Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register

Gov. Chris Christie On NJ Gay-Marriage Bill: “If Forced To Make A Decision On It, I’ll Make A Decision”

While NJ legislators haven’t brought a marriage-equality bill to a vote in the state House or state Senate, Governor Chris Christie has finally broken his silence on the issue.

“They have a right to set their agenda, I’ll set mine, [and] we’ll see who gets there first,” he said yesterday in Camden, reports NJ.com. “When forced to make a decision—if forced to make a decision on it—I’ll make a decision.”

We were actually hoping he wouldn’t make a decision, though NOM probably wouldn’t keep quiet in that case.

In New Jersey, a bill becomes law if it reaches the governor’s desk and languishes for 45 days. We wouldn’t mind if Christie ignored the bill, seeing as the more likely thing for a Republican governor to do is veto the the thing. But now he’s said that he’ll “make a decision,” that’s probably not going to happen.

Still, Christie wants to be a viable candidate for president in 2016 and national polls on gay marriage have seen a major change in the past year: more people support than oppose our cause. In four years, the trend will continue upward, and a veto on gay-marriage could be a stain on his record.

Should Christie veto the bill, marriage-equality supporters will be hard-pressed to secure a veto-proof majority. That’s because Democratic Senate leader Steve Sweeney didn’t organize enough campaigning around the issue recently. He has admitted that the bill failed two years ago largely because he abstained to vote on the measure.

Photo via Bob Jagendorf

On:           Jan 13, 2012
Tagged: , , , ,
    • christopher di spirito

      I thought Fatso already said he, like Obama, is opposed to marriage equality? Which begs the question, why is the New Jersey legislature doing this while Christie is still in office when they know he will veto the bill?

      Jan 13, 2012 at 10:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gus

      Gee, I dunno, why would Democrats try to paint a possible Veep or possible future Republican into a corner? Sometimes this stuff is really not about us.

      Jan 13, 2012 at 10:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chopper Man

      Christie is very much a socially moderate Republican (which is why there’s been such a push to get him to run for pres), so I highly doubt he would veto such a bill. More likely he’ll ignore it and let it become law without his blessing or discouragement.

      @christopher di spirito: As a minority yourself, you’re awfully bigoted in your “fatso” name-calling smear. Tone it down, whaddaya say?

      Jan 13, 2012 at 10:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam

      Christie hasn’t made a decision because he has seen the polls and is scared.

      You have to be opposed to gay marriage to win the GOP primary, but, he’s seen the polls change, he’s seen a few GOP legislators in NY State vote for marriage and have their fund raising dollars go up, and he knows that being a bigot isn’t the way to win the General Election.

      So he can be a bigot and win the primary and lose the General election, or he can vote for marriage rights, and hope the GOP wises up and kills off the tea party in the next few years.

      Jan 13, 2012 at 10:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • christopher di spirito

      @Chopper Man: I say, fuck off. Christie is a disgusting, lazy, fat pig. Next?

      Jan 13, 2012 at 10:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chopper Man

      @christopher di spirito: Geez, Chrissy DiS, you’re ever so angry this Friday morn. If Christie is lazy, as you claim, then Obama must be downright comatose, considering how little he’s done for the country (and how much he’s done for himself and his cronies). Did you see today that he’s allowing the bankrupt Solyndra to give its employees bonuses at our expense? What a guy! What a leader! What a poster child for government corruption!

      If all you’ve got in your arsenal is name-calling, then it’s you who’s a disgusting, lazy, fat loser (see, I can do it too).

      Jan 13, 2012 at 11:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Stefan

      Chrisite could easily make the decision to be neutral, by neither signing it nor vetoing it. He could easily justify it by not wanting to waste further state resources (he’s been big in cutting state funding) on the gay marriage court case (which will now go forward).

      Jan 13, 2012 at 11:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam

      @Chopper Man:

      Ok, so lets see, you’ve laid out the two narratives of the right wing.

      Call gays bigoted, and then make a vague claim that Obama has done nothing but with zero details.

      Things must be slow over at the Heritage foundation if you had enough time to come on here to type.

      Jan 13, 2012 at 11:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chopper Man

      @Cam: OK, you want details? Fine—here are the specifics of everything Obama’s done in his presidency:
      That’s right. He’s done nothing (and don’t count the reversal of DADT as an Obama victory, because he never supported it, he only signed it). You rock, Barack!

      Jan 13, 2012 at 12:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Riker

      @christopher di spirito: He stated his opposition two years ago, which was in the wake of Prop 8 and other similar victories for so-called “traditional marriage”. This is 2012 now, and everything has changed. Politicians change as their voters do, so it may be time for him to “evolve” on this issue.

