Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Gov. Christie’s Hypothetical Gay Son Can Marry on Monday

Jim Burroway

October 18th, 2013

From the New Jersey Star-Ledger:

…And it’s a setback for Gov. Chris Christie, an opponent of same-sex marriage who says only “one man and one woman” should be able to wed.

At a campaign event at a restaurant in Dover, Christie ignored a reporter’s request for comment about the ruling.

Michael Drewniak, Christie’s spokesman, later issued a brief statement.

“The Supreme Court has made its determination,” Drewniak said. “While the Governor firmly believes that this determination should be made by all the people of the State of New Jersey, he has instructed the Department of Health to cooperate with all municipalities in effectuating the order of the Superior Court under the applicable law.”

Gov. Christie said earlier this week that if one of his four sons had come out to him as gay,  he would “grab them and hug them and tell them I love them,” but he would also tell them “that Dad believes that marriage is between one man and one woman.” Beginning Monday, his hypothetical gay son will be allowed to marry just like his other brothers.

In related news, Princeton makes the fifth city (that I know of) to announce that they will accept license applications today from same-sex couples who want to get married on Monday. They early start on accepting applications is intended to accommodate New Jersey’s 72-hour waiting period. Princeton joins Asbury Park, Jersey City, Newark and Red Bank in accepting applications today.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Victor
October 18th, 2013 | LINK

Christie is not an ideological opponent of marriage equality. I’m sure he’s happy the case is almost done and pretty much over.

Joseph Singer
October 18th, 2013 | LINK

Seems to me since we have the east coast getting the marrying done Pennsylvania needs to step up.

Richard Rush
October 18th, 2013 | LINK

Pennsylvania is now the outlier among the northeastern states, but I think when marriage does comes to PA, it will be through the courts. Outside of the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh regions, PA is rural hicksville (think Alabama).

Lucrece
October 19th, 2013 | LINK

The worst part is this douchebag will get to play it as if he didn’t strongly oppose marriage equality.

As if the end product wasn’t the same, that he vetoed marriage equality, and rights were extended despite him.

He’s no different than the Southern maggots who have fervently blocked progress.

Victor
October 19th, 2013 | LINK

Lucrece, the thing is that he is not ideologically opposed to it. If he were, he would not have gone directly to the NJ Supreme Court, because only a blind man would not expect a decision against marriage equality from them in view of their decision in 2006.

Have you asked yourself why Christie skipped the appellate level court? If anything, him going directly to the Supremes is bringing marriage equality faster.

That, of course, doesn’t mean he will be liberal if elected…

Paul Douglas
October 19th, 2013 | LINK

I don’t know where you gather that Christie “is not ideologically opposed to it” (marriage equality).He has had plenty of opportunity to demonstrate his support and, or lack of opposition and he has not.
He’s a slimy politician and I see no evidence of what you are claiming.

Timothy Kincaid
October 19th, 2013 | LINK

I think it became obvious that Christie wanted the courts to rule as they did when he went with the argument “it’s the federal government’s fault here, they should provide our civil unions with all the federal rights and obligations of marriages”.

It was an argument that was so blatantly absurd that it was hard to take as serious.

Rob
October 19th, 2013 | LINK

Victor,

Do you even KNOW what ideological means? By the mere fact that he opposes it for religious reasons makes it ideological.

n. pl. i·de·ol·o·gies
1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

Religious objections are in fact ideology.

Priya Lynn
October 19th, 2013 | LINK

“Christie is not an ideological opponent of marriage equality.”.

Do you see “stupid” written on my forehead?

Stephen
October 19th, 2013 | LINK

I think it’s interesting that Princeton, ‘spiritual’ home of NOM, is going to be one of the first towns to conduct marriages. Imagine poor Robby George’s feelings. To say nothing of Ryan Anderson or Girgis Whatsisname. Or the Witherspoon Institute, also centered in Princeton (in Robby’s basement). Were I one of the happy couples I would so invite them all. Hell, I’d put an ad in the Daily Princetonian to make sure they saw. Plus I’d also thank them publicly for all they’d done to hasten marriage equality by way of their foolish, dishonest, unscrupulous, utterly frivolous campaign to stop my husband and I from filing joint tax returns.

Suck it, Robby.

Victor
October 19th, 2013 | LINK

Yes, Rob, I know what it means and, I guess, my choice of words was unfortunate. but my point stands – Christie in reality does not care. For him, it is just a political stand.

Let me break it down.

Is Christie stupid? I don’t think so.
Can a smart person, who knows that NJ Supremes have voted 7-0 for equality in 2006, expect a ruling against marriage equality if he asks them in 2013? Once again, I don’t think so.
A smart conservative would know that the best he can do to postpone marriage equality in NJ is keep it mired in the courts.

