Gay Marriage "Dead" in New Jersey -- Senate Defeats Bill

Share This Story

TRENTON, NJ --- Homosexual groups suffered their third straight major setback in the Northeast Thursday when the New Jersey Senate easily defeated a bill that would have legalized "gay marriage," 20-14.

The loss was expected but nevertheless is significant because it comes in a region of the country known for its social liberalism and in an area that "gay marriage" activists view as their stronghold. Of the five states that have redefined marriage, four are in the Northeast.

Just two and a half months ago the bill seemed as if it might be headed for passage but homosexual groups suffered a string of losses on Election Day, the most significant one for the bill being the defeat of Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine, a "gay marriage" supporter. Republican Gov.-elect Chris Christie, who takes office Jan. 19, had pledged to veto it.

Also on Election Day Maine voters reversed a law that had legalized "gay marriage." One month later, New York's Senate stunned observers by easily defeating a "gay marriage" bill, 38-24.

The loss means the issue likely is dead in New Jersey for at least four years, or until another governor who supports "gay marriage" wins.

New Jersey already recognizes civil unions, legalized via court-order. Civil unions grant homosexual couples all the legal benefits of marriage, minus the name.

During floor debate, opponents of the bill said the issue should be put to voters.

"This is about letting the residents of New Jersey decide a major redefinition that has been recognized for thousands and thousands of years," Republican Sen. Michael J. Doherty, who voted against the bill, said.

Doherty said citizens "feel disenfranchised once again here today."

"I went around the state with organizations and we got thousands and thousands of petitions and signatures asking the legislature to pass a bill to put this on the ballot and let the residents of New Jersey decide this issue once and for all so we can move forward," Doherty said.

The issue has never lost at the ballot in any state, going 31-for-31.

The bill was expected to receive a vote in early December but was delayed when Senate sponsors saw they did not have the votes. The bill apparently was put to a vote Thursday simply to appease lobbying groups -- such as the homosexual organization Garden State Equality -- who wanted to see where senators stood on the issue.

National Organization for Marriage Executive Director Brian Brown, whose organization opposes "gay marriage," told Baptist Press the vote total reflects the fact that legislators were "overwhelming told" by constituents to vote against the bill.

"It's clear that the voters don't want same-sex marriage and that all of the hype about legislators being willing to move forward on this was wrong," Brown said. "I think the victory in Maine, and then in New York and in the 23rd District [of New York] have all played together to make it clear to legislators that constituents don't want same-sex marriage. … We're very happy. This is a decisive defeat."

Brown and others believe Republicans in the Northeast have been impacted by last fall's conservative revolt in New York’s 23rd U.S. congressional district that forced then-Republican Dede Scozzafava, a “gay marriage” supporter, out of the race due to a lack of support.

Mark Davis, pastor of West Monmouth Baptist Church in Freehold, N.J., told Baptist Press Wednesday that despite what some religious groups in the state claim, the Bible is clear in opposing "gay marriage." Christians, he said, must view the issue not through the lens of emotions or feelings but through what the Word of God says.

"This is a huge moral issue in which the church should speak to and teach about, not from the place of an agenda against homosexual or gay people, but from a perspective of standing on the moral absolute truth of God that He created us for a certain design and a certain order," Davis said. "This is not about people. This is spiritual warfare."

Share This Story

`
sodaklt's picture

One would have to be brain dead to think that CPR doesn't work...what I find more distressing in all of this is the NOM attitude. It's all political at this point, they are lobbyists , plain and simple. Ugly.
I can't figure out why Americans have their head buried in the sand when it come to the Religious Factions. C street, THE Family, Nom, Family values coaltion...stay blind America..the religious groups are working so very hard secretly, behind the guise of sheep to be and become THE defining force behind our govt. No matter that when congress or those evil lawm akers pass ssm in a state without putting it to a vote is because to not is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Merely following the same constitution that protects them and their families. It's only when MILLIONS and BILLIONS are poured into a state, lies told that it is overturned. Why do they have to lie and lobby people when they say their God will protect them. Oh, thats right, Christians fill in for God even tho He hasn't called in sick.

Doublecheck's picture

We will look back at this and just shake our heads, like we do with slavery or the black civil rights conflicts.

SolarSanitizer's picture

Because owning other people like one owns a table, forcing them to work, beating them or worse when they don't, only to sell them if they survive is the same thing as allowing the church to decide who they perform their religious ceremonies with.

How unreasonable you are being. Please reply with typical, blind, and stubborn non-logic.

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

MrBook's picture

It is less about a direct comparison and more about how we can look back at actions taken by our ancestors and consider them wrong.

A better analogy would be to see gay marriage as we now see equal rights for ethnic minorities or women . At one time it was perfectly acceptable to look down on people of a different race , to consider them inferior... and now we look back at those times and think how mistaken people were.

SolarSanitizer's picture

I still think it was in poor taste, factually inaccurate, and a gross exaggeration.

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

GreenBean's picture

Three people pointed out to you how you misinterpreted his statement. Please explain how the following quote was in poor taste, factually inaccurate, and an exaggeration:

Doublecheck: "We will look back at this and just shake our heads, like we do with slavery or the black civil rights conflicts."

There is nothing in there which says anything about how slavery or the civil rights of blacks are weighted against homosexual discrimination in terms of relative shamefulness. The statement simply says that all three things are shameful, and looking back on the in history of the former two causes people to question the morals of the time.

He was not saying they are equal on any level but for the simple fact that they are misjudgements of morality. Any reasonable person is going to surely say that slavery is the most heinous of the list.

SolarSanitizer's picture

It is my opinion that gay marriage , unlike the dehumanizing practices of segregation and slavery, is not a human right. I think " marriage " is a religious ceremony. This is not to be confused with the state act of "civil union". I think that gay couples should enjoy the same rights and responsibilities as do married heterosexual couples, but I will not accept the argument that the state can or should force the church to marry gays .

Please defend your notion that the church does not have the right to decide for itself who qualifies for its private ceremonies, and also how the government has the power to force the church, by way of law , to change its beliefs?

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

GreenBean's picture

I didn't say that the church does not have the right to decide for itself, nor do I believe that churches should be stripped of such rights. The statement by Doublecheck which you contest also does not say this.

He and I are of the simple opinion that future civilization will look back at this type of discrimination and be shameful of it, similarly to how the current civilization looks back on certain acts in history and feels shameful of them. It simply implies that civilization will hopefully evolve to a greater state of morality--not to a state of oppression of beliefs.

SolarSanitizer's picture

Since gay marriage is not a human right, as are the freedoms from slavery and segregation, muses in the future will not hang their head in shame when discussing laws, ideals, and social norms precluding gay marriage.

There will be no guilt, as there is when thinking about slavery and segregation.

Furthermore, liberal white guilt is the forge from which sprung many, many poor decisions this nation's voters have made. Obama's election being a shining example of the fruit of such guilt.

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

MrBook's picture

"Since gay marriage is not a human right, as are the freedoms from slavery and segregation, muses in the future will not hang their head in shame when discussing laws, ideals, and social norms precluding gay marriage"

If gay marriage is not a human right then isn't straight marriage also not a human right?

Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter

OV Social