Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  SAY WHAT?

NJ Gov. Chris Christie: “I Vetoed A Bill On Gay Marriage, Not On Gay Rights”

Chris Christie is pro-gay, y’all! Never mind that he vetoed a gay-marriage bill and believes, in his religious heart of hearts, that marriage is between one (portly) man and one (normal-sized) woman.

You see, what we’ve been misunderstanding is the absolutely crucial difference between “gay rights” and “gay marriage.”

“I did veto a bill on gay marriage, not on gay rights,” Christie said at a meeting with Fort Lee, NJ students, streamed live on NBC’s Morning Joe. “Gay rights are protected and protected aggressively in New Jersey.”

Continued Christie:

“This is something I feel strongly about, I think marriage is between a man and a woman… What I’ve said to folks, after vetoing the bill is, let’s put it on the ballot. If a majority of people in New Jersey want to have same-sex marriage, then I’ll be governed by it. But I don’t think that’s a decision that should be made by 121 people in Trenton alone. It’s a major change in the way we’ve governed our society.”

Yes, it’s so weird that governors would have to make decisions about civil rights issues, isn’t it? And to make fair laws that they’ve been elected to make? That’s just majorly different than what’s happened for the past 200 years in America.

By:           Evan Mulvihill
On:           Mar 2, 2012
Tagged: , , , ,

  • 89 Comments
    • Reynolds
      Reynolds

      This hot mess needs to take a lesson from his superior southern neighbors and hot governor in Maryland both on civil rights and diet!

      Mar 2, 2012 at 3:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lady Haha
      Lady Haha

      C’mon, gay Republican trolls. Tell us how this is all the Democrats fault.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 3:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • drewa24
      drewa24

      There should be a referendum on fucking Honeybuns for this fat fuck. I vote NO.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 4:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andy
      Andy

      Christie has a cheeseburger for a brain.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 4:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Isaac C
      Isaac C

      I completely agree. He’s said what I’ve said the whole time.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 4:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MikeE
      MikeE

      @Isaac C: yes, but you’re a moron as well.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 5:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kev C
      Kev C

      Gov. Christie is stopping gays from getting married in New Jersey. Don’t even call yourself gay married in NJ or Gov. Christie will have you arrested.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 5:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • iDavid
      iDavid

      Stupid is as stupid does.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 5:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mk_ultra_again
      mk_ultra_again

      Sorry Chrisco, you screwed up and it’s gonna follow you till crucial election time.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 5:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Isaac C
      Isaac C

      @MikeE: Your response doesn’t even make any sense. Think before you type.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 5:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WJoaquin
      WJoaquin

      @Isaac C: Actually, MikeE’s response does make sense. I’m sure he appreciates you proving his point.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 5:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Robertson
      Mr. Robertson

      @Isaac C: Seems like you need to work on your reading skills.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 5:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Isaac C
      Isaac C

      @WJoaquin: Then explain his point, since you seem to think there is one.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 5:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • William
      William

      Chris Christie is smart.

      He knows, just like anyone with an IQ over 75 that marriage equality will sweep this country in less than 10 years.

      Here is the “Smart” part. When all these politicians and/or activities are labeled as being on the wrong side of history Christie can claim that he always wanted equal rights but the people he governed over did not.

      He can save ass and get it both ways. Too bad vetoing marriage equality will screw him over no matter what he claims.

      Good look in a few years Christie, you’ll need it.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 6:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kev C
      Kev C

      @William: Just because Chris Christie has an IQ of 75 doesn’t make him smart.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 6:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Aric
      Aric

      @Isaac C:

      “He’s said what I’ve said the whole time.”

      He said marriage is between a man and woman.

      He also said he thinks the people should vote on it.

      Interesting, do you only agree with one of those statements or both?

      Mar 2, 2012 at 6:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      Funny then that the Supreme Court stated in Loving V. Va. that marriage is a right.

      So then….Christie…..I guess you’re wrong aren’t you?

