Christie's Same-Sex Marriage Proposal Sparks Controversy
New Jerseyans and lawmakers debate the governor's handling of the political hot potato
The Marriage Equality and Religious Exemption Act advanced this week in Trenton, when the New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee voted 8-4 in favor of it. Though it was an encouraging sign for supporters of the bill, Gov. Christie has vowed to veto any marriage equality bill that reaches his desk. Instead this week he suggested putting the issue on the ballot and settling the matter by public referendum.
Not surprisingly, there has been some outcry to Christie’s proposed handling of the controversial issue, which many people liken to tossing the political hot potato into the hands of the people.
“I find it extremely offensive that Christie suggests the matter should be open to public referendum,” stated Bloomfield attorney CJ Griffin, a former legal intern of the Civil Union Review Commission (CURC) at the NJ Division on Civil Rights. “Basic civil rights should never, ever be up for a vote. Can you imagine the lack of progress we would have in this country if we had allowed each of the 50 states to vote on the various pieces of civil rights legislation in the 1960's? We would be a totally different country. Certain human rights should not be based on the whims, emotions, or prejudices of the populace.”
“A public referendum? On an issue of civil rights? Are you kidding?” outraged blogger and pastor Eliot Daly wrote in the Huffington Post.
“The normally blunt-speaking Governor . . . expressed his serene confidence that the people of the state would do the right thing as surely, and perhaps even more surely, than the legislature. Oh, please, Governor. Tell us you don't really believe that.
“The duplicity of his rationale is insulting. Everyone knows Christie is a really smart guy, plenty smart enough to know that we Americans for centuries have been perfectly happy to inflict pain on our fellow citizens whom we disdain.”
But there are those who believe Christie is doing the right thing.
"I agree with the Governor that this should go to referendum. The people of New Jersey should decide on this issue," declared Bloomfield resident Sue Ann Penna, Executive Director of the grassroots organization, Citizens for Limited Government.
Christine James, a Montclair resident, concurred. "I think it's great that he is willing to put it to a vote instead of legislation deciding. The people really need a direct voice on this issue to be truly represented and recognized."
Some lawmakers, including Senate President Stephen Sweeney, believe it will never come down to a public referendum. Dismissing the very notion at Tuesday’s hearing, Sweeney quipped, “We vote on issues here. We don’t put civil rights on the ballot.”
Quoted by South Brunswick Patch on Thursday, his remarks followed a rally by supporters of same sex marriage that was so well-attended the overflow crowd filled a second committee hearing room in the Statehouse Annex.
“Numerous people who entered into civil unions, which passed in December 2006 in response to a state Supreme Court ruling that New Jersey had to stop discriminating against gay couples, said that law is not working and they are still discriminated against, particularly in the area of healthcare,” stated the article.
Montclair Mayor Jerry Fried expressed the sentiment that New Jersey will follow other states where same-sex marriage has been legalized, on the grounds that it is unconstitutional to prevent it.
"It's much better if the legislature does it, but marriage equality WILL happen in NJ, and soon," said the mayor.
In the meantime, until a floor vote on the matter is taken in March, a protracted political standoff is likely. While recent polls show a majority of New Jerseyans support the right of same-sex couples to wed, the numbers on both sides of the issue are close enough to keep lawmakers deadlocked on the issue. According to a recent Quinnipiac poll, fifty-two percent of Garden State voters think same-sex couples should have the right to marry, while forty-two percent think they should not.
Shelley Emling contributed to this article.
Tamara LaBaer
8:01 pm on Friday, January 27, 2012
Really, Governor Christie? For a while there, it seemed your spine was held up by the courage of your conviction. I know you believe in equality for ALL citizens to have the most basic rights; to love and to marry whom they love, whatever their gender. Must I say it? DUH! Governor, you are not going to hide your true strength. Not really. Say it ain't so, Chris!
Laura Federico
11:43 am on Saturday, January 28, 2012
He has conviction, all right. But overriding Constitutional law -- and last I heard, the nation outranked any one individual state -- is illegal. Yeah, even for a governor! (Btw your comments are always very thought-provoking, Ms. LaBaer, and I read them with great interest ...) Back to same-ex marriage: the matter will have to go before the U.S. Supreme Court eventually, just as Brown v. Board of Ed did. If we'd waited then for the people to vote to do the right thing by blacks, betcha we'd still be waiting.
Steve
11:34 am on Saturday, January 28, 2012
I think it shows great courage to stand up for what you think is right. Most people who are against it, do so for religeous reasons. The Church is against it so I am against it. Who are we to re write the bible and its teachings? You cannot force a man to go against his faith. Put it to a vote with the people of this state and if it passes then write it into law.
John Lee
8:57 am on Sunday, January 29, 2012
Scripture also teaches us that if our hand causes us to sin we are to cut it off. I don't see many people with missing hands out there, do you?
