Christie vetoes New Jersey gay marriage bill

[didymus]

NY Daily News:

Christie vetoes New Jersey gay marriage bill

                                                                                                                        	TRENTON, N.J.  — [Gov. Chris Christie](http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Chris+Christie) has backed up his promise to reject a bill allowing same-sex marriages in New Jersey.
  His veto came Friday, a day after the state Assembly passed the bill. The Senate approved it Monday.
  The Republican governor returned the bill to the Legislature, saying he  wants voters to decide whether New Jersey changes the definition of  marriage.
  Democratic lawmakers say it's a civil rights issue that shouldn't be put up for a public vote.
  Lawmakers have until the end of the January 2014 legislative session to override the veto.
  They would need to get two-thirds of the lawmakers in the Assembly and  Senate to agree. Both votes to pass it fell short of that mark.
  The Democratic-controlled Legislature has been unsuccessful in every previous attempt to override Christie.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

NY Daily News:

marriage ???

 

[meltzerboy]

NY Daily News:

Christie stated, and I heard him, that the civil rights issue concerning whether Blacks should be able to vote should have been put up for a public vote, and that Blacks would have appreciated that. I lost some of my respect for him when he made that statement. Doesn’t he realize that the fact so many White people, particularly (but not only) in the South, were opposed to this, would have thwarted the measure? There are some things we cannot let the people directly decide, due to their ignorance and prejudice.

 

[Leegal]

Christie stated, and I heard him, that the civil rights issue concerning whether Blacks should be able to vote should have been put up for a public vote, and that Blacks would have appreciated that. I lost some of my respect for him when he made that statement. Doesn’t he realize that the fact so many White people, particularly (but not only) in the South, were opposed to this, would have thwarted the measure? There are some things we cannot let the people directly decide, due to their ignorance and prejudice.

Of course that would have been impossible – to put the civil rights bill up for referendum. States can do that. The federal government, Congress, who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, does not put up referendums to voters, so the Civil Rights Act could not have been passed by referendum. Christie should know better.

Since states can legislate by referendum, Christie wants a voter up and down vote on gay marriage. As Governor he can do that – force it to go to a referendum and have the voters decide.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Christie stated, and I heard him, that the civil rights issue concerning whether Blacks should be able to vote should have been put up for a public vote, and that Blacks would have appreciated that. I lost some of my respect for him when he made that statement. Doesn’t he realize that the fact so many White people, particularly (but not only) in the South, were opposed to this, would have thwarted the measure? There are some things we cannot let the people directly decide, due to their ignorance and prejudice.

Ya. The LAST thing we need in a democracy is…errrr…democracy!

 

[estesbob]

Christie stated, and I heard him, that the civil rights issue concerning whether Blacks should be able to vote should have been put up for a public vote, and that Blacks would have appreciated that. I lost some of my respect for him when he made that statement. Doesn’t he realize that the fact so many White people, particularly (but not only) in the South, were opposed to this, would have thwarted the measure? There are some things we cannot let the people directly decide, due to their ignorance and prejudice.

There is , however, no moral equivalence between denying people marriage based on the color of their skin and denying them marriage based on their sexual behavior.

 

[Dale_M]

meltzerboy;8979809:

Christie stated, and I heard him, that the civil rights issue concerning whether Blacks should be able to vote should have been put up for a public vote, and that Blacks would have appreciated that.

Ya. The LAST thing we need in a democracy is…errrr…democracy!

Scott, there is such a thing as tyranny of the majority. The civil rights of a minority should not depend upon a majority vote.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Scott, there is such a thing as tyranny of the majority. The civil rights of a minority should not depend upon a majority vote.

Ha ha ha ha ha…where were you when the DEmocrats voted to let the government mandate that we purchase insurance without a single…not ONE, Republican supporter. Where was your talk of “tyranny of the majority” then?

 

[irishpatrick]

Scott, there is such a thing as tyranny of the majority. The civil rights of a minority should not depend upon a majority vote.

That is quite true–yet the real discussion is over whether or not same sex marriage is a civil right. I would caution you from posting a knee jerk response that it is a civil right, because if that is true, then does it include two brothers, two sisters, etc.

Beyond the entire fairly new mantra of SSM being a civil right, what our culture really needs to to do is to define what marriage actually is. If it is a legal union of loving people, then why can;t that be more than two people?

Clarity is needed–not agreement. There is zero clarity on this subject, just tons of misplaced emotional reactions.

