

[JohnGalt1225]

He vetoed a bill that expanded government into what's a private, religious institution between a man and a woman. He took the small government position.

So by using the force of the government to tell a group of people they can't get married, somehow this is a win for limited government? No offense but that's the biggest load of BS I've heard all day.

 

[Drex]

 

[RiseAgainst]

He vetoed a bill that expanded government into what's a private, religious institution between a man and a woman. He took the small government position.

Yes, we wouldn't want filthy gays with the same rights as decent and pure people, right?

And you're all about limited government, except when it benefits your personal viewpoint...

The pro life movement has to pass laws like this, because the Supreme Court prohibits the states from actually banning abortion. Laws that make it harder to get an abortion are necessary until the time that the states have the legal right to ban it outright.

 

[Brett85]

Oh come on, you know good and well that's not why he did it. He did it to satisfy the social cons who want government to force their understanding of morality onto the general public. Whether it accords with your and my understanding is irrelevant, government has no role claiming authority over the dominion of God.

Liberals have tweaked on the tax code until nearly 50% of Americans pay no Federal Income Tax. Pretending that Christie vetoed this bill to take a 'small government position' is like claiming that progressive liberals made 48% of the population pay zero income taxes because they oppose income taxes.

Let's be realistic here.

I consider myself to be a paleo-conservative rather than a libertarian, so I'm not fully on board with libertarians on issues like this. I was just making the case that defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not a big government position in my opinion, because it just stops the government from expanding marriage beyond what it is now. This also isn't an issue that has anything to do with law enforcement. It's not like drug prohibition, which is an issue where the government is actually putting people in jail. Gays aren't actually getting thrown in jail for attempting to get married. But I really don't see the need to redefine the definition of marriage to please a special interest group.

 

[Brett85]

Yes, we wouldn't want filthy gays with the same rights as decent and pure people, right?

And you're all about limited government, except when it benefits your personal viewpoint...

Um, I took the same position on that issue that Ron Paul took.

 

[RiseAgainst]

I consider myself to be a paleo-conservative rather than a libertarian, so I'm not fully on board with libertarians on issues like this. I was just making the case that defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not a big government position in my opinion, because it just stops the government from expanding marriage beyond what it is now. This also isn't an issue that has anything to do with law enforcement. It's not like drug prohibition, which is an issue where the government is actually putting people in jail. Gays aren't actually getting thrown in jail for attempting to get married. But I really don't see the need to redefine the definition of marriage to please a special interest group.

Lol. "I want freedom for everyone....except those I don't agree with."

 

[RiseAgainst]

Um, I took the same position on that issue that Ron Paul took.

Your point? You made an appeal here to limited government, to mask your real reason for wanting it, because you don't want gays getting married. You have no problem with big government so long as it suits your needs.

 

[Brett85]

Lol. "I want freedom for everyone....except those I don't agree with."

Gays already have freedom here in America. If you want an example of a country that actually discriminates against gays, just look at Iran.

 

[RiseAgainst]

Gays already have freedom here in America. If you want an example of a country that actually discriminates against gays, just look at Iran.

Nothing better than a self-justified hatemonger. Come on, let's hear 'em. Spill your list of justifications for treating one subset of humanity different from another, and how that is oh-so-congruent with individual liberty and limited government.

 

[Brett85]

Your point? You made an appeal here to limited government, to mask your real reason for wanting it, because you don't want gays getting married. You have no problem with big government so long as it suits your needs.

It isn't "big government" to simply keep marriage the way it's been for the last 2,000 years. This particular issue really has nothing to do with "big government." It's not like I'm advocating sodomy laws.

 

[bill1971]

Private, religious institution??? Since when? Ever try to get a marriage licence at a church. It is now a govt institution.

 

[RiseAgainst]

It isn't "big government" to simply keep marriage the way it's been for the last 2,000 years. This particular issue really has nothing to do with "big government." It's not like I'm advocating sodomy laws.

You're using a copout. You don't give a damn about the size of government on this issue, you give a damn about your personal religious view and seeing to it that gays don't have the same rights as you do.

 

[Brett85]

Nothing better than a self-justified hatemonger. Come on, let's hear 'em. Spill your list of justifications for treating one subset of humanity different from another, and how that is oh-so-congruent with individual liberty and limited government.

-Rep. You don't need to personally attack me for having different political views than you.

 

[specsaregood]

//

 

[RiseAgainst]

-Rep. You don't need to personally attack me for having different political views than you.

Lol, beautiful. You can tell gays they can't have the same rights as you, but get your panties in a wad when someone calls you on it? Oh noes, you're being discriminated against!