      It would be like saying, Hey, I vetoed a bill on Women being allowed to vote, NOT a bill on women’s rights!

      Mar 2, 2012 at 6:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WJoaquin
      WJoaquin

      @Isaac C: I guess he thought you were bragging about sharing the same opinion about gay marriage as Chris Christie. But he thinks, as do most people with capacities for reason, that Christie’s statements on gay marriage are moronic. Therefore, since you claimed that you share the same position as Christie, the implication of his post is that you’re both idiots. I don’t think it was that hard to figure out.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 6:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Robertson
      Mr. Robertson

      @WJoaquin: It’s heartening to know that in this age of conflict and strife, people the world over can come together and agree on the fact that Isaac C. is a moron.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 7:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Isaac C
      Isaac C

      @WJoaquin: So basically, agreeing with Christie’s principle on the *specific* case of NJ marriage in that state (which has Civil Unions), makes someone a “moron.” And there is simply no explanation beyond that. It just stands on its own, apparently.

      I’ll go ahead and file this one under “Total Bullshit.”

      @Aric: No, I don’t agree with any of those statements. I agree that he vetoed gay marriage, not gay rights. No rights were stripped in his decision. I said the same thing in the other Queerty posts about Christie and this issue.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 7:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WJoaquin
      WJoaquin

      @Isaac C: “So basically, agreeing with Christie’s principle on the *specific* case of NJ marriage in that state (which has Civil Unions), makes someone a ‘moron.’”

      Correct. You’re smarter than I thought.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 7:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Isaac C
      Isaac C

      @WJoaquin: And you’ve met my standards and expectations for dumbassery. Thanks.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 7:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charlie in Charge
      Charlie in Charge

      @Isaac C: You agree with him eh? Does heterosexual marriage qualify as a right? The Supreme Court seemed to think so in Loving vs. Virginia.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 8:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Isaac C
      Isaac C

      @Charlie in Charge: The Supreme Court could be wrong.

      Anyway, that ISN’T THE POINT. This is: “I agree that he vetoed gay marriage, not gay rights. No rights were stripped in his decision.”

      Mar 2, 2012 at 8:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WJoaquin
      WJoaquin

      @Isaac C: The Supreme Court could be wrong?! Are you joking? The Loving v. Virginia decision was a huge victory for the Civil Rights Movement. Was the Supreme Court wrong on Brown v. Board of Education, too? What other rights do you psychotic right-wingers want to strip away? It’s not just a coincidence that when the Tea Party emerged we started seeing politicians (like Rand Paul) discussing their opposition to the Civil Rights Act. You people really frighten me.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 8:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charlie in Charge
      Charlie in Charge

      @Isaac C: Not true, NJ Civil Unions are only recognized in the state where the couple resides. When NJ couples move or travel they do not have the same rights as they would have if they had gay marriage.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 8:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Isaac C
      Isaac C

      @WJoaquin: This is why you can’t have an honest discussion with liberals about anything. I respect your opinion on the Supreme Court decisions and I’ll leave it that.

      @Charlie in Charge: The same can be true of most states until DOMA is repealed, even if they have gay marriage. So your point here is moot.

      My point is that no rights were stripped in Christie’s decision. We can say that we disagree with the decision, but to say that it’s denying gays rights that they never had simply isn’t true.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 8:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • iDavid
      iDavid

      The Supreme Court said marriage was a right, by the marriage definition being between a man and a woman. This is apples and oranges.

      Technically Christie is correct, he did not strip away “gay rights” to marry because in his state, there was no right for gays to marry to strip away. His veto made sure of it.

