+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 14 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 134

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

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

    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/...sey/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. Stand Taller and Look Better with the LUMOback Posture and Activity Coach. <LINK> Learn More Here! </LINK>

  3. #2

    Default

    n returning the bill to the Legislature, Christie reaffirmed his view that voters should decide whether to change the definition of marriage in New Jersey. His veto also proposed creating an ombudsman to oversee compliance with the state's civil union law, which same-sex couples have said is flawed and promotes discrimination.

    http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...-Christie.html
    I agree with his position to let the voters decide.
    Last edited by Professor Peabody; Feb 19 2012 at 02:17 AM.
    Would the IRS accept the excuse YOUR hard drive crashed 10 days after receiving an audit notice, so you can't supply the information they're asking for? Would they just drop it and go away? Why should they be held to any less of a standard they set for us?

  4. Default

    “Today, I am adhering to what I’ve said since this bill (S-1) 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. “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.

    “I have been just as adamant that same-sex couples in a civil union deserve the very same rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples – as well as the strict enforcement of those rights and benefits,” the governor added. “Discrimination should not be tolerated and any complaint alleging a violation of a citizen’s right should be investigated and, if appropriate, remedied. To that end, I include in my conditional veto the creation of a strong Ombudsman for Civil Unions to carry on New Jersey’s strong tradition of tolerance and fairness. 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.”
    http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/sta...-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.

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Professor Peabody View Post
    I agree with his position to let the voters decide.
    ......

    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.

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent_286 View Post
    ......

    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.


    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.
    There's people in the world today
    Who say they're Jewish, Christian and such,
    They're all ignorant fools.

    They'll tell you you can't have your own way
    unless you pay money and dedicate your life
    Or you'll be d*mned in hell.
    ~ "Faith in God" - Bad Religion

  7. #6

    Default

    Good , now if he would become more 2A friendly ...

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent_286 View Post
    ......

    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent_286 View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent_286 View Post
    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.
    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.
    Would the IRS accept the excuse YOUR hard drive crashed 10 days after receiving an audit notice, so you can't supply the information they're asking for? Would they just drop it and go away? Why should they be held to any less of a standard they set for us?

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Professor Peabody View Post
    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.
    You know liberals can't stand the will of the people in government.

  10. Default

    In 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."
    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.
    Last edited by Silhouette; Feb 19 2012 at 10:17 AM.
    DOMA Opinion, Pages 16-17: "The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations ... the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.”... In so Saying, the Highest Court said all the 49 states get to choose yes or no on gay marriage....all 49 of them... Loving v Virginia was about race, not polygamy or homosexuality, etc.

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silhouette View Post
    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.
    Outstanding post. Well done.

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 14 1234511 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 78
    Last Post: Feb 20 2012, 12:26 PM
  2. Replies: 55
    Last Post: Feb 14 2012, 08:11 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks