Put gay marriage on the ballot, Christie says
"Let the people of New Jersey decide what's right for the state," he said.
Put gay marriage on the ballot, Christie says
Matt Katz, Inquirer Staff Writer
UPDATE: For the full story in today's paper, click here.
As Democrats held a hearing this afternoon in Trenton on a gay marriage bill, Republican Gov. Christie held a press conference in Bridgewater with a surprise announcement: He wants the gay marriage question put on the November ballot as a proposed constitutional amendment.
Otherwise, he said, he will veto the Democrats' bill. Alternatively, a statewide referendum would be the most democratic way to make such a sweeping societal change, he said.
"Let the people of New Jersey decide what's right for the state," he said.
Saying some elements in the Democratic party want to use the issue as a "political football," he said "the issue is too big and too consequential."
He urged every legislative Republican to support a bill to put the question on the ballot. Putting the proposal before voters would require a three-fifths vote from the Democrat-controlled Legislature.
Otherwise, if Democrats send him a gay marriage bill to sign: "I will veto it. Let's be clear."
"It's bigger than just the word" marriage, he said. "It's hundreds of years of tradition, both legally, societally and religiously. And that's what I'm standing up for."
At a news conference earlier this month in which Democrats announced their attention to make this the legislative priority of the year, they said the gay marriage question should not be decided on the ballot because "civil rights issues" should be decided by Legislatures.
And Sen. Ray Lesniak (D., Union), a sponsor of the bill, just issued this statement referencing the sports betting referendum that went on the ballot in November: “Marriage equality isn't like sports betting. It's a civil right which is already guaranteed in our Constitution. It's up to the Legislature to guarantee these rights and support marriage equality for same sex couples.”
why just gays. why not brothers and sisters too. it's their choice. there hasn't been gay marriage for a million years. there's a reason for that.— bobbyd24- I believe that Christies is right when he says let the people decide------BUT if it's defeated, NO judge of any sort should interfere withthe will of the people unlike Californication.— crystalrainbowspirit1
- Marriage is a contract. When Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and Ronald Reagan dissolved their marriages, they went to a lawyer. The government should not be telling consenting adults that they are not permitted to enter a contract unless there is a really good, legally justified reason (sorry but squeamishness and religious superstition do not count). Also, a person's rights and liberties should never be subjected to a popular vote; that scenario is rife with the potential for mob rule and the "tyranny of the majority."— mick-of-the-moment
- First, we determine it is a "civil rights" issue- then we argue that you can't relegate civil rights issues to popular vote. Gay marriage is no more a civil rights issue than the choice of my favorite sports team is. You are free to love and sleep with whomever you wish; but the institution of marriage is reserved for (one each) an adult man and woman.— tooly
Comment removed.- bobbyd24- What's the reason? How can you make that comment and then stop short of actually backing up your argument? If there's a clear cut reason, state it.— toph314
- @tooly--Marriage is a contract, not an institution. You go to the government/court to get a marriage license; you go to court to get a divorce. Are you saying that only some adults are permitted access to the courts?— mick-of-the-moment
- So's a pilot's licence - so because I don't have the same privilege as a pilot does not mean my civil rights have been abridged. The government has and exercises every day what parties have the right to enter into civil contracts. — tooly
- @tooly--Marriage is a contract, not an institution. You go to the government/court to get a marriage license; you go to court to get a divorce. Are you saying that only some adults are permitted access to the courts?— mick-of-the-moment
- mick: go try to argue a case before the State Supreme Court, you can't (for this analogy, I am assuming you are not a member of the bar). Go try to captain a cruise ship, go try to practice architecture, all are licenses (contracts) regulated by the government. To be clear, I SUPPORT civil unions, the quandary is created by the modern definition of marriage being both a secular contract and a religious contract. All i am saying is it is NOT a civil rights issue.
— tooly - mick: go try to argue a case before the State Supreme Court, you can't (for this analogy, I am assuming you are not a member of the bar). Go try to captain a cruise ship, go try to practice architecture, all are licenses (contracts) regulated by the government. To be clear, I SUPPORT civil unions, the quandary is created by the modern definition of marriage being both a secular contract and a religious contract. All i am saying is it is NOT a civil rights issue. (HTML deleted) — tooly
- FAIL!— chasing history
- Where is the Republican right? How dare this "liberal" governor jeopardize our moral values! He's a communist trying to destroy the country. Still waiting for the hypocrites. Guess no "real" Republicans around. Is Fox News going to lambaste the Golden Boy?— DennyP
- Comment removed.
Reach him at mkatz@phillynews.com or 609-217-8355.
Follow Matt on Twitter: @mattkatz00. Reach Matt at mkatz@phillynews.com or 609-217-8355.
