The governor’s plan is not serious. It is a political dodge. He is trying to provide a safe haven to shelter his obedient Republican legislators. The idea is they could safely vote against gay marriage, saying they only want the people to decide.
Imagine how different American history would be if this rule by referendums had carried the day from the start.
Take race relations. If Southern states could have held a referendum on free speech rights for Martin Luther King Jr., can anyone doubt how it would have turned out? How long would it have taken for voters in Mississippi to integrate its public schools?
Gallup has traced attitudes toward interracial marriage for decades. Note that when the Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s ban in 1967, fewer than 1 in 5 Americans supported the court’s position. If Christie’s philosophy had carried the day, the ban would have remained in place until the late 1990s.
The point is that minority rights should not be subjected to majority vote. That misses the gist of constitutional rights.
The courageous Star-Ledger Editorial Board calls Governor Chris Christie out on his cowardly suggestion to let voters decide whether gay people can get married in NJ
Source: NJ.com
DC Dookie
Anyone remember Senator Obama’s record of not wanting to take a political stance and voting “present” because he didn’t want to offend one side or the other? Didn’t think so. And who can list the number of Democratic governors who have done the same as Christie on the subject? Or how about Obama and the great strides he’s made for gay marriage? Oh wait, that’s right, that doesn’t count because they’re “evolving” while Republicans are just evil demons who want us all dead.
Queerty is so obviously carrying the Democrats’ water that they are trying anything to make all Republicans look bad this year. Good job at creating more legions of entitled, greedy brats who feel everything is owed to them.
Pocket Otter
Christie 2016!
kendoll
If he really cares about the people, Why doesn’t that fat fuck Christie save some
food for the rest of the planet.
Jewed Law
I live in NJ and I’m not against gay marriage at all, but I am smart enough to understand that gay marriages will inevitably end in gay divorces, and the scenario seems particularly ugly to me. I’ve witnessed many civil cases involving same-sex couples who’ve split, and they’re some of the most violently emotional confrontations I’ve ever seen in a courtroom.
All I’m saying is, just be careful what you ask for, for you might just get it.
Tea & A
@kendoll: Is that supposed to be funny? If so, you should post the same statement on your Facebook page to let all of your overweight friends know how you feel about them. Because I’m sure you are perfect in every way (except that whole gay thing).
James
@Jewed Law: Wow couples that marry sometimes get divorced? We never knew that! Thanks for enlightening us!
Mike in Asheville
@Jewed Law: Fuck you, asshole.
Every single week, there is at least 1 story of murder-suicide of separated married STRAIGHT couples and their children. Over Christmas, there were news stories of 5 different families in different regions, where one spouse murdered entire families of spouses and children, some including in-laws and friends — ALL STRAIGHT PEOPLE KILLING THEIR FAMILIES.
While domestic violence raises its ugly head in the gay/lesbian community, it is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to straight people.
So my partner and I of 26+ years have to forgo receiving the benefits of marriage because reckless straight cowards kill their mates and children instead of going to therapy? Yeah, fuck you and your idiocy.
Isaac C
The people should definitely decide. Not everyone sees gay marriage as a civil right.
the crustybastard
@Mike in Asheville:
That was awesome.
ChrisC
@Isaac C: Regardless of how they see it, it doesn’t change the fact that it is. As long as Equality is not allowed homophobic people will continue to see that the majority of people view LGBTs as unequal and second class citizens, which will only make it seem acceptable to Harass, Bully, Threaten, Destroy Jobs & Lives (DADT), and even in some cases, get violent with us (even murder). It’s such a slippery slope, allowing a large group of citizens to remain seen as unequal. It could even lead to Homosexuality once again becoming a crime. As it remains in many countries around the world.
Furthermore, whether Gay people are allowed to get mMrried or not, only affects those who will be entering same-sex marriages, so why should the people be allowed to vote on this? Why shouldn’t they spend their time voteing on things that actually have an impact on them? For instance: The public didn’t vote on serious issues which have an impact on them, like the economy, but are allowed to vote on things that don’t impact them, like Marriage Equality? People have lost their Cars, Jobs, Houses even Lives because of the economy, but how many times have there been public votes on things that directly impact it? None to my memory. But two dudes getting married should be voted on? That’s such bullshit.