 

[unafraid]

Scott, there is such a thing as tyranny of the majority. The civil rights of a minority should not depend upon a majority vote.

These days, there is more likely to be found a “tyranny of the minority”, in which a powerful (but numerically small) group of cultural elitists try to reshape and conform society to match their own narrow visions (and interests), despite the obvious reactive convulsions of the vast majority to resist such subterfuge.

Gay marriage is not a civil right; it is an oxymoron. The Civil Rights Movement is slandered when its moral authority is co-opted and misused by the homosexual activists. It is an outrage.

 

[Leegal]

Actually, I think this is a smart political move on Christie’s part both from the religious and the secular.

As a Catholic, Christie is morally obligated by the Church not to be seen giving support to gay marriage, which by signing it he would be putting his soul in jeopardy. As a governor, he has sworn to uphold the laws of the state and the U.S. Constitution. He has two duties – one to God and one to NJ.

The way out here was to veto the bill by his moral conscience. If a voter referendum passes this gay marriage law, then Christie has fulfilled his duty to God and to the state to which he took an oath.

 

[meltzerboy]

There is , however, no moral equivalence between denying people marriage based on the color of their skin and denying them marriage based on their sexual behavior.

Once upon a time, not too long ago, there was indeed a moral equivalence in the minds of many people, even if the Church and Orthodox Judaism disagree. BTW, I was not talking about interracial marriage, but rather voting rights for Blacks. I would wager, however, that even more White Americans, including some liberals, of that time were opposed to interracial marriage, and it was illegal in several states.

 

[LovePatience]

Once upon a time, not too long ago, there was indeed a moral equivalence in the minds of many people, even if the Church and Orthodox Judaism disagree. BTW, I was not talking about interracial marriage, but rather voting rights for Blacks. I would wager, however, that even more White Americans, including some liberals, of that time were opposed to interracial marriage, and it was illegal in several states.

The Catholic church however was not. It fought against laws prohibiting interracial marriage in 1948, 20 years before the 1967 Loving vs. Virginia case. In fact, Henriette Dellile is under consideration for sainthood for fighting against the placage system of common law wives.

The moral equivalence in the minds of “many people” does not matter, because morality is not determined by majority vote. Just because most people were morally confused on interracial marriage doesn’t mean that right now everyone is confused on same-sex marriage. It could actually show that attitudes on interracial marriage haven’t changed that much that people see the two as fundamentally similar; if most people see same-sex relations as unnatural since they can’t produce children and the body parts don’t fit correctly but say we should be tolerant anyways, doesn’t that mean that those who see interracial marriage and same-sex marriage as similar also see interracial marriage as something unnatural that we should be tolerant of?

The problem with Christie’s veto is that he supports same-sex civil unions, and just seems to have a problem with the name “marriage.” That is ultimately a losing rationale, because why would a “name” matter so much?

 

[Brendan]

Scott, there is such a thing as tyranny of the majority. The civil rights of a minority should not depend upon a majority vote.

But there is no civil right being denied to anyone, let alone a minority.

Marriage in NJ as in most states, is a matter of civil contract law.

As such a person may contract marriage with a single, unmarried, adult, consenting, non consagunious, human person of the opposite sex.

There is nothing in NJ contract law that would prevent a homosexual man from entering into a marital contract with a homosexual female. Ergo, homosexuals are not denied anything that is equally available to heterosexuals.

The exact same contractual terms apply to everyone, gay or straight.

To claim that there is discrimination would be invalid, at least no more so than me being denied a license to practice medicine simply because my degree is a B.S. in Engineering and not a Doctorate in Medicine. I cannot enter into a patient\physician relationship because I do not meet the legal criteria for such a contract. Even if another consenting adult desired to have me as their physican and I desired them to be my patient. No civil rights of mine are being violated.

However, if the met the same criteria used by everyone else who recieved a medical license, then I too would expect to be granted one.

Two males showing up and requesting a marriage license does not qualify under NJ contract law, and therefore they should expect one. In exactly the same way I would expect to be denied a license to practice medicine.

 

[meltzerboy]

The Catholic church however was not. It fought against laws prohibiting interracial marriage in 1948, 20 years before the 1967 Loving vs. Virginia case. In fact, Henriette Dellile is under consideration for sainthood for fighting against the placage system of common law wives.

