Leave a Comment Sagesse
Breaking: NJ Senate committee approves marriage equality bill, Christie says issue should be decided by voters
January 24, 2012
By Jacob Combs
We just received an email from Steven Goldstein, head of Garden State Equality, with the news that the New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee has approved the state’s marriage equality bill on an 8-4 vote. One senator, Paul Sarlo (D), who voted no on a similar bill in 2009 voted yes today.
Still, with marriage equality moving forward in New Jersey, there are more obstacles ahead, and one of those obstacles is Governor Chris Christie. In the last few weeks, Christie has made some unexpected moves, including nominating the first openly gay judge to the state’s Supreme Court and seemingly stepping back from his earlier promises to veto a marriage equality bill should it come to his desk.
Today, it looks like Christie has changed his mind: he announced after a town hall in Bridgewater that he would veto the bill and pressed the legislature to send the issue to voters instead by putting it on the ballot in November as a constitutional amendment.
Christie’s move throws a wrench into the legislature’s plans to pass the marriage equality bill, which began today with a hearing in the state Senate. Still, his idea for a popular vote on the issue would require a new numbers game in the legislature, where a three-fifths would be required to send the issue to the ballot. In laying down his challenge, Christie makes it unlikely for Democrats to support such an amendment.
Filed under: Marriage equality
70 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Ann S. | January 24, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Yay, NJ Senate! Boo, Christie!
2.
Jamie | January 24, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Typical, he knows there is no way to get it on the ballot in November, so he suggests that as an option. It's just an excuse to disguise his bigotry.
3.
chris from CO | January 24, 2012 at 12:51 pm
This is going to be a great year for equality. Come on ninth give us some direction. So we can get this done.
4.
Kate | January 24, 2012 at 1:04 pm
OT: everyone here ought to head over to the NOMblog and check out what they managed to do with the story about the straight couple in the UK trying to raise their child gender-neutral. NOM originally posted it as "lesbian couple," and the predictable disgusting comments from the faithful rolled in. Now they've corrected the title, but it just says "couple," NOT "heterosexual couple." As our own Sheryl Carver posted there, they clearly were just wanting to beat up on lesbians. Now that they've shown their true colors yet again, all those NOMbies who posted such hateful things, thinking they were attacking lesbians and not One Man One Woman, have faded into the woodwork. My guess is that NOM will quietly delete the entire thread now. Time for screen shots! (Incidentally, I am not the Kate who posted there — I still cannot get anything posted on that site.)
5.
Straight Dave | January 24, 2012 at 1:04 pm
I thought NJ required a 60% legislative vote to put an amendment on the ballot. Are you saying that there's no way they can come up with 60% now? I have no idea of the current level of support, other than it's apparently >50%.
They can also succeed by voting 50% now, then 50% again next year. That's enough to get it on the ballot in Nov '13 or '14 (??). There's no reason to stop now. Just take what you can get and move forward. A constitutional amendment bypasses Christie entirely. A delay, yes, but not stopped.
6.
Regan D. | January 24, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Leave it up to the 'will of the people'?
A popular vote up against a perpetual minority?
Leaving civil and human rights to the vagaries of systemic bigotry?
We went through this same thing in CA, and look what happened.
7.
Jacob | January 24, 2012 at 1:24 pm
I'd be interested to hear opinions on this strategy. It's not the same as voting in Maine, where they're trying to turn back an existing popular vote. This would be legislators deliberately giving away their votes to the popular vote instead. It could set a bad precedent, and it gives Christie a permanent pass when he doesn't deserve one. Then again, we'd have a pretty strong shot at winning a popular vote in 2014.
IMHO, I'd prefer they send a straightforward bill to Christie and force him to veto it. And then try to override. He seems to know he's already on the wrong side.
Is there still a court case proceeding in New Jersey?
8.
Juli | January 24, 2012 at 1:45 pm
How far away is the NJ legislature from overriding Christie's veto?
9.
DaveP | January 24, 2012 at 1:57 pm
I've been following the new Jersey situation and thsi latest report seems like good news, but dang it, it just got a bit too confusing for me to follow all of the "if – then" scenarios on this one…. he can veto, or let it sit for 45 days and let it pass, or he can veto and the legislature can override (or can they?), and what exactly is this about putting it on the ballot?? Who would do taht, and how would it happen? Can someone summarize the situation clearly? Much appreciated!
10.
