Gov. Christie Vetoes Same-Sex Marriage Bill

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 07:10:21 PM EST
Tags: same-sex marriage (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has vetoed the same-sex marriage bill passed by the state legislature, but he calls it a conditional veto.

Gov. Chris Christie this afternoon conditionally vetoed the gay marriage bill and suggested appointing an ombudsman to address complaints of same-sex couples and strengthen New Jersey’s civil union law.

"I have been just as adamant that same-sex couples in a civil union deserve the very same rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples — as well as the strict enforcement of those rights and benefits,’’ Christie said in a prepared statement.

Is anybody fooled that this is not a veto? A referendum will not happen. Legislative action has ended for now, and the deadline for an override of the veto is Jan. 14. [More...]

Here's the Statement of Garden State Equality.

For us, this is not about politics. This is about our fundamental American right to
conduct our lives with a full life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Equality.
And until we achieve it, we will fight with our every last breath.

< Friday Open Thread | Whitney Houston Funeral >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Gov. Christie Vetoes Same-Sex Marriage Bill | 26 comments (26 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Wrong side of history (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by MKS on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 07:41:55 PM EST

Blot on his career--and he knows it....

: spread the cheese (5.00 / 0) (#3)
by Dadler on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 08:18:54 PM EST

the man is as serious a human being as a soda cracker.

the equal protection clause trumps (5.00 / 0) (#6)
by cpinva on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 09:56:54 PM EST

any state or federal law. by definition then, gay people have the very same right to marry whomever they so choose, as white, black or asians do. absent compelling evidence of harm to society, by gay people being able to marry each other, there is no constitutional reason for them not to able to. there is no actual need of legislation to enable this.

as amply demonstrated in the recent litigation of CA's Prop. 8, the very best, most compelling evidence provided by the proponents of the law is "we don't like it". the equal protection clause is superior to "we don't like it".

: It is well established (none / 0) (#8)
by andgarden on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 10:26:07 PM EST

that marriage is a fundamental right. The Supreme Court said so 9-0 in the 1980s So I think you're right that we're going in that direction. I think we'll eventually get Kennedy's vote. But it's probably going to be a while.

The idea (5.00 / 0) (#9)
by NYShooter on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 10:47:24 PM EST

of putting a class of citizens' rights up for public referendum is so repulsive, so degrading, it defines the term, "shocks the conscience."

When I see today's spectacles regarding referendums I can't help but be reminded of Rome and its spectacles in the Coliseum.

And yet, closer in time, and nearer to home, egomaniacal pigs like Christie seem to have learned nothing from Jim Crow, or more recently, the one he seems to favor, "separate, but equal."

How strange it all is, at a time of unprecedented advanced in technology, medicine, and communications that those images must be juxtaposed with Neanderthals masquerading as "Leaders."

Imagine my surprise (none / 0) (#1)
by Zorba on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 07:37:32 PM EST

Not. :-(

He thought he was being clever (none / 0) (#4)
by andgarden on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 09:22:17 PM EST

But I actually think he boxed himself in.

How so? (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Peter G on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 09:53:58 PM EST

Do you think the good guys can win a referendum in NJ? Or are you suggesting something different? The idea of putting minority rights up for majority vote is so wrong, it galls me. But if the minority can win majority support, then yes, that's even better. Is that it?


Christie assumed that (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by andgarden on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 10:23:36 PM EST

the strength of the polling numbers would lead us to accept his referendum offer. And you know, there's a certain logic to taking him up on it (incredibly galling, but I do think we would win). But he presented it the wrong way, and the Dems want to use this veto against Christie. So they will. They're forcing him to be the bad guy.

Christie should want this to pass and be gotten out of the way, but he also doesn't want his fingerprints on it. Too late.


not so dumb (1.00 / 1) (#10)
by diogenes on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 10:51:19 PM EST

The people who are passionately in favor of gay marriage aren't exactly going to vote for Christie anyway. Joe Sixpack, who kind of might think that gay marriage is right because he has a nephew who is gay, would love to be consulted in a referendum. If the Democrats deny Joe Sixpack the chance to speak up, who's the bad guy now?


Human rights (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by gyrfalcon on Sat Feb 18, 2012 at 12:38:27 AM EST

MUST NOT be decided by referendum. Never. Ever. Under any circumstances.


"Joe Sixpack" already had ... (5.00 / 0) (#23)
by Yman on Sun Feb 19, 2012 at 08:27:17 PM EST

... when he elected his representatives - it's called a representative republic. We didn't put Jim Crow laws or segregated schools up for a referendum. Christie can read the polls as well as anyone else. He knows it wouldn't pass, but doesn't want to take the blame - he wants to be able to hide behind a referendum vote.


