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.”
I am happy Christie did this. He knows if he signs a gay marriage bill his career in the Republican Party is over. He could have simply blocked the measure but he knows marriage equality is the right thing to do so he wants it on the ballot because it will definitely pass. He is trying to get the right end result without destroying his career. It would be nice if it didn't have to be so political but such is life.— dscol
Comment removed.- If Christie wants it on the ballot, the only valid question is: "Should same-sex marriage, barren couple-marriage, senior citizen marriage, adoptive parent marriage, childless-by choice marriage, divorce and adultery ALL be outlawed in the State of NJ?"
— Herbert2 - Christie just made the most cowardly political punt of his career and it’s going to hurt him bug time. How can he make that ridiculous, baseless statement the day after appointing a gay mad to the State Supreme Court, basically calling his appointment a 2nd class citizen. Either Christie has already brokered a deal to not veto (since the NJ Legislature probably can get a veto-proof coalition), or his advisers on this matter have failed him miserably. The record shows that those who are trying to buck the national momentum for marriage equality have all paid the price politically with the voters ousting the opposition in nearly every instance where the majority or near majority support marriage equality. NJ citizens (long history of gay equality support from back in the 90’s) have already polled in the majority more than several times in favor of marriage equality. We already knew that Christie was more bombast than intellect, but this foolish stance clearly validates that opinion.— Herbert2
- If you're premise is true than you should invite the Christie proposal as political suicide. He either looses through a veto proof majority OR he looses on a election referendum. Either way he "gets it in the end" (snicker, snicker)
— tooly - Why do gays want to be married?What can't they do now?The tax advantages aren't that great:You can generally borrow money much cheaper.— bigeastbeast
- So why don't you use "straights" instead of "gays?" What they can't do is make decisions for their partners when they are ill because a family member can supercede. Nor can't they inherit when their companion dies, like straights who are married. They can't pass property to their companions without being taxed. Anything else you'd like to ask? BTW, if Christie's openly gay nominee to the Supreme Court is okayed, will he have to recuse himself if the gay marriage question comes before the court? — mike l
- I agree with Christie. Put it up for vote and let the chips fall where they may.— MilesLong1
- The Fat Man is right...put it on a statewide ballot and let the results (and law) fall where it may. Corbett should do the same thing.— kelprod2
- This is right out of the Karl Rove & Co. playbook that helped elect W. Put a hot-button social issue on the ballot to bring out the ultra-conservatives to the polls who will, more likely, vote Republican. This is a transparent (if you think about it) dirty trick that is not relevant to New Jersey or the 2012 election.— ProPublicEducation
- Comment removed.
- It sounds very democratic to say let the people vote on it. However, what the people do or do not vote yes for isn't always legal. It wasn't too long ago that people in many states would have had no trouble voting for a segregated society. Would that make it okay if the people in a state voted for segregation?— mindstorms
- 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.