Fr Bill | January 24, 2012 at 2:14 pm
The old Tea Party/ Repugnican mantra "Let the People decide". Yeah sure, let the majority decide what basic rights a small hated minority should have. Let's stay with the courts. And lets work like hell for a veto-proof vote in NJ
11.
candide001 | January 24, 2012 at 2:15 pm
Does anyone know why the 9th Circuit is dragging its feet on the Prop 8 case? What's it waiting for?
12.
Leo | January 24, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Anyone know of any examples out there of a proposed constitutional amendment to allow same-sex marriages? I'd like to see what the phrasing is.
13.
Sagesse | January 24, 2012 at 2:32 pm
@
14.
frisky1 | January 24, 2012 at 2:53 pm
"…fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” — Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
If our side starts advocating for ballot votes, we're basically agreeing with the anti-equality side that its questionable as to whether gays and lesbians should be included in what the Supreme Court has said is a fundamental right–marriage. Let Christie veto. Hang it around his neck.
15.
Stefan | January 24, 2012 at 2:53 pm
Christie never actually said he would veto the bill, just that he's offering the amendment as an alternative strategy. He's trying to push the issue off of himself, but we won't have it!
16.
Chris in Lathrop | January 24, 2012 at 3:16 pm
Christie said in the past he'd veto any bill crossing his desk. I hardly believe his tune has changed; he's just singing the harmony now.
17.
thark | January 24, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Not necessary.
Thinking it would be is merely playing into the Antigay Agenda's bag of ooze. The right for marriage equality is IMPLICIT, thus the imeptus for this bizarre rash of antigay "laws"; without them, the law would already be providing the protections str8 people are all to happy to take for granted.
The 14th amendment and Due Process already do the trick. Antigay sexual elitists in power are just in the feeble process of ignoring this very important fact for this one very last time…
18.
Stefan | January 24, 2012 at 3:48 pm
Here's the full text:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Text-of-…
The word "veto" is not mentioned once.
19.
Reformed | January 24, 2012 at 3:49 pm
On the topic of the "couple", I think raising a newborn according to the apparant gender is the right thing to do and do not support what this couple is doing (at lease what i know of it). Not that unisex apparal or toys are objectionable, or even hiding gender as long as possible, but is it true that this couple is going beyond and dressing a boy as a girl?
20.
thark | January 24, 2012 at 3:49 pm
yep…what happened – what is happening – is marriage equality on a fast track that could nto have happened, had ther been no Flop 8.
They are losing all battles now, BECAUSE they "won" the Flop 8 battle with a 2% margin of popularity THAT NO LONGER EXISTS.
BECAUSE FLOP 8 PASSED.
So don't dispair Regan: the Darkside preyed to protect marriage, and have,
For All. As in justice and equality for~….
History wil b ear this out.
*Like it or not*
21.
Reformed | January 24, 2012 at 3:50 pm
By the way, the fear quotes are not meant to disparage the couple, just refering to how NOM can't backtrack to "hetersexual couple" after their initial characterization.
22.
reddecatur | January 24, 2012 at 3:52 pm
For sure.."the games people play" over and over again. Sometimes almost makes me ill, but we keep on pushing on.
23.
thark | January 24, 2012 at 3:53 pm
The Executive branch has NO constitutional power to create law, so that part of the GOP rhetoric is facto irrational as wellas impossible.
Smoke. No mirrors. Just gop crap.
24.
thark | January 24, 2012 at 4:01 pm
because it can!
But just think how hilarious it would be if they lifted the ban on the Flop 8 ruling in time for the Tea-O-P's "constitutional" ban in NC this May.
They will stammer, trying to defend this illegal "law"-making scheme all day long, and they will fail just like Flop 8 is doomed to fail. And DOMA is doomed to fail.
Obama will simply evoke the word "evolve" and then change the subject.
The Antigay's will have no such luxury. All Summer long. Until November!!!
25.
thark | January 24, 2012 at 4:02 pm
with lots rope!
26.
thark | January 24, 2012 at 4:09 pm
Only to ruin any legacy he hopes to run on in the future…
Which is hilarious, considering…
27.
Jamie | January 24, 2012 at 4:15 pm
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
28.
Jamie | January 24, 2012 at 4:20 pm
Here's the language that has been submitted for signature gathering in California by Love, Honor, Cherish to repeal that state's discriminatory marriage amendment. In 2009, nearly identical language polled at 60% support with focus groups.
