(I’m thinking of the lesbian couple who traveled to Canada to get married, and upon returning home, they gave news interviews in which they emphasized that they were gay and Roman Catholic and that the thought the church was wrong.)

From the RCC’s point-of-view, they’d probably rather save the excommunication threats as their weapon of last resort just in case the NJ legislature passed a same-sex marriage law and Christie showed signs that he was thinking about signing it instead of vetoing it.

On the other hand, the RCC’s position is that Catholics should equally oppose same-sex civil unions just as much as SSM. And while there’s essentially zero chance that a rank-and-file Catholic layperson would be excommunicated for the offense of publicly supporting civil unions, for a politician of Christie’s prominence to do so could be a different matter.

As soon as they begin with “my church” I have to interrupt and ask them if they are Roman Catholic, would they accept Papist Union as long as it has the same legal rights as marriage

I don’t think that would really be an appropriate response to this particular interview, though, because Christie didn’t use the phrase my church when explaining why he supported “same-sex civil unions” but only “one man, one woman marriage.”

In other words, he didn’t invoke “my church” in the discussion of what the secular government’s policy should be, but only when discussing his personal views on whether homosexuality is a “sin.”

However, I agree with your general point, that “Shouldn’t you be insisting that second marriages should legally be called Adultery Unions?”, is a very logical response when Christians use “my church says…” in the SSM debate.

Still, I WOULD trade him for my governor. I’d trade Super Satan for my governor. He’s only about half as evil as Rick Scott.