N.J. Gov. Christie Vetoes Gay Marriage Bill as Vowed

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Agent_286, Feb 18, 2012.

  1. Agent_286

    Agent_286 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    12,889
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0
    N.J. Gov. Christie Vetoes Gay Marriage Bill as Vowed

    USAToday | 02/17/2012

    Excerpts:

    TRENTON, N.J. (AP) – “Gov. Chris Christie has followed through on his promise to reject a bill allowing same-sex marriage in New Jersey by quickly vetoing the measure Friday.

    The veto came a day after the state Assembly passed the bill. The state Senate had passed it on Monday. Christie, a Republican who opposes same-sex marriage, had vowed "very swift action" once the bill reached his desk.

    "I am adhering to what I've said since this bill was first introduced - an issue of this magnitude and importance, which requires a constitutional amendment, should be left to the people of New Jersey to decide," Christie said in a statement. "I continue to encourage the Legislature to trust the people of New Jersey and seek their input by allowing our citizens to vote on a question that represents a profoundly significant societal change. This is the only path to amend our State Constitution and the best way to resolve the issue of same-sex marriage in our state."

    "It's unfortunate that the governor would let his own personal ideology infringe on the rights of thousands of New Jerseyans," said Reed Gusciora, one of two openly gay New Jersey lawmakers and a sponsor of the bill. "For all those who oppose marriage equality, their lives would have been completely unchanged by this bill, but for same-sex couples, their lives would have been radically transformed. Unfortunately, the governor couldn't see past his own personal ambitions to honor this truth."

    Senate President Steve Sweeney was more blunt in his criticism of the governor. "He had a chance to do the right thing, and failed miserably," Sweeney said.

    Proponents of the bill said gay marriage is a civil right being denied to gay couples, while opponents said the definition of marriage as a heterosexual institution should not be expanded. The legislation contains a religious opt-out clause, meaning no church clergy would be required to perform gay marriages and places of worship would not have to allow same-sex weddings at their facilities.

    Steven Goldstein, chairman of the state's largest gay rights group, Garden State Equality, said Christie's national political ambitions guided his action.

    "He won't veto the bill because he's anti-gay," Goldstein said in a statement issued before the veto was issued Friday. "He'll veto the bill because the 2016 South Carolina presidential primary electorate is anti-gay."

    Goldstein, who said he has a cordial relationship with the governor, promised to continue fighting him vigorously on the issue. "And we will win, so help me God," he said.

    Another gay marriage supporter, Washington state Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire, also reached out to Christie, a practicing Catholic. Gregoire sent the governor a letter last month offering to talk about gay marriage because, in her words, "while I am a Governor, I am also a Catholic."

    Gregoire signed a gay marriage measure into law in Washington on Monday. Her spokeswoman, Karina Shagren, said Christie hasn't responded to the letter.

    Six states and Washington, D.C., allow gay marriage. Washington state's new gay marriage law is set to go into effect in June.

    Lawmakers in New Jersey have until the end of the legislative session in January 2014 to override the veto.

    They would need two-thirds of the lawmakers in the Assembly and Senate to agree. Both votes to pass it fell short of that mark. Christie has virtually guaranteed that no override would succeed because Republicans wouldn't cross him.

    The Democratic-controlled Legislature has failed in every previous attempt to override Christie, most notably on a cut to women's health care and an effort to reinstate a tax surcharge on millionaires.

    If same-sex couples can't win gay marriage through legislation, they have engaged in a parallel fight in the courts. Seven gay couples and several of their children have sued, claiming that the state's civil union law doesn't work as intended.

    The state's own review commission has since found problems with the law, and same-sex couples have backed that up with testimony before the Legislature.

    John Grant and Daniel Weiss, an Asbury Park couple who are in a civil union, are among those who testified in support of gay marriage.

    When Grant was in a life-threatening automobile accident and rushed to a New York hospital in 2010 - before that state legalized gay marriage - Weiss said he couldn't authorize badly needed surgery or even go through his partner's wallet to find his health insurance card. He said their civil union was essentially worthless; Grant's neurosurgeon even asked, "What is a civil union?"

    Read more:
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-17/gay-marriage-new-jersey/53136648/1
    ……

    It is unusual for a forward thinking person like Gov. Christie would not take the needed step to pass same sax marriages as he has had ample proof that civil unions do not work in family emergencies and do not contain the rights of all Americans, only those who have the preferred sexual preferences need apply….

    He definitely has the presidential seat in mind for the future, is republican, and a Catholic, so his hands are virtually tied in regard to any truthful, deeply thought out feelings on any issue. It is too bad that he didn’t display the moral courage to let this law go thru to give gays equal protection under the law. After all, all he needed to do is declare it unConstitutional and discriminatory to deny gays rights given automatically to others, and sign the freakin' bill.
     
  2. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    74,623
    Likes Received:
    4,169
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree with his position to let the voters decide.
     
    Trinnity and (deleted member) like this.
  3. kenrichaed

    kenrichaed Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    8,539
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/st...-as-he-conditionally-vetoes-gay-marriage-bill

    How anyone could possibly blame this man for not being fair is beyond me. The only thing he isn't doing is letting the democratic legislature dictate to his State what the law for the people should be.

    Good call.
     
  4. Agent_286

    Agent_286 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    12,889
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ......

    Gov. Christie is passing on his authority to preserve a certain element in our society's equal rights under the law, and is attempting to pass the responsibility on to the citizenry who care little to nothing about equal rights under the Constitution.

    He is doing this so as to not interfere with his run for the 2016 presidency. A huge mistake because it is his duty to run his state according to the Constitution that promises equality and no discrimination.

    Christie has made a big mistake as the republican party may have become extinct by 2016. He is going to be held accountable for his inattention to the rights of the good people of New Jersy.
     
  5. paco

    paco New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    18,293
    Likes Received:
    233
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :blahblah:

    In the end, you're still afraid that the "good people of New Jersy" would also vote against same-sex marriages, just like the good people of California keep on doing whenever it is put up to a popular vote down there.
     
  6. Gator Monroe

    Gator Monroe Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    153
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Good , now if he would become more 2A friendly ...
     
  7. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    74,623
    Likes Received:
    4,169
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The State of NJ already has Civil Union laws which guarantees the same rights under the law as hetero married couples, so they already have "equal rights under the law". What you have here is a finger poke in the eye of those that believe gay marriage is wrong. It's a word that's all, but dang it they are going to force the issue.

    Since I have established that we are talking about semantics here and not any "equal rights", why not let the people decide if there should be a "name" change.

    I highly doubt that. Even in UBER liberal California look at Prop 8. It passed by a margin of 52.24% Yes to 47.76% No. That's about the same margin Obama won in 2008. Just as they had done in 2000 with Prop 22. So I think you have it backwards. In 2012 the Democrats that passed the Gay Marriage laws in each state will be the ones held accountable for their disregard for the will of their constituents. Legally, civil unions grant the same rights as marriage except for the name, voters know and understand that.
     
  8. texmaster

    texmaster Banned

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    10,974
    Likes Received:
    589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You know liberals can't stand the will of the people in government.
     
  9. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're right Governor Christie. An issue of this magnitude and importance should be left up to the People it will affect to decide upon.

    "But how will gay marraige affect everyone?!" Screams the rehearsed talking-point on the left. Well, allowing gay marraige in each successive state is a legal shoehorn to not deny those same "priveleges" in other states a la the Constitution. This case is being walked forward as we speak.

    And gaining a special class recognition for just gay behaviors [as opposed to the entire gamut of human behaviors now regulated under State codes, penal and civil] will set an unworkable precedent and may even undermine the very foundation of American law.

    The Constitution provides protection for genders to not be discriminated against. And where the word "sex" is used, it is a noun, not a verb. "Sex or gender" in the Constitutional sense means being born with a set of either male or female reproductive organs, not what one does with those organs habitually..

    So unless gays plan on trying for a religious protection, and intend on applying for federal recognition thereunder, they'll be setting a new description for those currently protected by the Constitution: a minority behavioral group.

    The trouble with that is, then other minority behavioral groups of every type and description, particularly if those behaviors are compulsive, will be discriminated against if penal or civil codes seek to limit the free expression of those behaviors. Currently the Will of the People of each state determines who may marry or enter a specific gendered locker room or bathroom. Soon that will be overturned.

    Which minority behavioral group will retool the penal code? Will the majority have a right to protest? And if people who practice homosexaulity dictate to the majority, we cannot prevent other minor behavior groups from doing the same. Who decides what behaviors are objectionable to mainstream or accept without penalty once minorities can dictate to the majority in this "behavior = special class" "new world order"?

    Indeed. Christie is correct in saying that the issue is one of magnitude and importance.
     
    texmaster and (deleted member) like this.
  10. texmaster

    texmaster Banned

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    10,974
    Likes Received:
    589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Outstanding post. Well done.
     
  11. Craftsman

    Craftsman Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2012
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What happened to
    "All men are created equal....."

    Seems to settle the issue for me.
     
  12. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So then you'd be OK with men being able to apply for observing the girls' locker room at public schools then right? That is "equality" at its epitome.

    And polygamists, siblings, parent/child pairs...they're not to be denied "equality" in marraige either...

    unless you recognize that we regulate "equality" when it comes to behaviors every single day in local penal and civil codes...

    Thank you texmaster!
     
  13. Serfin' USA

    Serfin' USA New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    23,900
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And those Jim Crow laws weren't so bad either. What's wrong with separate but equal?
     
  14. kenrichaed

    kenrichaed Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    8,539
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So if there is no republican party there is no way Christie could run for President?

    Hmmm....the term independent mean anything to you?
     
  15. kenrichaed

    kenrichaed Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    8,539
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    All men are created equal but some gay guy walking around acting like a woman certainly is not a man.
     
  16. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Were they about sexual BEHAVIORS? Because if not, the comparison isn't relevent to this topic. Behaviors ARE NOT gender, creed, race, or ethnic origin. So far those are the only class distinctions recognized in the Constitution.
     
  17. Serfin' USA

    Serfin' USA New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    23,900
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Religion is a behavior, isn't it?
     
  18. JeffLV

    JeffLV New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    4,883
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0

    The right of two people to have sex and marry regardless of race the race(s) of the couple is a right, affirmed by the supreme court on constitutional grounds.

    The right of two people to have sex and marry regardless of the gender(s) of the couple is what's in question.

    Call it a question of class or behavior if you want, the structure of the question is no different than the case of interracial sex and marriage. The law would protect classes based on gender. Which, of course, means even non-homosexuals can marry in a same-sex marriage... just like people can in opposite sex marriages.
     
  19. texmaster

    texmaster Banned

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    10,974
    Likes Received:
    589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Another supporter of pedophiles. After all aren't they men too? :frustrated:

    What a great day it will be when liberals stop using lazy general statements that can be so easily exploited.
     
  20. texmaster

    texmaster Banned

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    10,974
    Likes Received:
    589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hommosexuality has zero to do with race. Give us a break.

    Wrong. Both genders have the right to marry right now. Stop pretending.

    Wrong again. Race is a provable genetic trait. Sexual preference especially homosexuality is not.

    Both genders have the right to marry already. You have zero ground to stand on with that ridiculous argument. This is a sexual preference not a gender issue.
     

Share This Page