Comments on: Christie Vetoes New Jersey Marriage Bill

By: Jacqueline

Jacqueline — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:51:25 +0000

Great read…there still could be an override and remember, civil unions in NJ are being questioned right now in court by Lambda Legal, so let’s hope the Ombudsman plan is over — and fast. From my own experience, civil unions in NJ do an adequate job covering matters at the END of a relationship…like division of property, assets, and child issues in a divorce situation (though we can’t really call it that). Here’s a list of the goodies we can get then http://www.weinbergerlawgroup.com/Divorce-and-Separation/Domestic-Partnership-Dissolution/Dissolution-of-a-Civil-Union-or-Domestic-Partnership.html But there are so many other areas — adoption, insurance, etc., where I’ve heard civil unions not recognized. There may also be a problem with couples in NJ who work in NY — where marriage, not CUs are recognized. It’s a big mess that Christie could have avoided by putting aside his political aspirations and doing the right thing!

By: Dennis W

Dennis W — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 21:26:39 +0000

Christie’s action is consistent with politics today. I come first and the national good comes second. If my needs happen to be consistent with the good of the people I will take the high road. If I put my personal agenda at risk for doing the right thing I come first. Change comes in the USA when the old ideas die because those who hold them finally pass. Thoughtful actions that support higher principles have no place in our national discussion. Where will we find real leaders?

By: Lucrece

Lucrece — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 03:11:37 +0000

I just want to save for posterity, that should he “change” his mind when the political winds change, I can tell him the several types of cacti he can go screw himself with.

He’s not looney wrong. He’s machiavellian wrong, and that’s what I truly see as evil. That’s why I detest Romney and Gingrich more than I detest Santorum or Bachmann. The latter two are too dumb to realize what’s going on. Romney, Gingrich, and Christie know full well the harm their doing, harm they’re doing for selfish means.

Christie is perverse.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 01:15:33 +0000

Zeke,

you may be right. I hope so. I would love to see whoever the Republican candidate is in 2016 desperately trying to come up with just why it is that they opposed the constitutional rights of a segment of the citizenry.

However, Christie may be gambling that Perry (or the next one in line) will be settled by SCOTUS by that point and thus he wont have four years of the right hating on him and by 2016 it will be “a settled issue” that doesn’t hurt him with moderates.

In some ways I pity him. This was a decision that was going to cost him in some ways and help him in others, no matter what he did. And I think this gamble was not only wrong in a absolute sense but in a political sense as well. If he wants to go down positively in the history books, he’s going to have to find some way of repairing what future generations – hell, what today’s youth – will see as an unconscionable decision.

By: TampaZeke

TampaZeke — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 01:02:14 +0000

Except for the fact that by 2016 having opposed marriage equality will serve him well with the homophobic GOP base through the Republican primary but then will hurt him in the general election. By 2016 support for marriage equality will be a clear and expanding majority opinion.