PS: Not everyone in the 1950s saw being prohibited from entering certain establishments and drinking from water fountains as a civil rights issue. Didn’t change the fact that it was. And that allowing inequality against Blacks to take place only encouraged people to view Blacks as lesser, which lead to violence against them.
rf
@Isaac C: Christie admitted that gay marriage is a civil right when he compared it to the 1960s black civil rights movement the other day–which is what prompted this editorial. He says we should vote on civil rights: “people would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights rather than fighting and dying in the streets in the South”.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/01/black_leaders_gov_christie_nee.html
Mike Kilpatrick
this is why I thought it was such a poisonous idea for Maine gay to put their own civil rights up for a vote. you can’t expect chis Christie to have more respect for you than you have for yourself.
Robert in NYC
@Isaac C: If marriage isn’t a right, why do states issue marriage licenses to religious and non religious people in order to get married? It grants people many rights when they apply for one. There is NO RIGHT or privilege to marry without one. Try accessing 1134 federal rights and 3-400 at the state level without a license that can only grant those rights including lower tax rates for married couples.
So what do you think a ban on interracial marriage was about? Oh I forgot, not about rights. You need to do some more reading, pal.
Jim
Could you provide a link to the quoted article in this article please?
Isaac C
@ChrisC: Actually, if people don’t see gay marriage as a civil right (or any other social issue, for that matter), that actually does change “the fact” that it is, which is why it’s even being discussed in the first place. How is it a “fact” that gay marriage is a civil right? You have to base that on something.
People can also worry about all those other things you mentioned and still be against marriage equality, whether or not it directly impacts them.
@rf: Well, he’s basically right in what he says. People would have been very happy.
Lots of people don’t see gay marriage as a civil right any more than they see certain African-American rights as “civil rights.”
rf
@Isaac C: Would black people have been happy? Or do you and Christie not consider them people?
Jewed Law
@Mike in Asheville:
Your elegant response to me, “Fuck you, asshole,” proves that you always have been and always will be a class act, Mikey. Do you kiss your partner of 26+ years with that mouth?
I have no study to refer to, but I sit in court every day, and I see domestic squabbles every day, and unless gay couples now account for about one-fifth of all couples, then the ratio of gay domestic unruliness to straight couples is definitely higher. This isn’t a judgment call, it’s what we civilized folks call an “observation.” But I suppose observing things that don’t put gays on a pedestal is, in your opinion, a hate crime.
Isaac C
@rf: Of course they’re people.
And I don’t know if they’d be happy. I’m sure some would have. Just like some whites would have no doubt been unhappy.
Cam
@DC Dookie: said…
“Anyone remember Senator Obama’s record of not wanting to take a political stance and voting “present” because he didn’t want to offend one side or the other? Didn’t think so. And who can list the number of Democratic governors who have done the same as Christie on the subject? Or how about Obama and the great strides he’s made for gay marriage? Oh wait, that’s right, that doesn’t count because they’re “evolving” while Republicans are just evil demons who want us all dead.
Queerty is so obviously carrying the Democrats’ water that they are trying anything to make all Republicans look bad this year. Good job at creating more legions of entitled, greedy brats who feel everything is owed to them.”
_______________________________________
This is the right wing tactic. You will notice it in ANY discussions now.
Rather than actually deal with the post at hand, they will desperately try to bring up somewhat vague charges against OBama and try to get people to defend OBama…thereby changing the subject.
Ok DC Dookie,
You claim that Obama and the Democrats have done all that, fine,
1. Provide the Links
2. Tell us why you feel that what Gov. Christie did was ok with you.
If you can’t do that, stop wasting both your time and ours.
Cam
@Isaac C: said…
“The people should definitely decide. Not everyone sees gay marriage as a civil right.”
_____________
That comment is idiotic. Not everybody sees owning property as a right. So because my neighbor doesn’t feel that people should be allowed to “Own” the land he should have the right to come into my house and live?
In the 90’s a majority of the state of Alabama believed that interracial marriage should not be legal. So you are stating that it should not have been legal in Alabama?
Isaac C
“So because my neighbor doesn’t feel that people should be allowed to “Own” the land he should have the right to come into my house and live?”
The majority actually agrees that owning property is a standard for living in a free society. That is an essential component in our society, and what makes our society what it is.
