Morality is a funny thing. When societies become more enlightened, things that were clearly thought of as immoral are now considered commonplace. Fifty years ago it was deemed immoral for interracial couples to get married. The nation thought the well-being of the country was at stake and passed bans in 30 states. Simple-minded people (who use religion to control their life) like Marco Rubio are incapable or unwilling to learn from history. Our society is not obligated to tolerate their ignorance and intolerance. As usual, they'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming into our secular society where everyone (regardless of sexual orientation) is treated with civil equality.

If the hospital is accepting federal funds, they're breaking the law. End of story.

Knowing that the mother is anti-gay, they should have already had living wills made out for each other, just in case a situation exactly like this happens.

I don't know of a single bisexual person that is fighting for polygamous marriages. Seriously, where do these idiots come from?

That was definitely one of the most vile and lie-ridden speeches I've heard in a long time. I think I verbally called her a liar at least a dozen times while listening to it.

She promoted the outrageous idea that the state is going to indoctrinate school children into the "homosexual lifestyle". Because... um... straight people are icky, and gays are awesome? Seriously?

As for feeling like a stranger in her own state, it really is amazing that if you have to treat gay Americans exactly the same as everyone else, your entire way of life will be destroyed. I almost feel sorry for her. If it weren't for the fact that she's a vile bigoted scumbag, I probably would.

He doesn't seem to advocating for a ban on non-procreative straight couples getting married. I wonder why? Personally, I don't think elderly people like Mr. Eastman should have the right to get married since he obviously can no longer repopulate the species. I be curious to find out if Mr. Eastman agrees with that sound reasoning.

Further more, why haven't the FOUR non-procreative marriages of Rush Limbaugh had devastating effects on society? Why haven't the TWO adulterous marriages of Newt Gingrich destroyed society as we know it? It's almost as if their marriages have literally had no impact on anyone else's life. Shocking, isn't it?

A widowed mother can't marry her son because they're already related by law. Current marriage laws only allow non-related adults to marry. This is besides the point that incestuous relationships have always been frowned upon, and the risk of inbred offspring is also a concern. Currently, 95% of society has the right to marry the adult of their choice. The other 5% don't. This bill removes that discrimination.

"...but seem unable to see identical protections for conscience in the religious practice of INDIVIDUAL believers."

Does the author have any idea what kind of Pandora's Box that would create in society? He is promoting the idea that people (that have simply CHOSEN to become religious) should be able to discrimination against anyone they want (preferably gay people), wherever they happen to be at the time. In other words, they get a free-pass to discriminate at will. So the Christian gas station owner could decide not to do business with customers that have a marriage equality sticker on the back of their car. They could also do the same thing if they saw a well dressed gay couple heading for city hall to get a marriage license, claiming that if they provided gas it would be contributing to an event that is against their religious beliefs... or how about the Christian restaurant owner that doesn't want to serve the gay couple, because they don't approve of their "lifestyle choice". Do we really want to see "No Gays Served" signs all over the islands?

As for the baker that being forced to put butter cream frosting on a cake. I’d hardly call that a religious sacrament. Where exactly in the Bible does it say “Thou shalt not make thy cakes for sinners?” I’m also doubtful that the baker screens prospective straight couples to make sure that they haven’t sinned, before they agree to make them their wedding cake. So their position already reeks of hypocrisy. This is aside from the fact that these issues are extremely rare. In the state of Washington there has been one baker out of 7,000,000 people that chose to become the next Christian martyr. The vast majority of gay couples would not do business with an anti-gay baker. No one would financially support a business that doesn’t want them as a customer. So who exactly is the injured party here? The business owner or the customer that isn’t being treated like everyone else?

"The people thought they were answering the question once and for all."

He's an idiot. Laws are NEVER permanent... even constitutional amendments. 50 years ago, when bigoted people voted for laws banning interracial marriage, they also thought they were answering the question once and for all. Of course those people also denied that they were bigots. History decided otherwise. -- He's also an idiot for using adoption as a means to discriminate against gay citizens. Procreation and child rearing are not required in order to be married. As a "lawmaker", he should know this.

That being said, I will wager my entire life savings and say that this guy is a self-loathing closet case. He probably married a woman to please his God; and now he wants to make sure that gay couples can't get married because they should be forced to live their lives in an unhappy unfulfilling marriage like he did. I'd pity this guy if he weren't such a vile scumbag.

I’ll save some people the hassle of testifying against SB1 by reminding them of a few facts:

Religious arguments are irrelevant when it comes to civil marriage. Non-religious straight couples have *always* been able to marry in our country. You are not required to be religious in order to get married, nor are you required to get married in a church. Don’t confuse a non-legal religious sacrament for civil marriage. They are not the same thing. The state issues the marriage license, not the church. This issue is *only* regarding secular civil marriage that takes place at city hall. Your particular church will *never* be required to marry a gay couple (unless they want to — and some churches do). The First Amendment guarantees this. Civil marriage is not in the purview of the church.

Arguments involving procreation are irrelevant as well. Our society allows the elderly, infertile couples, and those not wanting children, to be able to marry. Having children has never been a legal requirement nor an obligation in order to get married. None of the 50 states has a “promise to repopulate the species” clause in their marriage applications. The state couldn’t care less if married couples ever have children. Otherwise, none of the four non-procreative marriages of Rush Limbaugh would have been legal. One has to wonder, “Why Rush can marry four times, but a gay couple that have been together for decades can’t?” Why is the state going out of its way to discriminate against gay citizens? How does denigrating the lives of gay people benefit straight people? It doesn’t. That’s why SB1 should be law.

Christie said that he simply has a differing opinion on the subject. Of course he doesn't acknowledge that his simple "opinion" is harming thousands of lives, and is legally enforcing a second-class status on law-abiding taxpaying gay citizens. So, NO, it isn't just a difference of opinion that he's promoting.

Perhaps the citizens of New Jersey should have the right to vote on whether or not morbidly obese people should be able to marry? I'm pretty sure he wouldn't approve of such a measure.