Comments on: NJ Gov Vows To Veto Marriage Equality Bill

By: Iamposterity

Iamposterity — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 01:45:14 +0000

We should start an online game called Smell the Excrement!

Here are the rules:
When you see moral legislation, point to the Catholic Sacrament it is connected to.

FYI since I own all the rights and privilages I can change the rules to make sure I always win and everyone else always looses.

Oh I’m sorry Benedict did I steal your tactic! Here let me make it better by doing absolutely nothing to rectify my mistake…

By: Reed Boyer

Reed Boyer — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 01:06:27 +0000

Christie a victim? Hmmm. I’m inclined to agree. Of irrational fear, insecurity, etc. And it would seem clear that, when not bellowing, he uses his size to keep others at a distance. And, I’d think, stuffs the feelings with food.
Or possibly he’s simply gluttonous – and doesn’t want to share his special privileges with “those others.”

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:14:54 +0000

I agree that it doesn’t appear that Christie has any particular animosity towards gay people, but no amount of making it “personal” will outweigh Christie’s personal desire to become President someday. This would be impossible if he personally signs this bill. I’m not sure why you claim that Christie is more progressive than Obama on this issue. Obama also supports Civil Unions. I don’t know if Christie supports the repeal of DOMA like Obama does, or if, as President, he would defend DOMA in court, but again, he could not support repeal and still win a GOP nomination, so it’s reasonable to assume he does not.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:54:35 +0000

I’m not inclined to beat up on Christie. I do think his position is far far better than that of most other Governors, including some Democrats. In fact, it is better that that of the President – in that Christie isn’t just “supportive” of civil unions but actually called for a bill strengthening any inequalities.

In response to the fact that civil unions are in reality not equal to marriage, his response is “well let’s make them equal.” At this point I don’t think that is possible – history suggests otherwise. But I don’t think his response is any indication of ill will.

Christie isn’t homophobic or cowardly or full of bigotry or hatred. He simply is a victim of prejudice. Clearly he likes and respects gay people enough to put the first gay person on the NJ Supreme Court. Clearly he is sufficiently immune to anti-gay wackos that he confidently discusses why civil unions are needed in interviews.

But he hasn’t awakened to the reality that he still believes somewhere on a deep level that it is somehow preferable to be straight.

Prejudice is not an indication of evil. It is usually a holdover from early upbringing and often not even conscious. And it often harms those with it more than anyone.

Christie has no desire to harm the gay people he knows. But prejudice sits on his shoulder and says, “Civil unions are good enough. It will solve all the problems those gay folk have and isn’t that nice of you.” And prejudice carefully covers over the fact that there is inherent inequality when dividing citizens in any way so that Christie probably has no conscious awareness that this act, in and of itself, continues a pattern of institutionalized disrespect.

I’m sad that it pushed a “yeah, but” into Christie’s thinking on this issue. But I know that there is hope with those who operate from prejudice.

There still is time. What Chris Christie needs is a Jerry Sanders moment. He needs to sit and look in the eyes of people he knows and loves and see how this veto will hurt them.

Now is the time to Christie’s friends to take a stand. They have to let him know that they DO NOT “understand his position” or “know that he’s a man of faith” or any of the other “my gay friends” comments we hear. They need to tell him, “Chris, you know me, you’ve been my friend for decades. When you veto this bill, you are telling me that I am inferior. I know you don’t really believe that. I know you respect me. But your action in vetoing marriage demeans me.”

It’s time to make it personal.

By: Charles

Charles — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:26:48 +0000

Christie is punting on the issue. That is what politician are doing when they call for one. I think we all know that this issue is going to the United States Supreme Court.

By: customartist

customartist — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:02:47 +0000

Chris Christie KNOWS he is doing that which is Wrong, and for Political motives. He is not representing the will of the People.

The LARGER question is:
Will the New Jersey GOP Congress go along with him by passing a Referrendum, and against the Will of the Citizenry? [52% For v/s 42 % Against] It’s pretty clear.

Chris has confirmed that he will veto it – so go ahead! and let his chips fall where they may.

By: Tone

Tone — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:26:18 +0000

Human rights are too important to be subjected to tyranny of the majority. The governor is being cowardly.

By: Mark F.

Mark F. — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:21:53 +0000

“New Jersey already has a separate but not equal civil unions law.”

But it could be improved, correct?

By: Pogovio

Pogovio — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:44:46 +0000

Christie is not a terrible guy, he’s an old style Republican, before all the litmus tests were instituted. I think he is banking on a solid Republican defeat, in hopes that the current radical hate mongering Republican establishment is discredited. If that happens, there’s an opening for him to jump in in 2016. In the current environment, the Republican base would turn against him as soon as they find out about his moderate beliefs.

He can forget about a national career as long as the Tea Party tail is wagging the Republican dog.

By: JohnAGJ

JohnAGJ — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:23:21 +0000

How would having a referendum be any less of making this a “political football” than the legislature voting on it? Seems to me with money pouring in on both sides even more in a referendum than in pressuring legislators the political donny-brook would be more intense with the former rather than the latter.