      Jan 13, 2012 at 12:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Matthew Rettenmund

      Give up on trying to convince anti-Obama extremists. Anyone who can seriously claim President Obama has done nothing has an agenda. As far as the anti-Obama gays, it makes no different if he does evolve and supports equality, which would be historical. They’d still hate his guts and say, “Too late!!!” whereas they are far more forgiving of every other Democrat who’s come before him. They just do not like him, period. I’m not talking about people with legit gripes about the things Obama has done well vs. the things he’s botched, I’m talking about the ones for whom the word “Obama” is itself a slur that can be used as a noun, verb or adjective.

      Jan 13, 2012 at 1:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CBRad

      barney frank is fat too

      Jan 13, 2012 at 1:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GOD (gay old dude)

      @CBRad: As is Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Al Sharpton, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, etc etc. They’re calling Christie fat because they’re afraid of him and his influence, and they know he would clean Obama’s clock if he were to run against him this year. Not to worry, though: I fully expect him to be Romney’s running mate, and this time next year the whiners will be bitching about the fat VP, rather than the fat governor.

      Jan 13, 2012 at 1:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam

      @Chopper Man:

      Chopper, YAWN,

      Lets see, which do I prefer, somebody who sits there and does nothing or somebody that comes after me with a baseball bat.

      Obama signed the DADT repeal, what would McCain have done? What would Gingrich or Romney do?

      Besides, aren’t the GOPers always saying that govt. needs to sit back and do less? And now they attack OBama for for supposedly doing that?

      And as for the Govt. doing too much Bush pushed through the TARP Bailout, he took us from a surplus to a collapse, and sky high unemployment. The economy has ticked up for 30 straight months and the unemployment rate has inched down.

      Sorry, if I have to compare the last republican president then I’d say things are much better.

      Jan 13, 2012 at 1:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Big Mac

      @Matthew Rettenmund: I’d like to take issue with your statement. As a gay Republican myself, I can assure you I am not a self-hater, I’m a man who has a business that the government is trying to regulate into extinction. Democrats—not just B.O.—are the problem here. I don’t care for Obama, but it’s for none of the reasons you stated. I don’t like him because he doesn’t like gays (still evolving, you know) and only does anything for us because the DNC holds his feet to the fire. When it comes to his buddies in Chicago, however, he’s more than willing to spend billions of OUR money to bail them out. The man isn’t a leader, he’s a professional politician who’s never so much as managed a lemonade stand and has found himself way in over his head.

      Jan 13, 2012 at 2:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chopper Man

      @Cam: Heh heh, baseball bat. You’re funny. (or just really, really paranoid that someone’s going to drag you out of bed and lynch you because of who you’re fucking). And in case you missed it, Obama just asked congress to raise the debt ceiling by another trillion—with a TR—dollars of ours. Bush might have sucked as a president, but O’Bomber’s a disaster.

      Jan 13, 2012 at 2:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PhillyMatters

      I actually have no problem calling out Mr. Christie’s morbid obesity as a gay person. The vast majority of morbidly obese people are in such a state because of a refusal to address emotional damage or modify behaviors that lead to excessive intake of calories. When push comes to shove, Mr. Christie has stated in the past that he would veto a bill securing marriage equality for gays & lesbians and by doing so he is passing judgement on the validity of those relationships – so the gloves are off.

      I’m certain he would also veto a bill mandating that people with BMIs above a certain index be required to submit their daily caloric intake to the state, even though in the long-run there is far more evidence linking obesity to illness and increased medical costs for all of us than there is linking legalization of gay marriage to the decline of “traditional” marriage. It’s hypocrisy plain and simple and hypocrites don’t deserve courtesy.

      All that being said, I can’t help but like Christie, I think he’s smart and charismatic and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he came around to support this issue in the future. Like Obama, he is afraid of losing votes from small-minded voters who base their decisions on how a candidate stands on a single issue. And I am in no way implying that the LGBT community does this or none of us would have voted for Obama who in the end is far more an ally to our cause than most republicans, but still is on the wrong side of this particular issue.

      Jan 13, 2012 at 2:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PhillyMatters

      @Big Mac. The government is trying to regulate businesses into extinction… this is such complete and utter BS. Please check your fact Republican echo chamber losers… Obama has actually issued fewer regulatory requirements than Bush had at the same point in his presidency. The VAST MAJORITY of employers site poor sales as the reason for not hiring and only a small percentage even mention regulatory constraints.

      If you want to go back to the days of love canal, mesothelioma, asbestosis, black lung, and other wonderful crimes against humanity exacted against workers by unregulated industries, that’s fine. Oh wait.. we already have that with the unregulated banking industry, it was called “Mortgage Backed Securities”. Regulation is not the enemy of our economy, politcal parties that believe it is are. For you, I say China is a calling…

      Jan 13, 2012 at 2:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt

      It’s wrong to say he can avoid making a decision by waiting out the 45 days. That’s simply a third decision he can make, besides signing or vetoing.