"Section 1. To protect religious freedom, no court shall interpret this measure to require any priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, or other person authorized to perform marriages by any religious denomination, church, or other non-profit religious institution to perform any marriage in violation of his or her religious beliefs. The refusal to perform a marriage under this provision shall not be the basis for lawsuit or liability, and shall not affect the tax-exempt status of any religious denomination, church or other religious institution.
Section 2. To provide for fairness in the government’s issuance of marriage licenses, Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5. Marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion."
29.
Gregory in SLC | January 24, 2012 at 4:43 pm
Couple of articles about the gender-neutral child:
http://www.autostraddle.com/canadian-parents-rais…
http://blog.sfgate.com/sfmoms/2011/05/24/canadian…
30.
JeffreyRO5 | January 24, 2012 at 5:04 pm
I think we should put the rights of fat people to a vote! How about that, Gov. Christie?
31.
Peterplumber | January 24, 2012 at 5:05 pm
Boo, Christie!
32.
Leo | January 24, 2012 at 5:18 pm
Thanks.
33.
Lesbians Love Boies | January 24, 2012 at 5:35 pm
I am sorry Jeffrey – but that is just mean. Don't point at others because you don't like something…even if it was only in fun or to prove a point.
34.
Jamie | January 24, 2012 at 6:20 pm
This seems to have gone un-noticed. I guess the New Hampshire legislators decided the people would be upset if they repealed marriage equality, so they decided they would try to authorize discrimination against gay people in other ways: http://www.wmur.com/news/30285229/detail.html
35.
Straight Dave | January 24, 2012 at 6:25 pm
It looks to me like "veto" was just a reporter's interpretation, not Christie's actual words. I think he's doing the same thing he did a couple years ago just after he was elected but before taking office. He badgered the legislature into not passing a similar bill, in my mind to avoid being forced into a position of having to take a stand. That way he could keep his hands clean and his options open for future political ventures. I'm convinced he is just avoiding someone somewhere sometime taking offense at what he does. So he lets someone else (legislature/public) silently do his dirty work. He knows the climate is changing quickly and he's trying to not get caught on the wrong side.
So force the bastard to vote. Don't let him off the hook. Pass the bill and let him squirm. His veto won't look very attractive come 2016 if he decides to run for President.
36.
Gregory in SLC | January 24, 2012 at 6:43 pm
Other news. State of the Union 2012 At teeny mention of DADT from President Obama…but nothing about DOMA:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/state-of-t…
Which brings me back to where I began. Those of us who’ve been sent here to serve can learn from the service of our troops. When you put on that uniform, it doesn’t matter if you’re black or white; Asian or Latino; conservative or liberal; rich or poor; gay or straight. When you’re marching into battle, you look out for the person next to you, or the mission fails. When you’re in the thick of the fight, you rise or fall as one unit, serving one Nation, leaving no one behind.
37.
grod | January 24, 2012 at 7:25 pm
The Washington Legislature to pass its marriage equality bill.
38.
Straight Dave | January 24, 2012 at 7:31 pm
That's pretty much what they did in RI with civil unions last year. Sure you can get one, but any business is perfectly free to ignore it and continue to discriminate against you when providing services to the public. Not worth the paper it's written on.
Is NH serious?!?!? Do they not realize they are so far off the edge of what most of the people want? Just freakin delusional. Go for it, Repubs. It's a great way to lose your job at the next election.
39.
Straight Dave | January 24, 2012 at 7:34 pm
(posted this in the wrong place below. Oops, as the saying goes)
That's pretty much what they did in RI with civil unions last year. Sure you can get one, but any business is perfectly free to ignore it and continue to discriminate against you when providing services to the public. Not worth the paper it's written on.
Is NH serious?!?!? Do they not realize they are so far off the edge of what most of the people want? Just freakin delusional. Go for it, Repubs. It's a great way to lose your job at the next election.
40.
Gregory in SLC | January 24, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Mitt Romney's $ contributions to hate groups:
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/20…
41.
Mike | January 24, 2012 at 7:54 pm
I think we should take to the voters the following amendment to the constitution: "No elected goverment official should have a Body Mass Index greater than 30, or a weight greater than a hippo. In addition, if such goverment official is unable to see his penis while standing in front of an urinal, he must relinquish his position, until such official loses 100 pounds"
I will vote for this constitutional amendment,,,,,,i bet Christie will veto it in a heartbeaat !
