Leave a Comment Johan
Gov. Christie: I’m offering pro-equality activists the “bargain of their life”
February 3, 2012
By Adam Bink
According to Gov. Christie, “giving” us Republican votes in the Legislature to put people’s rights on the ballot is a “gift.” In fact, it’s actually “magnanimous.” Here’s what Christie said:
“I’ve called upon every Republican in the state legislature to vote to put it on the ballot. Well, you need three-fifths to put it on the ballot. The Republicans have two-fifths in the legislature. So that means the Democrats only need to come up with one-fifth of the legislature,” Christie said at a town hall meeting in Denville, N.J. “This is the bargain of their life. I’m giving you two-fifths! And the polls they show me say that if it goes on the ballot, it will lose. How much more magnanimous can I be? What else do you want me to do? Go campaign for it too? Look, I’m doing the best I can here!”
It’s odd because it’s part-joke when Christie notes in the video how so many other states have put this to the ballot and people’s rights have been taken away or denied, but part-serious because Christie does actually appear to look “honest” and “fair” by letting the people have their say. Christie, who along with his team I think has shown to be very talented at politics (particularly in whipping up the “will he or won’t he” media buzz guessing game last year around whether he’d run for president) is playing a very smart strategy of “let the people vote.” A lot of people — perhaps including Christie himself — still don’t get that gay, lesbian and bisexual people don’t like other people voting on their marriages.
Filed under: Marriage equality
Having technical problems? E-mail prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
14 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Sagesse | February 3, 2012 at 12:32 pm
@
2.
Dana_Jeanne | February 3, 2012 at 12:38 pm
NOBODY should have to vote on thier constitutional rights to begin with. And even more nobodies have the right to decide who I marry or file taxes with…..
Just ask ole King George III what happens to people denied thier rights.
3.
Ann S. | February 3, 2012 at 1:03 pm
§
4.
Leo | February 3, 2012 at 1:09 pm
Quite apart from whether voting on rights is a good idea and all that… Has Christie actually said that he asked Republicans to vote for a constitutional amendment to mandate marriage equality? Because that would be somewhat interesting. Usually when NOM and its allies object to legalizing SSM without a vote of the people, it's a bait-and-switch: the vote they are asking for is on an amendment to ban gay marriage, not to permit it. (And if the amendment fails, then what? That just keeps the status quo.)
5.
Bay Area John | February 3, 2012 at 1:44 pm
Put up referendums for taxing the very rich and ending political personhood for corporations, and suddenly republicans will be explaining how minority rights can't be fairly put to popular votes.
6.
Jeff | February 3, 2012 at 1:56 pm
How would African Americans felt in 1940 Alabama if the governor said, "I think we should let the voters decide whether blacks should have more rights". Some things should not be up to majorty to decide.
7.
Eric | February 3, 2012 at 2:13 pm
I get nervous any time a politician talks about voting, rights, and three-fifths together.
8.
Chrys | February 3, 2012 at 4:40 pm
No, he told them to vote in favor of putting a referendum on the ballot for the general populace to vote upon.
9.
Leo | February 3, 2012 at 4:45 pm
Yes, but what would be the question on the referendum?
10.
Kippy | February 3, 2012 at 4:55 pm
I think we should let the voters decide on whether Christie should lose weight. I think his dietary lifestyle is unhealthy and sets a bad example for teh childrenz.
11.
Reformed | February 3, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Not even so much mandating as
A resolution in favor of allowing gay couples to marry and providing for an effective date.
12.
Marta | February 3, 2012 at 9:02 pm
Eric FTW
+1 million
13.
Jamie | February 4, 2012 at 4:11 am
Doubtful. He's against marriage. It would probably just be another one of the "only marriage valid is between a man and a woman" nonsense that completely ignores the fact that it's effect is to ban other people from being married. At best they would provide an either/or option.
The new jersey constitution already permits same sex marriage. There isn't a need for a constitutional amendment.
14.
Straight Ally #3008 | February 5, 2012 at 2:04 pm
One day soon, public opinion is going to turn in favor of equality – the percentage of the pubic, especially young people, who are pro-marriage equality has grown by leaps and bounds. One day this tactic is going to be a sure losing bet for NOM and their allies. I'd like to think that Washington, Maine, or Maryland could be the first to turn the tide, but I'm less than sanguine about it happening this year or next – I would, of course, love to be proven wrong.
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.