Gov. Christie: Let Voters Decide on Same-Sex Marriage
Asks Legislature to put issue on ballot in November.
Calling for the state legislature to stop using the issue of same-sex marriage as a "political football", Gov. Chris Christie today said he believes the issue should be decided by the people, and not by politicians.
"If New Jersey is looking to overturn hundreds of years of societal, legal and religious tradition, we need to give the issue the weight that it merits," the governor told a town hall audience in Bridgewater Tuesday afternoon.
Coinciding with today's introduction of the "Marriage Equality and Religious Exemption Act", sponsored by Senate Democrats, Christie said he would veto legislation currently being considered by the state legislature, two years after a similar bill failed to garner enough support for passage.
"The institution of marriage is too serious to be treated like a political football...let's let the people of New Jersey decide."
Christie, who has said he opposes gay marriage in the past, said he would accept whatever decision is rendered by a public referendum.
"I would certainly be willing to be governed by a decision of the people of this state, especially in a year that the most people will be voting in the state," the governor said, referring to this November's Presidential Election.
The bill was sponsored by Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Teaneck), Sen. Raymond J. Lesniak (D-Union), Sen. Stephen M. Sweeney (D-West Deptford), and was Co-Sponsored by Sen. Richard J. Codey (D-Livingston), and Sen. Nia H. Gill Esq. (D-Montclair).
While long a divisive issue in the Garden State, A recent poll of New Jersey voters showed more than 50 percent support for same sex marriage for the first time ever.
Kevin
3:52 pm on Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Seems fair to allow voters to decide.
Right of Center
4:20 pm on Tuesday, January 24, 2012
i dunno. Would it have been fair to let the voters of Alabama decide school integration in 1954?
Don
11:45 pm on Tuesday, January 24, 2012
No, it would not have. But New Jersey is not Alabama in in 1954, as much as some people would like it to be, its not. Not by a long shot!
Still, I do think it should be seen as a civil right. (and remember, we still dont have honest voting machines in NJ)
https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/appel/nj-election-cover
CD
1:08 pm on Wednesday, January 25, 2012
+1 Right of Center
Gary Englert
4:58 pm on Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Gay marriage is a matter of civil rights, which is likely difficult for many of those who may not be gay to understand or appreciate.
It's not about one's personal preference or religious beliefs or even majority rule.
Adam Kraemer
7:19 pm on Tuesday, January 24, 2012
I think we should have a plebiscite on this issue to decide it once and for all. I would vote for it as a matter of fairness. To my friends in the gay community I say this as a happily married man you, should have the right to marry just be careful of what you wish for. Marriage is a great thing but you have to work at it constantly.
Glade Long
9:51 pm on Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Great response Adam....very positive and so true! As a single gay foster parent of 8!!! having the same rights as others would have been a lot easier on me at the time, and my boys would not have so confused...
Gary Englert
8:34 am on Wednesday, January 25, 2012
@ Adam Kraemer & Glade Long: Plebescite? The issue of marriage equality need not be placed on a ballot as it is abundantly clear that the majority of New Jerseyians support its passage: it is a matter of fundamental fairness and human rights.
As others have opined elsewhere here, it is Governor Christie who is using this as a political football: 1. to motivate a conservative base to come to the polls in November, and 2. for the Governor to maintain his appeal within that base when saying he will veto the bill now in the Legislature.
The simple fact remains that (polling data aside) the people have already decided this matter by electing representatives who reflect their personal positions and politics and I trust they will have enough courage of conviction to the overide Christie's promised veto and extend marriage rights to all, long before the November election.
newleaf
8:58 am on Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Adam: I get where you are coming from and I am not trying to be nitpicky but to some degree your post makes me think of someone telling Rosa Parks to be wary of buses because they sometimes run late. Regardless of how difficult marriage may or may not be, we need to afford our gay friends and relatives the same rights as everybody else. It truly is a matter of civil rights and it's a bit intrusive to counsel "be careful what you ask for" in the context of a right that is currently denied.
Marriage is hard--but you know what is probably harder? Staying together, or holding a family together, without the sanctity of the state behind you and/or without protections afforded to heterosexuals. Yet many gay families manage to do just that for decades. Me thinks it is the homosexual community that has much to teach the rest of us about the true meaning of commitment.
Having grown up Catholic (but no longer practicing) I am often reminded of the Beatitudes: especially "for the meek shall inherit the earth." To me, my many gay friends are true teachers about what it means to have courage, perseverance, patience and often--incredibly graciousness in circumstances the rest of us would not put up with. Love should never be discouraged by society, no matter what it's form.
;-)
Gary Englert
9:04 am on Wednesday, January 25, 2012
@ newleaf: While I rarely find myself in agreement with much of anything Adam Kraemer has to say, I do believe his "be careful what you wish for" comment was meant to be humorous, in the Henny Youngman ("Take my wife...PLEASE!) vein.
newleaf
9:08 am on Wednesday, January 25, 2012
@ Gary: NO DOUBT--like I said, I got where he was coming from. I was trying to make a different point though, that for some people, this is not fun and games and that the jibe--while well meaning--doesn't really sit right because those rights are not there.
I will say it again--it is a little like someone joking with Rosa Parks about how rotten the bus service was..... or telling a blind man the view is lousy, etc etc.