42.
RWG | January 24, 2012 at 7:59 pm
I wonder if the question concerned taxing millionaires at a higher rate and eliminating loop holes, if Gov. Christie would suggest putting it to a vote of the people? Somehow I doubt it. I expect his reason would sound like this: "that's why we have a legislature."
Fat hypocrite!
43.
Straight Dave | January 24, 2012 at 8:10 pm
Moderator: Governor Romney, the Beckett Fund compared a group demonstrating in favor of marriage equality to terrorists working for al Qaeda. You gave that organization $25,000. Why?
Romney: Well, kmmoejotiuueiurfjenjdnevqyduofbpghpmnkeuwgybhdbkevnbvjedjy…
44.
Mackenzie | January 24, 2012 at 8:12 pm
Well I know for the senate it would require 24 votes, and they said they have 22 confirmed demos and 1 confirmed repub
45.
Jacob Combs | January 24, 2012 at 9:01 pm
Bloomberg has this quote from Christie in their article (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-24/christie-pledges-gay-marriage-veto-as-democrats-push-forward.html):
“If this bill comes to my desk, I will veto it and I will work hard to make sure my veto is sustained in the Legislature,” he said. “I would certainly be willing to be governed by the decision of the people of this state, especially in a year when the most people will be voting.”
46.
_BK_ | January 24, 2012 at 9:14 pm
So he's basically saying the legislature doesn't represent the people… hm…
47.
_BK_ | January 24, 2012 at 9:16 pm
Well, maybe electing officials like that would prevent occurrences such as the Weiner scandal. Ya never know…
48.
Stefan | January 25, 2012 at 12:54 am
That link goes nowhere. Regardless, I believe those were his words back when he took office.
49.
Bob Barnes | January 25, 2012 at 2:28 am
This is actually a good sign. And because it's easily repealable or found unconstitutional it won't stand too long.
50.
frisky1 | January 25, 2012 at 4:50 am
Admins – Stefan, above, is right, Christie does not say anywhere that he would veto the bill, eventhough all the reports I saw last night said he would, including the NJ Star Ledger which should have known better. Even this morning the Boston Globe is writing that he would veto it.
I think you should update the story, if you agree, after reading Christie's words. Or perhaps this is worthy of a new post as, to me, Christie's words clearly show how scared he is of having to make a decision. As many of us have posted before, Christie was once quite clear about his intention stop marriage equality on his watch, but now this headstrong man can't seem to commit to stamping a word on a piece of paper.
http://www.northjersey.com/news/state/012412_Text…
51.
AnonyGrl | January 25, 2012 at 6:27 am
I am a fat person. No, I don't think you should do that. Pick on the man for his politics, his homophobia, his beliefs. Please leave his looks alone.
Thanks.
52.
AnonyGrl | January 25, 2012 at 6:29 am
Can we PLEASE stop this now?
53.
Kate | January 25, 2012 at 7:12 am
OMG!!!!!!!!!! NOMblog actually posted a comment from me! Must have been because I tried to word it so they'd stupidly think I was on their side about Christie when really I was pointing out how NOM had lied about him saying he'd veto the bill ………….
54.
luke from canada | January 25, 2012 at 7:31 am
Chritie is opposed to it but he also is fully aware of where marraige equality is headed, how can he not. Now he doesnt want the responsibility to veto it and have it come back to bite him on his huge ass, so he wants to shift the blame for its possible failure to the people. if it fails at the ballot, then the blame can be on the people but if it passed then he would not to be blamed wither as he did not sign the law allowing it.
55.
Jacob Combs | January 25, 2012 at 7:53 am
Hmm. Looks like a formatting thing got the link confused. This one should work:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-24/chris…
56.
Jacob Combs | January 25, 2012 at 7:58 am
I have to admit this is pretty confusing, because the text on the link you provide certainly doesn't have the word 'veto' in it. However, many news sources do have quotations where Christie has said he would veto. Maybe he made that promise in a Q&A session after the planned text, which is what's on the North Jersey site? Regardless, I'm going to stand by the post as it is, since I wasn't there, and I have read the veto quotation from enough sources to think it is credible. If anyone has any further information, please share!
57.
TPAKyle | January 25, 2012 at 8:59 am
Exactly.
58.
Sheryl_Carver | January 25, 2012 at 9:08 am
Whoopee! Write it in red on your calendar, Kate!