      I find the statement as hard to swallow as anyone, but in scrutinous review, it does stand.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 8:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Isaac C
      Isaac C

      @iDavid: Exactly. Now let’s see if WJoaquin, MikeE, and others will call you names, too.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 8:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @iDavid: said…

      “The Supreme Court said marriage was a right, by the marriage definition being between a man and a woman. This is apples and oranges.”
      _______________

      No, actually they just said “Marriage”. If they were sticking with traditional definitions they wouldn’t have found for the plaintiffs in that case. So please don’t try to pretend that none of us here know the case.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 9:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • iDavid
      iDavid

      PS. It would be more accurate to say Christie is blocking gay rights, not stripping gay rights. Prop 8 is a prime example of stripping gay marriage rights, of which the 9th brought the hammer down.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 9:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John F
      John F

      He needs to worry about his own issues with food! Not who I can marry! For all the bible pushers God dont like divorce but straights have no issues with multiple marriages

      Mar 2, 2012 at 9:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • iDavid
      iDavid

      @Cam

      Don’t assume my intents as I am not suggesting anyone here does or does not know the case.

      “Marriage” then and now is defined as between a man and a woman. That is what we are fighting to change. The plaintiffs in that case were a man and a woman and fell under the definition of marriage, regardless of color, unless I am missing something. I am open to correction.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 9:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WJoaquin
      WJoaquin

      @iDavid: Rights are inherent. It is irrelevant whether or not a government chooses to recognize them. This is the philosophy of the Declaration of Independence: “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…” The point is that rights do not come from government, whether or not you choose to believe in a ‘Creator’ or simply believe that we get our rights from our humanity. Anyone with a basic understanding of this nation’s founding would be able to comprehend that.

      Therefore, Chris Christie is unarguably wrong. The Lovings’ right to marry was not recognized by the state of Virginia. So by this standard, you and Issac C would argue that the Lovings have no right to marry. They always had a right to marry, just as gay couples have always had a right to marry. It just so happens that governments are in the habit of preventing us from exercising our rights.

      Governments don’t ‘give’ rights. They can at best safeguard them.

      @Isaac C: “This is why you can’t have an honest discussion with liberals about anything.”

      Oh, save it, RepubliKlan.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 9:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GayGOP
      GayGOP

      @WJoaquin: Not all of us agree that marriage is a fundamental right. I think the Supreme Court has consistently gotten it wrong in declaring marriage a right. Thus, I think the Lovings had no constitutional right to marry. Should they have been granted such a right? Yes. Did the Supreme Court overstep its bounds in saying that the law barring them from marriage? I say yes.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 9:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Isaac C
      Isaac C

      @GayGOP: Egggggsactly.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 9:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • cwm
      cwm

      Loving v. Virginia has stood up as solid precedent for 45 years.

      people the world over can come together and agree on the fact that Isaac C. is a moron

      Equally beyond debate. Not important enough for the Supremes though.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 9:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kev C
      Kev C

      Governor Chris Christie is the gay movements Governor George Wallace. Gov. Wallace was also a populist who enjoyed majority support. Gov. Wallace also cited the Bible as his reason for supporting segregation. And Christie supports a separate but equal policy of civil unions for gays. New Jersey is Alabama on the Hudson.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 9:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WJoaquin
      WJoaquin

      @GayGOP: Again, this is why you conservatives are so dangerous. You believe that because you don’t THINK someone has a right then that means the government can sweep in prevent them from exercising their rights. This was your kind’s logic behind passing the Patriot Act. The Bush regime didn’t believe that privacy was a right, therefore they believe they, as did most of the freaks in the Senate, regardless of party, that they had the right to wiretap any phone conversation or read any e-mail they felt like. Just because you and your ilk believe that governments have the right to play God does not make it so.

      @Isaac C: I’ll ask it again, since your response the first time was to denigrate liberals (which I never said I was, by the way): “What other rights do you psychotic right-wingers want to strip away? It’s not just a coincidence that when the Tea Party emerged we started seeing politicians (like Rand Paul) discussing their opposition to the Civil Rights Act.”

      Mar 2, 2012 at 9:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      Re No. 33 · iDavid wrote, ‘“Marriage” then and now is defined as between a man and a woman. That is what we are fighting to change.” Minor technical correction – if “then” means in the distant past (and in some parts of the world today), “marriage” was between a man and as many women as he could support and wanted around the house. The funny thing is that the people touting “traditional marriage” don’t realize that they are touting polygamy.

