Sounds like Mr. Christie should stick to cookies.

Gay marriage is not likely to survive the popular referendum in New Jersey.

54% of the people may support it. But the people who respond to such surveys are not the same people who vote in elections.

Civil rights issues are not appropriately decided at the ballot box. Oppressed minorities would not be experiencing oppression in the first place if their cause was a popular one.

Gay marriage has never passed anywhere in the USA when it has been put to a popular vote.

Not once, not ever.

If NJ has a recall provision, we ought to petition for a recall of Gov. Christie.

Mr. Babeu ought to consider changing his loyalty to a party that won't penalize him for being gay.

YAY Maryland!!!  :cheers:

Just because he didn't flip out, doesn't mean something wasn't wrong. I do that sometimes, act like something doesn't bother me, but internally distraught.

Only thing that confuses me is it seems he was out…but nobody's exempt from feeling insecure and he had recently come out....

"The ombudsman will be charged with increasing awareness of the law regarding civil unions, will provide a clear point of contact for those who have questions or concerns and will be required to report any evidence of the law being violated. In this way, we can ensure equal treatment under the law," Christie said in a statement.

Yet he doesn't want equality under the law, that's why he's against gays having marriage.

Technically speaking, an executive decision is not a change in the law and change in executives can undo the previous decision.  However, the wind is blowing in the direction of equality so this is good news.  The law, however is another and amazing thing.  To justify racial marriage laws in 1940's, a judge actually said in his ruling that "almighty God placed the races on different continents for a reason."    So…..despite appearances that is cultivated by judges, legilslatures and lawyers, the law is often not neutral.  But "Cheers" for any progress!

but how to convedrse with muslim people. we usually don't learn arabic as our second language and they are lazy to learn english.

We have to remember, that every state that has had a public vote on gay rights have always voted for hate.

Since politics is the art of the possible, it's interesting to imagine all the barriers and red tape that lawmakers are slow to traverse, when they could do so much more in an expeditious manner if they so desired. This must be due in some degree to the bias that lawmakers may have against other types of relationships. They may even believe that those types of relationships are wrong ― and unworthy of their fervent support.

If only they could open their hearts and their minds to the wonderful variety of relationships available to people, and do their best to make laws that instead of holding people back, set them free.

I know for sure under Canadian law (particularly the portion better known as "Christopher's Law"), such an act would be considered a sex crime, which in most cases, carries a minimum of a 2-year sentence (per count), as well as having to register annually with the sex offender's registry.

@raphjd:

Ironically, these muslims are being tried under a law that was originally created to protect muslims from hate after 9/11.

Now that is irony at its finest…. That's kinda funny actually.

A few people commented on Twitter at the time, they were amazed that anyone still watched porn on dvds.

It's astonishing that public money was wasted on investigating and prosecuting this. I would love to know the thought process of the individuals responsible for it going to trial, and why no one thought this would be a bad idea.

That's just sad on so many levels… WOW