59.
Dave D | January 25, 2012 at 9:12 am
He says the word veto in this video. It's right before the start of the "full text" transcript.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/01/gov_chri…
60.
Bob Barnes | January 25, 2012 at 9:32 am
pssss, keep an eye on the posts.
61.
frisky1 | January 25, 2012 at 9:34 am
Yes, that does settle it, he does come out and say it will be vetoed. Although its a different quote than what's in the Business Week article and suprising that it didn't make the transcript.
62.
fiona64 | January 25, 2012 at 9:34 am
Section 1 is redundant. No religious organization is forced to marry any couple, gay or straight, *now.*
I still think this is a ridiculous strategy.
63.
fiona64 | January 25, 2012 at 9:37 am
You know, for a bunch of people who claim to be all about the Constitution, the Teabirchers do not seem to be terribly conversant with its contents.
64.
fiona64 | January 25, 2012 at 9:39 am
So sick and damned tired of the fat-bashing here. Talk about the man's politics (or Maggie's) but leave their appearance alone. Jesus jumped-up Christ in a sidecar.
65.
Jonc1959 | January 25, 2012 at 10:40 am
Fat-bashing is unacceptable, but they have a point: There is a correlation between people who fall outside of the mainstream because of their sexuality, or their BMI. Same as hair color. What if enough people got together & voted to deny rights to red heads? After all, they could change their hair color to be more "acceptable" if they wanted, right? I think the point is that Gov. Christie should realize that he himself is part of a minority that is disapproved of by many, but he still enjoys the full rights of being a heterosexual american male. No one is forcing him to lose weight to obtain a marriage license.
66.
Jacob | January 25, 2012 at 11:42 am
IMHO, better just to leave any disparaging comments of other groups of people out of the conversation. The original comment comes off as mean-spirited.
67.
frisky1 | January 25, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Apparently Christie also said something to the effect that if civil rights had been voted on in the 1960s there might not have been so much turmoil. I could only find an exact quote (if its real) in some odd places so far. Here is what the Philly Inquirer wrote up about it:__"This issue is too big and too consequential not to trust the people who will be governed ultimately by any change in law or maintenance of the current law," Christie said, suggesting that even the civil-rights battles of the 1960s could have been avoided had the issue been put to a referendum. "So I say today, let the people decide."_ _http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/138015213.html__On nj.com its described this way: "The Republican governor wants gay marriage decided by residents, not legislators. At a news conference Tuesday in Bridgewater, Christie said people would have been happier having a referendum on civil rights than dying in the streets of the South."__Of course we know that interracial marriage was still disapproved of to the tune of 70% in 1967. It will be interesting to see if that comment gets more play as it seems to be quite the insult to people who fought for civil rights in the 60s.
68.
Carpool Cookie | January 25, 2012 at 4:09 pm
RE: "Does anyone know why the 9th Circuit is dragging its feet on the Prop 8 case? What's it waiting for?
I don't know that they're dragging their feet, it's just the way the system works. That's not the only decision in front of them.
They probably have scheduled dates to conference together on the cases before them, and that might just be once a month. It's not like they email each other and say, "Are guys free tonight to go out for burgers and talk about the Prop H8 thing?"
Then I think one of them has to draft the opinion (or whatever it's called), which is usually a rather intricate legal document. That will get circulated and since all their names are on it there will be suggestions for changes, and it probably goes through a few rounds of that with them all offering rewrites. And if there's anyone dissenting from the majority vote, they have to wait for that person to draft and finish their dissent (another legal opinion document) which is usally released to the public at the same time.
69.
Carpool Cookie | January 25, 2012 at 4:09 pm
What I mean is, it's not as simple as their releasing a one sentence memo that says "We agree/disagree with the plaintiffs/petitioners." The opinions they draft have to be sturdy and well-referenced enough to stand up and cover the bases through the appeals process if the case moves further up the courts chain.
70.
Straight Dave | January 25, 2012 at 5:54 pm
What the hell is he talking about??
"Christie said people would have been happier having a referendum on civil rights than dying in the streets of the South."
What people is he talking about?
I seriously doubt that those who wanted a referendum were the same ones who were dying in the streets. Is it just me or is that comment completely whacko?
After any such referendum, I'd bet $10,000 there would be at least as many marches and demonstrations…..and deaths.
I don't say this often enough but WTF!
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.