      He doesn’t have the option of not making a decision.

      Jan 13, 2012 at 3:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam

      @Chopper Man: said….

      “@Cam: Heh heh, baseball bat. You’re funny. (or just really, really paranoid that someone’s going to drag you out of bed and lynch you because of who you’re fucking). And in case you missed it, Obama just asked congress to raise the debt ceiling by another trillion—with a TR—dollars of ours. Bush might have sucked as a president, but O’Bomber’s a disaster.”

      Typical, you ignored every single thing in my post to try to continue blathering out your narrative.

      Funny how you never answered my question about DADT. Obama signed it, what would McCain have done? What would Romeny or Gingrich do?

      Jan 13, 2012 at 4:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chopper Man

      @Cam: Sorry—wasn’t aware you were seeking an actual answer. Would McCain have repealed DADT? Probably not. Same with Gingrich and Romney, I’m guessing. But guess what, Cam my man? In case you didn’t notice, DADT, whether instituted or not, has no effect on your life or mine. None whatsoever. None. Nada. El zippo. So why is it so important to you? Because it’s a CAUSE, that’s why. And it’s a noble cause, to be sure, but unless you’re in the military (and I very seriously doubt that you are) then it has no effect on us. So, when it comes time to vote for the leader of the country, I don’t think with my dick and ask, “What will he do for me and the gays?” Instead I think with my brain and ask, “What will he do for the good of the country?” And Obama has proven to be as ineffective as his lack of experience assured us he would be.

      Jan 13, 2012 at 6:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tjr101

      It’s quite hilarious seeking the gay repugs come out of the wood work to defend the gluttonous bigot from NJ by throwing in Obama into the mix. Desperate much?

      Jan 13, 2012 at 7:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tjr101

      It’s quite hilarious seeing the gay repugs come out of the wood work to defend the gluttonous bigot from NJ by throwing in Obama into the mix. Desperate much?

      Jan 13, 2012 at 7:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam

      @Chopper Man: said…

      “@Cam: Sorry—wasn’t aware you were seeking an actual answer. Would McCain have repealed DADT? Probably not. Same with Gingrich and Romney, I’m guessing. But guess what, Cam my man? In case you didn’t notice, DADT, whether instituted or not, has no effect on your life or mine. None whatsoever. ”

      1. PROBABLY not? Wow, so you can’t even be completely honest? Considering that McCain was one of the key opponents of repeal why can’t you be honest enough to leave out the “Probably”?

      2. As for the fact that you claim DADT’s repeal doesn’t effect non military? You obviously have no understanding of the way things work in America. DADT is used as a defense in court cases where companies want to fire gays, it is held up as a defense. Since the govt. can discriminate so can we.
      DADT was held up as a reason to keep marriage illegal because it was an example that the govt. felt gays were ok to discriminate against.
      It was an example of a federal law stating that gays were second class citizens and now it is gone.

      But again, you keep beating the republican drum, and begging them to be allowed in through the servants quarters. Maybe they’ll let you do their hair or decorate their houses.

      Jan 14, 2012 at 11:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Artist

      The ONLY reason that Christie won the govenorship in New Jersey is because of low voter turnout and Corzine was weak. He has made his opinion clear on Marriage Equality…it ain’t going to happen under his watch. Not sure why he’s shining on the national front as possible Presidential material because the man is a bully and loves to throw his weight around. ;-) PEACELUVNBWILD!

      Jan 15, 2012 at 8:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daez

      @Chopper Man: Don’t forget the individual mandate to buy health insurance no matter what your income. The only thing that ever benefited from some stupidity is the health insurance companies.

      Jan 15, 2012 at 9:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daez

      @Chopper Man: I’m sorry, but I’m pretty sure that thinking with my dick has nothing to do with being gay. Thinking with my heart does. I feel truly sorry for you if you think that being gay is only about sex.

      Jan 15, 2012 at 9:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daez

      @The Artist: He is shining on the national front because of his record of working with Democrats in bipartisan efforts in NJ. Of course, people overlook the fact that he didn’t work with them he worked over them as they grabbed their ankles and bent over time and time again.

      Jan 15, 2012 at 10:01 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Christie Apologists Are Pathetic

      Christie campaigned on an anti-gay platform when running for governor, announcing his opposition to civil unions, marriage equality, and adoption by gay people. Apparently, in Republican parlance, this makes him “socially moderate.”

      I don’t care what the Democrats’ motives are, I hope to get him on the record with a bill. If he opposes it, his national presidential ambitions (and even regional political ones) are finished. LGBT marriage equality will be mainstream in America by the time he gets his shot at running in 2016.

      Jan 15, 2012 at 10:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

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

  • Copyright 2016 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.