I have no ax to grind, just a point to make but his intent was not lost on me.
Jennifer Howald
9:50 am on Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Thanks for your reply. I will be really careful in the future to wish for the right to visit my same-sex spouse in the hospital, pay less in taxes, spend thousands in living wills, health care proxies and trusts, deal with anyone who looks perplexed/ignorant/ downright stupid when our two sons call us both Mom, etc., etc. I could go on and on but I'm going to go work on my marriage rght now.
Ken
8:49 pm on Tuesday, January 24, 2012
We don't vote on civil rights. They're <i>civil rights</i>. As much as I'd sometimes like the opportunity to vote on the validity of someone else's marriage, that would be wrong. Why is it OK when it comes to same-sex couples?
Don
11:41 pm on Tuesday, January 24, 2012
I think thats a very good point.
I am really sick of the GOP and their wedge issue politics. People are wising up to how they work. They are going to have to find a new scam to pull on people.
carols
11:27 pm on Tuesday, January 24, 2012
the cynic in me thinks this is an effort by Christie and the Republicans to have an issue on the ballot for the Nov presidential election that will get out their base. In 2008, there were NO ballot questions on the NJ ballot while there were 16 in Florida and they dealt with issues like abortion and other social issues.
Ken
9:15 am on Wednesday, January 25, 2012
You're not wrong to be cynical, but I don't think it could happen on the 2012 ballot -- assuming it would be a constitutional amendment, getting it on the ballot would require either a 60% super-majority vote from the legislature, or failing that, it would have to be passed in two consecutive "legislative years." I can't figure out if that means 2012 and 2013, or if it means two entirely separate TERMS, which would mean the 2012-2014 term and the 2014-2016 term, but either way, unless there's somehow a 60% majority to put it on the ballot, it won't happen this cycle.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Article_IX,_New_Jersey_Constitution
Don
11:39 pm on Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Look at it this way, any expression of love, as opposed to hate, is positive. It doesn't matter who you are, or whatever. What matters is that people care about each other. Its taken me a long time to see it that way, but thats how I see it now. And I wish I had realized it earlier. Life is too short to have prejudices.
newleaf
8:59 am on Wednesday, January 25, 2012
I have often said just that--that gays are the people on earth persecuted for who and how they LOVE.
Stuck in the Middle
11:40 pm on Tuesday, January 24, 2012
"If New Jersey is looking to overturn hundreds of years of societal, legal and religious tradition..."
If our Founding Fathers had not overturned thousands of years of societal, legal and religious tradition, we would still have a king.
All in all, this is a political cop-out by Christie. Same sex marriage is inevitable in NJ - it's just a matter of time. Christie recognizes this and is trying to get to this conclusion in a way that allows him to protect his conservative credentials. I believe that a majority of NJ voters would support same sex marriage, which would get us to the correct outcome. But I don't believe that this is a majority rule issue -- it is a civil rights issue. A referendum sets a bad precedent, especially for the states in which a majority of voters would not support same sex marriage.
newleaf
9:01 am on Wednesday, January 25, 2012
You mean Chris Christie is not our king? Oh geez, I did not realize that......
;-)
Ryan
11:18 am on Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Stuck, I agree almost completely. I'm not so sure a referendum would be in favor, but if that's how it becomes law, OK. But it is buck-passing by the state to do it that way. It is the state government that is doing the discriminating -- by affording legal privileges to some couples who want them and not others, with no compelling state interest to justify it -- so it is the state government (whether the courts, the legislature, or an executive order I really don't care) that should take action to right the wrong.
barry_geltzeiler
9:59 am on Wednesday, January 25, 2012
I think gay marriage will create jobs and commerce. from the catering halls to the jewelery stores. also the divorce attorneys and hiring more judges since the courts will now have that many more divorces to deal with. it is absolutely with in gay peoples rights to have same relationship issues all of us married people do. i welcome it!!!
Gary Englert
10:05 am on Wednesday, January 25, 2012
@barry_geltzeiler: So true but, they still get a pass on the leaving the toilet seat up or down thing, whatvever the case might be! :-)
barry_geltzeiler
10:12 am on Wednesday, January 25, 2012
@Gary you are so correct one less arguement!!!!
Adam Kraemer
5:59 pm on Wednesday, January 25, 2012
@ Gary - I rarely agree with you - You are right the "be care full of what you wish for" was meant as humor. My thinking is if by plebiscite same sex marriage became part of the New Jersey Constitution that would make a very powerful statement. The statement would say things more powerfully then a few legislatures voting or the courts deciding. Thus, tactically it is the way to go to achieve equity and fairness and resolve things in a definitive way at least at the state level.
Gary Englert
9:48 am on Thursday, January 26, 2012
@ Adam Kraemer: As a man who is fast becoming the patron saint of lost causes and elections, I do give you credit for tenacity in your willingness to keep going to the ballot box. I do not, however, agree that there is anything to be gained by further delaying equal rights to all by waiting to enact a state constitutional amendment.
The power and authority to do what is necessary is vested in the state legislature and they should reflect this will of the majority of their constituents by enacting the proposed law currentlyt before them...and then over ride Governor Christie's veto, should it come to that.
That would most certainly resolve things in a definitive way and far more quickly end discrimination that has no place in the 21st Century.