TRENTON - Two of New Jersey's most influential black leaders criticized Gov. Christie on Wednesday for proposing that gay marriage be put to a popular vote in November. The Republican governor insisted he was offering a reasonable compromise given his personal opposition to same-sex nuptials.
Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver (D., Essex) and Newark Mayor Cory Booker said in separate forums that civil rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and do not belong on the ballot.
Jackie Robinson would not have had the opportunity to break baseball's color barrier had the matter been put to a vote, Booker said. And he himself might not have had the opportunity to be elected to lead New Jersey's largest city, he added.
Oliver said in a statement that she was offended by Christie's comment Tuesday that bloodshed might have been avoided in the South, and that people would have been happier, if the civil rights issues of the 1960's were settled in a referendum.
"Governor, people were fighting and dying in the streets of the South because the majority refused to grant minorities equal rights by any method," Oliver said. "It took legislative action to bring justice to all Americans, just as legislative action is the right way to bring marriage equality to all New Jerseyans."
Booker said during a news conference in Newark: "Dear God, we should not be putting civil-rights issues to a popular vote, to be subject to the sentiments, the passions, of the day. No minority should have their rights subject to the passions and the sentiments of the majority. This is the fundamental bedrock of what our nation stands for."
The Republican governor defended himself at a Statehouse news conference and said he was offering a compromise on gay marriage.
"I'm in divided government and I'm trying to find a way for people . . . to find another pathway where everybody can have a chance to get what they want," he said. "My view is a public referendum on a constitutional amendment regarding same-sex marriage is a way to get to that result."
Six states and the District of Columbia permit gay marriages. Thirty-one states have adopted constitutional amendments that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
The effort to legalize same-sex marriage gained new momentum in New Jersey this month when the Democratic-controlled Senate declared the issue a priority for the new legislative session. The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced the measure in an 8-4 party-line vote after a three-hour hearing on Tuesday, but Christie upended the effort by announcing that he would veto any gay-marriage bill that reached his desk. He previously had said he would consider the bill but was unlikely to change his mind.
A gay-marriage bill failed in the Senate two years ago.
Christie said during the 2009 campaign that the issue should be put to a public vote because of its significance, and he reiterated that call Tuesday, likely derailing any Republican legislators from supporting gay-marriage legislation.
A day earlier, the governor surprised almost everyone by nominating an openly gay black Republican and a Korean-born immigrant to the state Supreme Court.
With Christie seeking a referendum on gay marriage and Democratic leaders issuing a resounding "no way," a protracted standoff seemed inevitable.
Christie acknowledged that on Wednesday, saying: "We all know how this movie is going to end. If they pass the bill, it's going to be vetoed. If they attempt to override the veto, it will be sustained. So, I'm trying to give them an alternative movie."
Another black Democrat weighed in later in the day.
"If the governor was hoping to defend his reprehensible stance on marriage equality by suggesting that those who fought and died for civil rights in this county would have preferred a referendum that by all historical accounts would have been most likely defeated, he failed miserably," said Assemblywoman Bonnie Watson-Coleman, former Assembly majority leader.
Post a comment
Gov. Christie is merely taking the coward's way out. People didn't elect him to represent his personal views, they elected him to represent the views of the voters. Now he's throwing this issue back on them. If he doesn't want homosexuals permitted to marry, maybe he should make sure that they aren't obligated to pay NJ taxes since he doesn't want them to have full citizen rights. But he doesn't want to hurt his chances for a future presidential run.— palmer1619