: Yup, scratch (none / 0) (#24)
by NYShooter on Mon Feb 20, 2012 at 02:31:22 PM EST

a blustering buffoon, rip off the faux tough guy façade, and what's left?
A calculating sissy aka a coward.

You are so forgiving of the "politics" (none / 0) (#13)
by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 18, 2012 at 08:44:20 AM EST

involved for someone as affected by the issue. I wasn't ready for you to be this calm and analyzing. Christie could have been brave though. The Republican party must end their hatred party in order to be saner and relevant again. This could have been a moment full of courage, and now it's not, and now apparently it's a problem for him too. If Christie isn't the brave old Conservative, I want him to fail even more and be removed from the stage. What are the odds now that he will be removed in the next election?


Reality check (5.00 / 3) (#21)
by NYShooter on Sat Feb 18, 2012 at 01:39:16 PM EST

"The Republican party must end their hatred party ...."

How do you give up hatred when it's the only thing you've got? Since their agenda is being lap-dog enablers for the 1% they need hatred as the diversion for their uneducated, uninformed "base" to continue voting to destroy their futures and their families.

Who needs food and medical care when there's a gay marriage to rail against?


: They've got 20% of Republicans voting for (none / 0) (#22)
by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 18, 2012 at 04:41:28 PM EST

Obama right now. Can this number get worse for them? I think it can. I don't see how they can continue on this course. I'm sure they will attempt to show me how though.

Forgiving? No. (none / 0) (#15)
by andgarden on Sat Feb 18, 2012 at 10:46:43 AM EST

But I don't really have any extra anger about this. I'm already at 10! I have been for years.


: Because you understand the (none / 0) (#17)
by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 18, 2012 at 11:37:17 AM EST

demographics of the area, do you think Christie will survive after his first term?

This is all about sex. (none / 0) (#12)
by lentinel on Sat Feb 18, 2012 at 03:03:15 AM EST

Our government, local and national, is essentially homosexual.
That is, it is comprised mostly of men. And they like it that way.

What makes them nervous, apparently, is the physical expression of love between members of the same sex - especially between men.

This is also an imposition of religious doctrine upon the State.
Religious institutions have encouraged same sex education, and in the case of various monasteries, have declared that men be with men and women, if they are included at all, are to be with women. But no touching.

What a crazy situation.

Of course, the fundamental issue is civil rights and equal rights.
But I have felt for awhile that underneath all of the madness surrounding racism and sexism is fear of sexual feelings and sexual expression.

all about patriarchy (none / 0) (#14)
by The Addams Family on Sat Feb 18, 2012 at 10:16:25 AM EST

compulsory heterosexuality, "homosexuality," gender, marriage, paternity, & sexual intercourse itself are all constructs within the institution of patriarchy - homophobia, misogyny, rape, & other forms of "sex"-based violence are mechanisms for enforcing the patriarchal social order

in many cultures, physical expression of love between men has not been incompatible with patriarchy - in modern Western culture, & particularly in the U.S., such expression tends to be sublimated in homophobic violence, gang rape of women or men, and the more legitimate contact (sic) sports

it is possible for a woman (or a man) to notice all these things without also believing in a long-lost paradisiacal matriarchy, just as it is possible to be a man (or a woman) who challenges patriarchal values and institutions


lol. Women are just as bad as men. (none / 0) (#18)
by Mr Natural on Sat Feb 18, 2012 at 11:50:19 AM EST

: maybe (none / 0) (#20)
by The Addams Family on Sat Feb 18, 2012 at 01:14:10 PM EST

so what?

On relationships between men, (none / 0) (#16)
by KeysDan on Sat Feb 18, 2012 at 11:03:32 AM EST

I wonder if the close and at the same time distant framing of such relationships as "my buddies" or "my best bud" is significant these days, rather than my good friends, or my best friend?


And to those of you decrying Christie's (none / 0) (#19)
by Mr Natural on Sat Feb 18, 2012 at 11:54:49 AM EST

lack of courage, really, courage in a politician is the rarest of rara avis. If a pol seems to be taking a courageous stand, read the fine print.

I Doubt Christie Cares (none / 0) (#25)
by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 09:33:19 AM EST

But no way will he get the nod in 2016 if he signs this bill. I am not fan of his politics, but as far as republicans go today, he is fairly smart and the shellacking Romney is taking over his 'liberal' agenda as Governor, from his own party, can not be missed by potential candidates.

This vote and his tenure is nothing more then resume building by Christie, IMO.

: 2016?? (none / 0) (#26)
by jbindc on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 02:16:26 PM EST

He's looking to be on the ticket this year. His term is up in 2013, and if he's the VP candidate, he will a) move to the Naval Observatory in January, or b) start his re-election campaign for governor in January.