Tracey Stephens
5:49 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
Of course you are entitled to your belief and to be guided by what your faith teaches you. This bill does not "force you to go against your faith". But you do not have the right to force your faith on those who have a different belief. You'll notice the full name of the bill is "The Marriage Equality and Religious Exemption Act" which means that clergy would be granted the right to perform marriage ceremonies for all members of their congregations but they are not required to and would be exempt if their faith is opposed to marriage for same sex couples. However it is not true that all faiths or religions are opposed to marriage equality. I attended the hearings in Trenton on Tuesday and there was a very large contingent of clergy passionately testifying in support of the bill. And they were actually quite angry that the state is interfering with their right to legally perform weddings for committed couples in their congregations. By the way, the last time a civil right was put on the ballot in NJ was 1915 when the citizens of NJ decided women should not have the right to vote.
profwilliams
11:36 am on Saturday, January 28, 2012
While I disagree with Christie, who shares Obama's view on "gay" marriage, and find it objectionable that a matter of civil rights is put to a referendum, I do admire the guy for finding a way for it to happen in NJ, but still allows him to maintain his position.
Or, like Obama, Christie's view might be "evolving"? (And I'll bet the evolution comes closer to election day... if needed?)
Laura Federico
11:37 am on Saturday, January 28, 2012
I could have sworn that as Americans, we are all willing subjects of the constitutional laws our nation was built on. Discrimination against any group -- Jews, African-Americans, the disabled, women, even Communists or Nazis -- is forbidden by our constitution for the precise reason that almost everyone thinks SOMEONE is inferior, and that it would be OK to discriminate against them, but no one else. Because of this unfortunate tendency to assign superiority or inferiority to members of a group, the U.S. constitution says unequivocally that we are all equal. Period. No, Gov. Christie, you don't get to revise the Constitution by referendum.
Kevin
12:14 pm on Saturday, January 28, 2012
The Federal governmant does not recognize same sex marriage. While I understand the objections of voting on matters of civil rights, I do think it would be great that we would be the first State in the nation to actually vote to approve same sex marriage rather than have legislated or through court action.
Laura Federico
12:47 pm on Saturday, January 28, 2012
I do, too, but as a fierce constitutional advocate, I think that if we don't put this issue before the Supreme Court, we are creating a precedent for preferential treatment based on popular sentiment. Gay marriage is not the last civil rights issue, just the latest one.
Montclair's Own
8:20 pm on Saturday, January 28, 2012
As Cory Booker said this week (and I don't always agree with him) a minority population should never be at the whim of the majority's sentiment. To say this is a man of conviction is so ridiculous...it's pure politics. He doesn't want to offend and ruin his appearance with conservatives should he decide to run for a greater office...and he doesn't want to appear to be too conservative to offend a large percentage of New Jersey's voters. The man is a politician. His stance is one of completely passing the buck instead of standing up for what is right.
Laura Federico
3:38 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
could not agree more.
John
6:36 am on Sunday, January 29, 2012
I see that the line still is blurred for what's normal and whats not for us as humans to continue and to reproduce our selves ,one male and one female ....
John Lee
8:58 am on Sunday, January 29, 2012
does that mean that all those people who were forcibly sterilized in the South are not allowed to marry because they cannot reproduce?
Occidentalist
7:22 am on Sunday, January 29, 2012
Since gays cannot rely on Christie for equality, my only hope is that New Jerseyans put their religious bigotry aside and vote on the side of equality.
What those who agree with Christie to put the matter up to a vote are forgetting, perhaps willfully, is the mentality of whites during the Civil Rights struggle.
We can look back now and agree that racism was rampant during the early 1960's. But what does it say in 1963 that nearly 2/3 of whites, when polled, said they believed blacks were treated the same as whites, almost the same number as say this now almost 50 years later? What does it say about the extent of white folks' disconnection from the real world, that in 1962, 85% of whites said black kids had just as good a chance as white kids to get a good education? (Gallup Poll Social Audit, 2001. Black-White Relations in the US)
The Bible condoned slavery just as it condones prejudice against gays. Yet whether by blood in 1865 or by law in 1965, the Constitution and the law of man proved a more righteous moral authority by ending slavery and passing the Civil Rights Act.
People who let their religion guide them on matters of equality have continually proven to be on the side of inequality and bigotry. Time to put that Book of Hate aside and vote based using your own mind since, as the town is changing has said, Christie is not interested in equality for Americans but makes his decision solely based on what is politically expedient for his future.
Kevin
11:39 am on Sunday, January 29, 2012
The Bible never condones slavery. It does recognize the reality that slavery existed, however it never condones it.
Occidentalist
12:40 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
Please tell me you're not serious Kevin.
Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT - "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way."
Exodus 21:2-6 - If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.