Gay marriage, in a word, is not.
“In the 90?s a majority of the state of Alabama believed that interracial marriage should not be legal. So you are stating that it should not have been legal in Alabama?”
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m stating. It’s not a civil rights issue to people who don’t see it as one, whether it’s race or sexual orientation or whatever.
DC Dookie
@Cam: Try Googling “Senator Barack Obama voting record” and you get about 70 million hits, and no, I won’t list them all here for your convenience. Look it up. He was the least effective senator in Illinois history.
Chris Christie is playing the political field. He’s not anti-gay, but he doesn’t want to alienate his conservative base. Regardless, I don’t give a good goddamn what either Christie or Obama thinks about gay marriage when the country is constantly sliding into economic disaster. Marrying your honey won’t do you much good if you have to share your matrimony in a cardboard box.
Cam
@Isaac C: said…
“Yes, that’s exactly what I’m stating. It’s not a civil rights issue to people who don’t see it as one, whether it’s race or sexual orientation or whatever.”
____________________
Civil rights aren’t determined by what other people think. That is why they are “Rights”.
Cam
@DC Dookie: said…
“@Cam: Try Googling “Senator Barack Obama voting record” and you get about 70 million hits, and no, I won’t list them all here for your convenience. Look it up. He was the least effective senator in Illinois history.”
____________________
No, actually, you are the one making the claim and yet you can’t even be bothered to come up with a few links to support your comments.
tjr101
“But, but Obama did”
Typical weak right-wing response to the bigotry of the GOP.
Danny
Yeah, that would work well. Whenever an individual angers two or more people, those people can just vote away that individual’s human rights and dispatch them no matter who they are, what political positition they hold, or how much money they have. Haven’t we learned enough from history to know where outnumbering people to take away their human rights always leads. How many more civilians have to die at the hands of government and how many more military members and civilians have to die wiping out such governments for human beings to learn these basic lessons. Your human rights as an individual should not be subject to a vote because no individual – gay, gay-friendly, or anti-gay – can survive their enemies voting away their human rights. Don’t let the people who have fought, suffered, and died throughout the world for human rights have died in vain.
One of the CA 36,000
@Isaac C: Whether you, or any other pinheads who think like you, think that marriage is or isn’t a civil right doesn’t matter. The US Supreme Court decided, in Lovings v. Virginia in 1967, that “[m]arriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888).”
It is very likely that anti-marriage equality statutes throughout the US will be struck down as violations of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, as were the antmiscegenation laws that were struck down in Lovings v. Virginia.
Prop H8 should never have happened. But it did. And it WILL be struck down. And you right-wing pigf!ckers can just accept it. Gays and lesbians and bisexuals and transgender citizens WILL have equal rights in this country. In MY lifetime. And you won’t be able to do a damn thing about it.
Well, maybe move to some earthly Paradise where thinking like yours is accepted. Like Uganda. Or Saudi Arabia. Places where ultra-Christian or Sharia laws rule the populace.
GOD (gay old dude)
@Cam: I must say you are sometimes shockingly, unnecessarily rude and disrespectful to other people on this site. It seems you can never discuss an issue, you can only attack others for their opinions if they, God forbid, disagree with yours. I’m sorry for whatever made you such an angry person, but that doesn’t give you the right to viciously admonish everyone who has a dissenting opinion. You can type rambling paragraph after paragraph all you want, but it will never, ever make you right all the time. I’m not saying your opinion isn’t valuable, but when you deliver it in the form of a nasty-gram time after time, it becomes irrelevant.
(and I bet I get nasty-gram for writing this)
Isaac C
@Cam: Actually, they are. The concepts of “Inalienable Rights” and “Civil Rights” were both developed by humans (of course). Therefore, people can either agree or disagree with them. It’s clear that you agree with them and that’s fine. I’m just saying it’s not and never has been written in stone (and even if they were, people could still disagree).
Isaac C
@One of the CA 36,000: So, you basically just admitted that marriage equality isn’t a civil right? That’s what I gather.
People can disagree with SCOTUS and their decisions. SCOTUS is not the final arbiter on what rights are and that is why conservatives (as well as liberals) disagree with the rulings of SCOTUS on many occasions, and why many of its decisions are contested.
