I agree the message is classy, but quite frankly the notion that Christie is only vetoing this because of “political realities” makes his actions all the more vile.

I don’t disagree. But I suspect that Christie wouldn’t get it or understand why you think he’s hypocritical. Hell, he’s gone on TV arguing in favor of civil unions and insisting that government must respect its gay citizens. He probably genuinely believes himself to be a pro-gay activist of sorts and, in comparison to other Republicans, he is.

But it still is vile and extremely annoying and hurtful because this is a guy who doesn’t hate us, who believes in fairness, who isn’t really personally opposed to equality. But – and it’s the bang your head on the wall but – he just doesn’t cross the line into realizing what this is all about.

I believe that if Christie truly understood what he’s doing that he’s the type of guy who wouldn’t let North Carolina primaries be his biggest priority. But ‘redefining the word marriage to include gay people’ isn’t important enough to him. You have your civil unions and all the state departmental stuff and he protects bullied kids and this is all a big fuss over a word.

It’s not.

This isn’t about marriage, redefined or otherwise. This isn’t about rights which come with the word or even societal prestige.

This issue is far bigger than what we call our relationships. It’s about that idea that we all like to think that we believe but which goes against so many of our instincts that every generation has to struggle mightily to live up to it: that all men should be measured not by what they were born with but by what they make of it. And the notion that government does not administer this idea, does not dole it out or reel it in, but answers to it.

When someone applies their efforts and drive and intellect and sacrifices and gets to the place they are going, no man or government is entitled to say, “no, not you. You have the wrong color, social standing, education, and genitalia.”

Christie isn’t seeing it this way. To him its a matter of addressing needs. He’ll happily sign upgrades to civil unions or directives making sure they are honored. That fixes the immediate problem.

But he just can’t see that this isn’t about fishing licenses or hospital visitation. I’m happy that he doesn’t want me to be denied the provisions of government.

But that’s not what I’m asking for. I’m demanding something that neither he nor the citizenry have the right to grant or deny: equal standing.

This is a birthright issue. Equality is mine. Maybe he can’t see it, but it’s mine.

But with a good heart and the best of intentions Christie is blindly standing between me and what I’m entitled to saying, “no, not you, not now”.

If you want to make the case that it’d be politically advantageous to not call him anti-gay to his face or friends or in public I can entertain that idea but don’t ever expect me when I’m alone with my closest friends to falsely claim Christie or anyone else who opposes full equality is not anti-gay.

I sympathize with Goldman’s feeling of being hurt by someone you admire. Last night, I discovered some relatives’ names on the 2009 Washington state anti-gay petition (whosigned.org just published the list yesterday). Obviously, I wasn’t too surprised since I had searched for their names, but I have to admit that I’m having trouble with the idea of acting friendly with those that actively oppose my civil rights. It’s one position to disagree, but to actively veto legislation or sign a petition is somehow seems worse than even privately voting.

Even as political men like Christie or many others have their hands out for campaign donations from the gay community, they’ll still think those dollars, those votes and unconditional support from gay people is either a given or unimportant since this is a minority that can never have any political balance anywhere. Therefore NO political clout that he needs to concern himself with.

Yet, he and even Santorum, will mention gay ‘friends’, who are somehow quite invisible to confirming it. Unless the odd campaign manager or other lowly worker that happens to be gay is who they are talking about.
But they are still showing that gay person in their professional midst that they aren’t worthy of being married legally, adopting a child who needs a family, nor of any of the rights and protections that’s supposed to go with the commitment to paying taxes and other tangible standards of social participation and responsibility.

Pay up, shut up…and no matter what, I’ll show you gay people who owns the political process from which you are subject and have no say in how you are to determine you own legal protections.
The betrayal, these bald two faces that such people can display, make me utterly sick.

It’s true, you do know where you are with Santorum.
Some who have supremacist values are only a bit more honest about it than others.
Not knowing who has the knife poised, while being criticized for not trusting what the het majority is going to do to you, is truly terrible.
Pens, knives…what’s the difference in this instance?