      Re No 38 Kev C: New Jersey doesn’t qualify as “Alabama on the Hudson” as the polls seem to show that the majority of its residents now support same-sex marriages. Christie’s real motivation is probably not bowing to the will of the voters, but making sure that wingnut Republicans in other states won’t have an issue to beat him up on if he ever decides to run for president. He’s figuratively giving them a blow job because they are uncomfortable with someone doing that literally.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 10:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Isaac C
      Isaac C

      @WJoaquin: You told me to “save it,” so I will. I will respect your views on this topic, as I said in post #27, and I won’t discuss the issue.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 10:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Isaac C
      Isaac C

      @B: If it’s still between a man and a woman, you could argue that it still holds its traditional meaning regardless. Gay marriage is radical in that it upsets that meaning, so yes, it’s a radical change (although one that I obviously agree with). GayGOP accurately stated what the real issues are here, though.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 10:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WJoaquin
      WJoaquin

      @Isaac C: You won’t answer it because you have nothing but back it up. You can only whine when a liberal ‘attacks’ you, which is what I was referring to when I said “save it.” It’s the same kind of nonsense Ann Coulter pushes about how conservatives are always the victims of liberals. All the gay-bashers I’ve met have been conservative, so I’m tired of that nonsensical narrative.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 10:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kev C
      Kev C

      @B: You’re right. Alabama is much prettier than New Jersey.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 10:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Isaac C
      Isaac C

      @WJoaquin: Nope. I won’t answer because you aren’t open to possibly seeing things a different way.

      Mar 2, 2012 at 10:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WJoaquin
      WJoaquin

      @Isaac C: A bit of the pot calling the kettle black, eh?

      Mar 2, 2012 at 10:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • iDavid
      iDavid

      @Wjoaquin

      Very astute of you. I think your model and explanation is correct. No law should ever had been made to define marriage as between one man and one woman because at it’s core, is unconstitutional and is technically a human rights violation.
      In that sense yes, Christie is wrong to say he is not taking away rights.

      Laws were built for lots of reasons, and for good reason, many laws need deconstructiin.

      V vs. L technically according to The Constitution, should never have even happened, along with this gay marriage war. I guess we get so numbed by the illegal laws we make, that we believe our own lies.

      Mar 3, 2012 at 12:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WJoaquin
      WJoaquin

      @iDavid: Thank you. And I really love your quote: “I guess we get so numbed by the illegal laws we make, that we believe our own lies.”

      Mar 3, 2012 at 12:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 42 · Isaac C wrote, “@B: If it’s still between a man and a woman, you could argue that it still holds its traditional meaning regardless. Gay marriage is radical in that it upsets that meaning, so yes, it’s a radical change (although one that I obviously agree with).”

      Given the Biblical standard (King Solomon’s 700 wives and 300 concubinues, with the limit set by what he could handle and house in his palace, and the Muslim limit (Mohamed limited it to 4 wives per man), the really radical change was limiting men to a single spouse. Having a same-sex spouse is a pretty minor variation compared to pruning it down from 700 as the practical limit.

      Mar 3, 2012 at 1:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daez
      Daez

      @John F: God also didn’t like obesity. Gluttony (over indulgence) is one of the seven deadly sins. Not that I support fat jokes, but Christie is like 300+ pounds (at what point do you realize you might have a problem?).

      @WJoaquin: I think what best applies here is a statement I heard on the radio the other day. You will NEVER win an argument that is based on opinion alone, and every time you bring up actual facts the Republican supporters put their fingers in their ears and start to scream. So, its pointless to argue, you just need to win.

      @Isaac C: You won’t answer because you have nothing to back it up. Lets drop the semantics. If you had something to say you would say it. That is how your kind operates.