Occidentalist
12:47 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
And since Christians love to cherry pick and would regard those passages as irrelevant since they were in the OT (curious how you also don't dismiss the Ten Commandments since they were in the OT), here's some New Testament garbage:
Ephesians 6:5 - "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ."
Peter 2:18 - "You who are slaves must accept the authority of your masters with all respect. Do what they tell you--not only if they are kind and reasonable, but even if they are cruel."
The New Testament even explains how to beat your slave. Ahh yes, a book of love and compassion indeed!!!! Laughable how Christians regard Islam as a violent religion.
Luke 12:47-48 - "The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."
Religion is poison and is the source of hatred. As Steven Weinberg said, "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” Religion turns humans into venom-spitting hate monsters who are completely oblivious to the fact that their behavior runs contradictory to their message of "love thy neighbor".
profwilliams
8:35 am on Sunday, January 29, 2012
(Forgive me, but I won't be adding anything that purports to equate the the civil rights struggle that Black folks faced and fought to the "right" to marry. Anytime folks try to make "gay marriage" on par with Brown v. Board it leaves me cold because it's a misplaced analogy. Better is the Loving case which struck down the miscegenation laws. But to say that SOME not being able to be married in SOME states is the same as ALL Black folks being ill treated under the US law is a flat out distortion of history.)
And while I understand DOMA's place in all of this, and how I hope the CA case makes it's way to the Supreme Court and "legalizes" "gay" marriage in all states, I think back to the injustice that Black folks faced and just don't see ANYTHING that compares as it relates to "gay" marriage.
@ Occidentalist-- wasn't MLK a religious man who was guided by his faith?
Occidentalist
9:17 am on Sunday, January 29, 2012
profwilliams, couldn't your "SOME not being able to be married in SOME states..." view be applied to slavery? After all, if we talk about the North and South then it also holds true, "SOME remained legally enslaved in SOME states...".
You're missing the bigger picture. It's about a federal recognition of marriage equality. True the fighting is being done on the state level at the moment but couldn't the same be said for the struggle to abolish slavery? That too was fought on the state level until 1865 and the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. The federal government needed to pass legislation to assure "ALL black folks in ALL states were free". Just like "ALL gays should be allowed to marry in ALL states". Unless of course you condone the idea of second-class citizens and "some" being perfectly fine. A notion which quite frankly I find revolting and insidious. That said, I would be curious to hear your thoughts at the prospect of Ron Paul becoming President and the Civil Rights Act being repealed to allow these things to be resolved at the state level which would undoubtedly set civil rights back 100 years in the South. So the bigger picture is equality. Plain and simple.
Occidentalist
9:20 am on Sunday, January 29, 2012
And yes, MLK was partly guided by his faith (and say, Howard Thurman). But laying his success at the feet of his faith is intellectually dishonest. Would you also lay his rampant infidelity and adultery at the feet of his faith too? Rather, we should consider the as-to-yet unanswered challenge posed by the late, great Christopher Hitchens, "Name one moral action performed by a believer that could not have been done by a nonbeliever."
And if you are willing to claim MLK's faith as the great motivator and catalyst for his success, how you do reconcile that with a biblical condoning of slavery and the belief by plenty of Christian whites, that enslavement was perfectly fine and permitted by God's own words?
John
9:23 am on Sunday, January 29, 2012
Good luck on that gay stuff, please ...
Laura Federico
3:47 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
You know if all else fails, we can always fall back on the old Golden Rule, which is expressed in most, if not all, religions as "love thy neighbor as thyself," regardless of the exact terminology used. That is always a great guide, in my opinion. And so then it doesn't become a matter of "don't compare blacks with gays" or "if gays can't marry because they can't procreate, then what about sterile [or sterilized] heterosexuals?" etc. It becomes a matter of, if I wouldn't want it done to me, I shouldn't do it to someone else.
John
10:23 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
I can't believe how simple this is and the folks are not getting it wow ..:(
T-Bagger
1:49 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
How about getting government out of the marriage business all together. Just leave the issue of marriage up to whatever religion you choose. It used to be that way.
Occidentalist
1:59 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
What about those who don't have a religion? What about those who can't afford the "donation" fee many churches charge for marriage services? The government is there, for instance a town mayor, to perform marriage services to those who don't belong to religions or who are discriminated against by religion. The reason the government needs to perform this function is because marriage is a legally binding contract with all sorts of legalese attached to it.
There's also the issue that as tax exempt institutions, religion is subsidized by the government and thus by we taxpayers. Churches utilize the police and fire departments which they do not pay taxes to support. Churches are the biggest beneficiaries of socialist type services in this country. So why should we let organizations that do not pay taxes but enjoy the benefits of taxpayer funded services, be allowed to discriminate and decide who is allowed to get married and who isn't?