I would very much like the country to accept “marriage equality” both at the state and federal levels, but that is certainly not going to happen in anyone’s lifetime who is posting here. The reasons for that are various and complicated. I know you probably feel empowered believing otherwise, and I truly feel sorry for you that you have deluded your mind with false hopes.
Furthermore, marriage equality isn’t and doesn’t have to be accepted by the majority as a civil right. And what you are seeing in the outcry against gay marriage is that it isn’t a civil right as it applies to gays. SCOTUS will most certainly agree. You should probably review judicial history to find out why that is. Again, sorry.
TADPOLICUS WEX
I think we can all agree that the definition of Issac is indeed TROLL…now he’ll beg, but don’t feed him. I’m willing to bet that he/she/it is a a libertarian, they frequently spout those vaguely existential rants in which words can have multiple meanings and therefore we can’t chose just one or man isn’t free….MARRIAGE IS A BASIC & SECULAR CIVIL RIGHT, troll elsewhere.
Isaac C
@TADPOLICUS WEX: This is the type of post that people use when they can’t argue a point. It’s sadly what I expected.
I know you’re frustrated, and I’m sorry you can’t accept reality.
TADPOLICUS WEX
Issac, get bent.
erasure25
@Isaac C: SCOTUS contested? Not in any court of law that I know of, save for the SCOTUS itself. Sure people can disagree with their rulings, but then you have to go and change the underlying law or constitution. Your view in that SCOTUS will rule a certain way is your belief and that’s fine. But don’t resort to hyperbole and self indulgence to think your view is superior to all. Individual states generally lead while the fed plays catch up and ultimately brings the knuckle draggers along. We are slowly seeing this happen. If only our social development kept pace with our technological development… But i think “in our lifetime” is a completely reasonable position to take on marriage equality.
Isaac C
@erasure25: SCOTUS is contested through checks and balances, yes.
“But i think “in our lifetime” is a completely reasonable position to take on marriage equality.”
If you say so.
Cam
@GOD (gay old dude): said….
“@Cam: I must say you are sometimes shockingly, unnecessarily rude and disrespectful to other people on this site. It seems you can never discuss an issue, you can only attack others for their opinions if they, God forbid, disagree with yours. I’m sorry for whatever made you such an angry person, but that doesn’t give you the right to viciously admonish everyone who has a dissenting opinion. You can type rambling paragraph after paragraph all you want, but it will never, ever make you right all the time. I’m not saying your opinion isn’t valuable, but when you deliver it in the form of a nasty-gram time after time, it becomes irrelevant.
(and I bet I get nasty-gram for writing this)”
______________________
You tried this tactic before on another post where I was merely asking you to answer a question and to back up your statements. You kept refusing, saying you were being attacked, etc… but never ever answered the question or backed up your statements.
Cam
@Isaac C: said…
“@Cam: Actually, they are. The concepts of “Inalienable Rights” and “Civil Rights” were both developed by humans (of course). Therefore, people can either agree or disagree with them. It’s clear that you agree with them and that’s fine. I’m just saying it’s not and never has been written in stone (and even if they were, people could still disagree).”
____________________________
Yes, the concept was developed by humans…but you left out the part about what the concept developed, and which this country claims to be founded on says.
The concept is that these are rights granted to every living human. In other words, if you subscribe to that….as our founding fathers claimed to, then you can’t just at a whim decide to hold a vote to take away women’s rights to vote, Blacks rights to marry, Latinos rights to own property etc…
GOD (gay old dude)
@Cam: Thanks for proving me right.
Hyhybt
Obama has nothing to do with this article, which is about a matter within the state of New Jersey. The only relevant Democrats are those in the New Jersey legislature… and they’re mostly in favor of gay marriage or they wouldn’t be trying to make it legal there.
Jakey
@Jewed Law: You’re not getting it. And it’s alarming that you work in the legal field (I assume you do, since you’re in civil court every day) and haven’t yet twigged to the fact that when you don’t have a legally binding relationship, such as a marriage, dissolving your relationship and dividing your property is exponentially more difficult and frustrating a process, and results in less happy litigants. That you think it’s more likely that gay people are just more naturally volatile, or something, is depressing—although not quite as depressing as your thinking that making an observation, and guessing at a cause, is the same thing as finding the cause. Try to think a little.