      Mar 3, 2012 at 6:01 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • iDavid
      iDavid

      @Wjoaquin

      Hey no probs. Thx for the wake-up nudge. Sometimes we can get so focused on one knotty tree, we don’t see the beauty in the entirety of the forest. You know, those things we vote politicians in expecting them to support. ; )

      Mar 3, 2012 at 6:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • iDavid
      iDavid

      @Daez

      “I think what best applies here is a statement I heard on the radio the other day. You will NEVER win an argument that is based on opinion alone,and every time you bring up actual facts the Republican supporters put their fingers in their ears and start to scream. So,its pointless to argue,you just need to win.”

      I can’t tell you how timely this is to hear. I have had problems as I’m sure many have with getting way too tied up in fighting, that it takes away some of lifes joys. Not to mention creates basic aggravation in general. I used to say “stop all this arguing and just go vote!” Then I would end up doing the exact opposite. It really came to a head a few days ago when I realized how much time was spent uselessly obsessing over this entire culture war. Just win. Excellent! We don’t have to ruin our emotional selves in the process thinking we are in a loser chokehold with no way out.
      Anyway thx for posting that. Every little reminder helps when you think you are on a virtual battlefield with bombs flying overhead.

      Mar 3, 2012 at 6:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • takakupo
      takakupo

      He is like the douchemaster of spin.

      Mar 3, 2012 at 8:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @Isaac C: said…

      My point is that no rights were stripped in Christie’s decision.
      _______________

      Isaac, I get it, you come on here, you say that you like your same sex, but you refer to gays as “They” and “Them”, any time anybody disagrees with you you attack them as a liberal. Look, we’ve seen it all before, I’m not going to go into it.

      HOWEVER, just because “Gays” have said one thing you don’t have to knee jerk disagree. Christie said that he didn’t veto a “Gay Rights” bill. As this bill would have granted gays new rights, it is by definition a gay rights bill.

      Think before you reply. Are you going to read what I wrote. Are you going to just dissagree automatically because “A Gay” said it, and you don’t want to be one of “Them”? Are are you going to look at it critically?

      Mar 3, 2012 at 9:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jimmy Velvet
      Jimmy Velvet

      And this little piggy cried “wee wee wee” all the way home!

      Mar 3, 2012 at 12:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Isaac C
      Isaac C

      @Cam: Actually I don’t think I’ve ever “attacked” anyone as liberal before. I’ve called plenty of posters here “gay fascists,” but never attacked them as liberals because I agree with many liberal gay rights beliefs. That particular person (WJoaquin) wanted to talk about the liberal decisions of the Supreme Court and that would’ve been a very long discussion, so yes, I attacked him as liberal because he obviously does not think the Supreme Court could ever be wrong.

      “Christie said that he didn’t veto a “Gay Rights” bill. As this bill would have granted gays new rights, it is by definition a gay rights bill.”

      I disagree for the reasons I’ve already stated.

      And I take offense that you would think I’m not gay because of simple terms that I may use from time to time.

      Mar 3, 2012 at 12:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kingkuy
      kingkuy

      i honestly hope he kicks the bucket choking on a hot dog. no pun intended, just a plain old hot dog

      Mar 3, 2012 at 12:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Libertarians laugh at both sides
      Libertarians laugh at both sides

      Conservatives are, of course, wrong when they claim that the government has the right to create a category “restricted” to “just 95% of all people.”

      Progressives are, of course, wrong when they claim that government should sit at the heart of regulating and promoting private relationships.

      However, so long as government permission is required to start a family, that permission should not be withheld from any individual. To do so is to violate that individual’s natural rights (and 14th Amendment equal protection rights under the Constitution). Period.

      The idea that the Gluttonous Gov didn’t veto a “gay rights” bill is technically accurate — he vetoed a human rights bill and sought to uphold his party’s position that government — not individuals — knows best about personal relationships.