The moral equivalence in the minds of “many people” does not matter, because morality is not determined by majority vote. Just because most people were morally confused on interracial marriage doesn’t mean that right now everyone is confused on same-sex marriage. It could actually show that attitudes on interracial marriage haven’t changed that much that people see the two as fundamentally similar; if most people see same-sex relations as unnatural since they can’t produce children and the body parts don’t fit correctly but say we should be tolerant anyways, doesn’t that mean that those who see interracial marriage and same-sex marriage as similar also see interracial marriage as something unnatural that we should be tolerant of?

The problem with Christie’s veto is that he supports same-sex civil unions, and just seems to have a problem with the name “marriage.” That is ultimately a losing rationale, because why would a “name” matter so much?

Perhaps you are right, if you define the main purpose of marriage as procreation, as the Church does. But that is not the main purpose of marriage according to Jewish teaching: love and companionship are, while procreation is secondary, albeit still very important. Saying we should be tolerant of gay marriage means it is none of our business if two consenting adult non-incestuous humans who love each other wish to tie the knot in a civil ceremony. I think the main moral problem for many religiously-minded people today is not even so much gay marriage, but the slippery-slope ramifications of where this may lead: polygamy, man-animal, or incestuous marriages. Then, would you also forbid mixed-religious marriages, non-procreative marriages, vast age-difference marriages, common-law marriages, etc.? Wouldn’t it be better if we could learn to mind our own business and stay out of other people’s bedrooms, provided they are not abusing each other?

 

[Dale_M]

Gay marriage is not a civil right; it is an oxymoron. The Civil Rights Movement is slandered when its moral authority is co-opted and misused by the homosexual activists. It is an outrage.

I agree that the Black Civil Rights Movement is unrelated to gay rights or even gay marriage. And persons who try to invoke the historic struggle for African-American equality as comparable to the gay rights movement are badly mistaken and, yes, being offensive.

Whether marriage is a right, I don’t know. However, equal treatment under the law is a right in the US.

 

[meltzerboy]

I agree that the Black Civil Rights Movement is unrelated to gay rights or even gay marriage. And persons who try to invoke the historic struggle for African-American equality as comparable to the gay rights movement are badly mistaken and, yes, being offensive.

Whether marriage is a right, I don’t know. I doubt it. However, equal treatment under the law is a right in the US.

How are they unrelated when one looks at discrimination in the workplace and housing that was directed against both Blacks and gays during the era of the Civil Rights Movement? And what about the periodic police raids of gay bars for no apparent reason, which triggered the Stonewall revolt in NYC?

 

[Dale_M]

How are they unrelated when one looks at discrimination in the workplace and housing that was directed against both Blacks and gays during the era of the Civil Rights Movement? And what about the periodic police raids of gay bars for no apparent reason, which triggered the Stonewall revolt in NYC?

The two struggles are independent of one another and come with their own unique histories. Certainly the persecution of African-Americans, at least in the American South, was pervasive and intensive.

The two struggles stand on their own. Trying to equate the two, I think, is similar to equating abortion with the Holocaust. Some people see similarities, but the differences are also great.

 

[LovePatience]

Perhaps you are right, if you define the main purpose of marriage as procreation, as the Church does. But that is not the main purpose of marriage according to Jewish teaching: love and companionship are, while procreation is secondary, albeit still very important. Saying we should be tolerant of gay marriage means it is none of our business if two consenting adult non-incestuous humans who love each other wish to tie the knot in a civil ceremony. I think the main moral problem for many religiously-minded people today is not even so much gay marriage, but the slippery-slope ramifications of where this may lead: polygamy, man-animal, or incestuous marriages. Then, would you also forbid mixed-religious marriages, non-procreative marriages, vast age-difference marriages, common-law marriages, etc.? Wouldn’t it be better if we could learn to mind our own business and stay out of other people’s bedrooms, provided they are not abusing each other?

Jewish teaching does not support same-sex marriage. As you wrote, “procreation is secondary, albeit still very important.” Many Jewish communities support civil same-sex marriage but not “kiddushin” which is only heterosexual marriage. Finally, even if they did, Judaism is more of an ethnic and cultural affiliation, than a religion, for many who call themselves Jews. Otherwise, the term “Jewish atheist” would have no meaning.

 

[estesbob]

How are they unrelated when one looks at discrimination in the workplace and housing that was directed against both Blacks and gays during the era of the Civil Rights Movement? And what about the periodic police raids of gay bars for no apparent reason, which triggered the Stonewall revolt in NYC?

The law has always discriminated against people based on their behavior.