If Christie is smart enough to realize that the Supremes will rule against his position, why would he choose to skip the appellate level court instead of taking it to the NJ Supremes?

My answer to that question is that he wants the issue out of his way come the primaries/elections. So, in my opinion, Christie is simply having the issue out of his way quickly (even if his side is clearly losing it in NJ) in pursuit of his political ambitions. And in that way, his opposition to marriage equality is a political stance, but not something Christie believes in strongly. Certainly, not something he’s willing to give up.

Victor
October 19th, 2013 | LINK

Oops, I’m having issues with my negatives. The last sentence in prior comment should have been:

Certainly, not something he’s UNwilling to give up.

Rob
October 19th, 2013 | LINK

victor-

When a man says he would tell his own children that he wouldn’t support their equality if they were gay, he HAS to support that view strongly.

And I’m kinda tired of people like you who profess that politicians don’t mean they are against something when they say they are, vote like they are, and veto like they are.

Do you know how intellectually challenged you sound when you say stuff like “he doesn’t feel strongly about it” after he vetoed legislation that is supported by a majority of his state?

Also, he bypassed the appellate court so he could try to get a stay on the matter until it was fully heard by the State Supreme Court.

You seem very eager to excuse Christie on this issue, ignoring his own statements for something you wish he had said or done, rather than face the truth of his actions.

Next thing we know you’ll be saying Brian Brown really doesn’t detest gay people and he’s actually supportive of their rights but has to pretend otherwise.

Apologist. That’s the word. And no, you don’t know the meaning of ideology, otherwise you would to say he did it for political reasons, but not based on ideology…

Good luck convincing people the world is flat. See you on the edge of the Pacific before you fall over it.

Victor
October 19th, 2013 | LINK

Rob,

I’m not talking about the appeal of the stay. Christie skipped the appellate level altogether. Meaning that the case is completely bypassing the intermediate step.

Any attorney will tell you that this is quite unusual. Especially, when it is done by the appellant against his declared interests, and it is pretty clear that the Supremes will decide against him.

I’m not eager to defend Christie. I’m a Democrat and, had I still lived in NJ, I’d vote against Christie. However, I believe that pushing this point under the rug might result in Christie actually winning the presidency with enough support from the moderates. (Because I don’t believe that the issue of marriage equality will outweigh all their other political views.)

And I want to expose his stance for what it really is, so that he does not get past Republican primaries.

Lucrece
October 20th, 2013 | LINK

He will get past Republican primaries, as Romney did.

Republicans above all else in presidential elections never go for the Tea Party guy. That only works in local elections where the turn out is so lopsided toward the old and religious and not countered by the greater turn out of youth and minorities in presidential elections.

MattNYC
October 21st, 2013 | LINK

@Lucrece

Don’t count your chickens. There is far more anger against Christie in the lower ranks than there ever was against Romney. The Koch whores will back him and so will Alderson (once he swears fealty to Israel). But there are enough photos of him shaking hands with Pres. Obama to doom him in the primaries.

It’s too far out to risk money on it, but I would consider taking a bet that Christie will never be at the top of a ticket in 2016.

Timothy Kincaid
October 21st, 2013 | LINK

Victor,

I think you pretty well nailed it.

We’ve all seen politicians who “evolve” on the issue, politicians who smirk while saying something that we all know is not their real position, and politicians who claim to support marriage but refuse to call votes. In New York the Senate Leader called the Republican caucus meeting where they decided who would vote for marriage and right after called the vote which passed marriage, all while claiming to oppose same-sex marriage.

In this instance Christie pushed for immediate decision knowing the attitude and position of the Supreme Court, presented an absurd and completely unbelievable argument (that the Feds should recognize civil unions), and then pulled his formal appeal once it was clear the case was over.

I think he does ideologically prefer civil unions to marriage equality. And if he were tsar of the planet, that probably would be the global policy. But I also think he doesn’t care enough about that position to give much fight to it – as he has demonstrated by his actions.

Nathaniel
October 21st, 2013 | LINK

OK, so same-sex marriage is not a strong enough cause for him to fight out forever and risk losing moderate votes. But then that makes him a liar who has no personal feelings or judgements beyond what is politically expedient. That should alarm potential voters far more than his opposition to equality. Of course, even prefering civil unions is a position of political expedience that lets him claim to liberals and moderates that he does support equality, while to Christianists he can claim to oppose the ‘wicked gays’. The wary and informed voter should be proclaiming this clear evidence that Christie cares for no one but himself.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.