      The irony is that the same conservatives who rage against their neighbors who aren’t like them, and use government to beat them up, then flail their flabby arms and scream/spit donut crumbs when government tells them how to educate their own children. They sure don’t like it when the tyranny they support against others comes back to roost in their own homes.

      Mar 3, 2012 at 1:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • chuck
      chuck

      He’s for human rights…but slavery should be reinstated and women should be chattel.

      Mar 3, 2012 at 1:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @Isaac C: said…

      “@Cam: Actually I don’t think I’ve ever “attacked” anyone as liberal before.”

      And just a few sentences later you said…

      “so yes, I attacked him as liberal”

      Wow….. You then said…

      ““Christie said that he didn’t veto a “Gay Rights” bill. As this bill would have granted gays new rights, it is by definition a gay rights bill.”
      I disagree for the reasons I’ve already stated.””

      Isaac, you do realize that just saying something doesn’t make it so right? He said, he didn’t veto a gay rights bill. This bill granted gays rights.

      You then can’t even put up your reasons there because putting them right next to that statement would have shown it to be a foolish statement. Nice try.

      Mar 3, 2012 at 2:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Isaac C
      Isaac C

      @Cam: Cam, we are disagreeing on what Christie did. You see it one way and I and others here see it another way for the reasons that have already been given.

      I mentioned WJoaquin because that is the only moment I can recall ever “attacking” someone for having a liberal view. UP UNTIL that point, I don’t think I ever did that. I don’t see issues here or discuss them as “liberal” or “conservative.” It depends on the issue.

      Mar 3, 2012 at 2:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WJoaquin
      WJoaquin

      @Isaac C: When did I say I was a liberal? Or that the Supreme Court is never wrong? Apparently you like to deduce more than you like to actually read and comprehend.

      Mar 3, 2012 at 3:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Isaac C
      Isaac C

      @WJoaquin: When did I ever say I was a republican or a member of the KKK? (@WJoaquin:). Apparently you like to accuse people of the same things you do.

      Mar 3, 2012 at 4:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Peak
      Peak

      Wow being from New Jersey is almost as embarrassing as being from Virginia. Well almost.

      Mar 3, 2012 at 5:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mark
      Mark

      Dang, who messed up his meds??

      Mar 3, 2012 at 7:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WJoaquin
      WJoaquin

      @Isaac C: Since there is no anti-gay Republican you don’t defend (I recognize your name from countless other articles), it’s safe to say you’re a Republican, at least in spirit. And I never said you were in the KKK. I was saying that the Republican Party is essentially an extension of the KKK, which is evidenced by the fact that when LBJ signed Civil Rights legislation, the racists in his party almost universally jumped ship to the Republican party. For example, Strom Thurmond remained a prominent and highly influential figure in Republican politics until his death. Thus, the RepubliKlan Party was born.

      Mar 3, 2012 at 7:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • iDavid
      iDavid

      @Mark

      His boyfriend. ; )

      Mar 3, 2012 at 8:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • scribe31
      scribe31

      @Aric: One group of people should not get to vote on the civil rights of another group! Should we have voted on slavery? Should we vote on free speach? If people had to vote on brown vs. education, which side would the public came down on? Would the rights of blacks to vote, go to mixed schools, marry people outside of their race (my race) be around if the public got to vote on them? We both know the answer, but only one of us is honest enough to say it out loud. Our system of government is set up to protect the minority from the majority (mostly third branch), to push through the bullshit and do what is right for country. The Gov. from New Jersey didn’t sign the bill because he is a bigot! And if he was around in the 60′s he would have been against another group’s(blacks) getting equal rights too. Sadly it is who the man is.

      Mar 3, 2012 at 10:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Isaac C
      Isaac C

      @WJoaquin: Don’t try to weasel out of what you were saying with that “Republiklan” crap.

      As for defending Republicans, I defend them against the reverse bigotry of the gay extremists and their need to silence and piss on anyone that doesn’t completely agree with them. And I am not ashamed.

      Mar 3, 2012 at 10:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WJoaquin
      WJoaquin

      @Isaac C: I’m not ‘weaseling’ out of anything. The party is one big racist (not to mention sexist and homophobhic) organization, which doesn’t say much for those who proudly associate with it.

      It’s interesting how in all your comments I’ve read, you only seem to see bigotry against RepubliKlans, not against gay people. I can’t say I expect anything else from someone who so openly sells out their LGBT brothers and sisters to score a few points with their captors.

      Mar 3, 2012 at 10:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Isaac C
      Isaac C

      @WJoaquin: “The party is one big racist (not to mention sexist and homophobhic) organization, which doesn’t say much for those who proudly associate with it.”

      It’s sad that you really believe this.

      I notice bigotry against republicans because this is a radical gay site. It’s a given that gays will always be the victims in the articles. And who says I want points from “captors?” I don’t post to please the anti-gay or try to win them over.

      Mar 3, 2012 at 11:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WJoaquin
      WJoaquin

      @Isaac C: It’s not a matter of ‘belief,’ it’s a matter of fact. What party is staunchly opposed to gay rights? What party demagogues women’s access to contraception? What’s sad is that you can’t see reality staring you dead in the face. It’s not that I’m defending the Democratic Party, either. It’s habitually weak when it comes to defending minorities’ rights from the likes of politicians and voters who think like you.

      I don’t know why I even bothered debating you. I guess it’s that I am sick of seeing your nonsensical posts go unanswered. The fact that you would call Queerty ‘radical’ (since I guess anything you right-wingers don’t like is automatically radical) is all the evidence I need to say that you’re just trying to score points with homophobes, who I can guarantee will hate you no matter how hard you defend them.

      Mar 4, 2012 at 12:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Isaac C
      Isaac C

      @WJoaquin: I guess you just like reading into what you want to read into.

      You have problems.

      Mar 4, 2012 at 12:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TASTEY GOODIES
      TASTEY GOODIES

      Gay marriage IS a part of gay rights, you vendeho Chrisco!!!!!

      Mar 4, 2012 at 12:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WJoaquin
      WJoaquin

      @Isaac C: “You have problems.”

      Okay, now it’s REALLY the pot calling the kettle black.

      Mar 4, 2012 at 1:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Isaac C
      Isaac C

      @WJoaquin: And exactly how long are you going to continue this? We cannot agree so let it go.

      Mar 4, 2012 at 2:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BBear
      BBear

      I’m just sad that, while this guy is a douche, everyone has to jump on his weight.

      But I forgot, fat people are the new gay.

      Mar 4, 2012 at 3:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kev C
      Kev C

      @BBear: Fat is the new powerful. Politicians and police are fat. I visited my police station this week and everyone was fat. And everything was filthy and dirty. Talk about a pigsty. I’m pretty sure they weren’t gay.

      Mar 4, 2012 at 4:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BBear
      BBear

      @Kev C: Well fat is kinda everywhere now, powerful or otherwise.

      I wonder whats going to happen when all the fat people sit on all the skinny people. LOL

      Mar 4, 2012 at 4:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • xamthor
      xamthor

      denying LGBT people equal protection in their marriages IS taking away rights. Regualtiong them down to 2nd class citizenship IS an attack on Gay Rights.

      Mar 4, 2012 at 10:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      Governor Christie will be remembered with Governor Wallace of Alabama.

      He is on the “wrong” side of this issue, and of history.
      His aspirations for national office will not be successful.

      Mar 4, 2012 at 12:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ian
      Ian

      Sorry Gov… you can’t have it both ways. You’re not for gay rights. You can twist and turn in your rhetoric… but at the end of the day you’re not for gay rights.

      Mar 4, 2012 at 12:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb
      Caleb

      Fuck that fat piece of SHIT!!! So 121 people, who were elected by the PEOPLE cannot pass a measure to ensure marriage equality, yet, ONE PERSON — Gov. Fat Ass — gets to veto it. NICE. Fuck you, Christie. If you put ALL civil rights to a vote women still wouldn’t be able to vote for your fat ass and “negroes” couldn’t marry the whites. Stand behind your religion all you want to, Gov. Asshat, it will not save you from Goddess’s judgment. My goddess is a righteous judge of hypocrites, but she loves the gays. And, I am a straight dude!!!

      Mar 4, 2012 at 3:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fawkes
      Fawkes

      @WJoaquin: On behalf of those with the capacity for logic and reason, I thank you for trying to take on the troll known as Isaac C. It’s not surprising that you couldn’t get anywhere with him, considering, as mentioned before, he’s a troll. And a gay Benedict Arnold.

      Mar 4, 2012 at 5:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      Crisco is known for telling people his religious convictions are no ones business except his and his wife. He is mistaken. His religious convictions are now our business.

      Mar 4, 2012 at 11:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @Isaac C: I should not have to travel from state to state seeking equality in the same country. Sound familiar? Get a grip on reality.

      Mar 4, 2012 at 11:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rutgers1017
      rutgers1017

      I just don’t see how anyone can say that gay marriage and gay rights are two separate things. Are we not all created equal? Was “gay” not defined by people who were in fact NOT gay, as a way to make sense of people different from themselves that they did not understand (and CHOSE to view negatively)? The powers that be have been discriminating against every other group they consider a “minority” since this country was founded for them to retain the power over others. We are witnessing the gay-rights movement in full-steam, much like the civil rights movement for african americans, and the women’s rights movement. I don’t think anybody can deny that.

      I also don’t understand how anyone who IS gay could possibly hold any other view than the fact that they deserve the same rights as every other human being? regardless of whether or not you choose to label yourself as “liberal”, “conservative”, or whatever. Don’t you, as a gay man, feel a moral responsibility to every other gay person on this planet, that has suffered in the same ways that you have, that you deserve the same rights as everybody else? You are doing yourself and the rest of us a great disservice regardless of how you even FEEL about homosexuality. and you will NEVER have a clear understanding of it anyway during your lifetime, so stop the self-hatred, and get over it. life is too short. try to channel your frustration into helping another gay person out who is more lost and confused than you are.

      This, unfortunately, is why the gay community, is not much of a “community” at all. And that was pretty depressing for me to discover as I came out, grew up, and tried to understand what it even meant to be “gay”.

      As for Christie’s comments, he’s playing it politically safe. As much as I think he’s a fat fuck, he’s playing the same game as President Obama, who incidentally, has done an amazing amount for gay people in his 4 years that any other politician in the history of this country. I can’t wait til Hilary is president. and if Christie honestly thinks he can run for president, well thats the funniest thing i’ve heard all week.

      this is my first queerty post, so please forgive the rant, i’m just passionate like the rest of ya’ll

      Mar 5, 2012 at 1:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • iDavid
      iDavid

      “The Quinnipiac University Poll released Thursday showed that support for same-sexmarriage in New Jersey hit a new high,57 percent,but two-thirds of registered voters said they would rather cast ballots than see the societal change made through legislation.”

      Seems Christie knows it’s in the bag via the poles, tho he would never say it cuz he’s a douche. If someone there wants to get busy and get it on the ballot, could be a very marry Xmas for NJ.

      Welcome Rutgers1017!

      Mar 5, 2012 at 2:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Darling Nikki
      Darling Nikki

      You vetoed a bill on gay rights idiot. This is a person who has no knowledge of American History, stating recently that everyone would have preferred Civil Rights of the races be placed in the hands of the popular vote. If Truman didn’t enforce equality in the military amongst the races, we’d still have segregated forces.
      He is a bigot.
      But then the history of New Jersey Governors in the past 25 years leave much to be desired for his future.
      Whitman “airs all clear”
      McGreevey had money issues and was being investigated before he conveniently came of of the closet
      Corzine – Goldman, nuff said
      Christie is in a long line of arseholes.

      Mar 5, 2012 at 1:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.