Governor is Waiting to Veto Gay Marriage Legislation

[Zeno Lorea]

Enough about the fat ass please. Will all of you rightwingers please explain whether or not you'd vote for a homophobe? Like someone said in #99, this is an all or nothing issue. If a politician is anti-gay, the rest shouldn't even matter anymore. Gays voting for homophobes is like 1930s Jewish vegetarian animal-rights advocates voting for Adolf Hitler just because he was a vegetarian who promoted animal-rights legislation.

 

[JB3]

Enough about the fat ass please. Will all of you rightwingers please explain whether or not you'd vote for a homophobe? Like someone said in #99, this is an all or nothing issue. If a politician is anti-gay, the rest shouldn't even matter anymore. Gays voting for homophobes is like 1930s Jewish vegetarian animal-rights advocates voting for Adolf Hitler just because he was a vegetarian who promoted animal-rights legislation.

Not a chance in hell. My rights aren't up for a popular vote.

 

[PhunkSpunk]

Nobody understands basic civics any more. Gay rights shouldn't be a matter for the electorate or, by extension, elected officials. As with segregation, it's a Constitutional issue and a matter for the courts. The courts protect the rights of individuals from Madison's 'tyranny of the majority'.

The whole country needs to take Civics 101. Do you know how many people out there don't know the difference between a congressman, senator, or governor?

 

[Joshua_me]

Stop making excuses for Christie. Regardless if he promised to veto gay marriage and stood by his "Republican moral character," it is still wrong.

This was a social injustice.

You should be outraged! You should be angry! This man doesn't deserve an explanation, he deserves spit in his face! For every self-respecting homosexual, there comes a time when you no longer accept your rights as a "political issue." I am not a veto, nor am I campaign promise. I am an American citizen, and my future partner that I raise a home and family with should be recognized by the state and federal government as my husband. There is no compromise. There is no excuse. There is only equality and fairness under the law that I abide and pay taxes for!

^ Preach it, brother !!!

The very notion that we have to "vote" for basic human rights, (and I'm sorry, but the right to marry the person you love seems pretty damned basic to me...) is utterly absurd.

But, in a country the denies us basic affordable healthcare I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I wonder if Governor Christie has ever sat down face to face with same sex couples who have been together for 30, 40 or 50 years and tried to explain to them why he feels that it's HIS right to veto a bill that would allow them union before their friends and their God.

Doubtful, isn't it ?

No, I suspect in his mind we are all painted with one broad brush as "the gays". You know, those people with their rainbow umbrellas who march in parades wearing only gold lame Speedo's.

 

[Kulindahr]

The whole country needs to take Civics 101. Do you know how many people out there don't know the difference between a congressman, senator, or governor?

I do!

The first two are bought by national corporations, but the third is only rented by local companies.

 

[scream4ever]

Well in other news we need 3 votes in the Senate and no more then 10 (two supportive Republicans were absent from the vote) in the Assembly to override the veto. Not an impossible task with the rate things are moving...

 

[rareboy]

So I've been off in the sunny Caribbean. But I caught something about Christie weighing in on the homo marriage debate?

 

[Zeno Lorea]

If there's one good thing about this, it is that I am more popular than ever judging by the feedback that I have received.

Oh yes. Your contributions are always among the most interesting, coherent and eloquent.

 

[TX-Beau]

I really don't think that anyone is forgiving Obama for that particular knife in the back.

But it remains that the Dems are far more welcoming and far more likely to support full marriage than the Republicans who EXPLICITLY and in their party platform have stated they intend to deny us equality.

If Christie is going to be veep nominee for any of the haters. let's see how fast his tune changes because he's dead in the water until he pretends he's a hater too.

 

[pjlikesporn]

factually accurate, but not really a defense at all.

A key difference is that Congress hasn't put the question directly in Obama's court. Obama has stated that he is opposed to gay marriage, but he has not taken affirmative steps to deprive gays of that right.

Governor Christie has vetoed legislation put forth by the people's representatives--legislation that reflects the will of a majority of Christie's constituents, however narrow that majority may be.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's interesting to note that this veto wouldn't pass the "Ron Paul test": where in the Constitution does it authorize the government to tell people who can get married to who?

 

[palemale]

Christie's defense: his position is exactly the same as Obama's.


Scarborough: Do you support civil unions?

Christie: Yes

Scarborough: So you’re like the president. You support civil unions but not gay marriage.

Christie: I have the exact same position as the president.

Scarborough: But you're called a bigot for taking that position and the president's called enlightened because he really doesn't believe what he's saying.

Christie: Because I'm a Republican and he's a Democrat. The Democrats in my state who are criticizing me are saying my feet are firmly planted on the wrong side of justice. I said yesterday my feet are firmly planted next to President Obama's. And they don't criticize him.

http://mojoe.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...9888749_21204461_10150633486973749#f268960e78

factually accurate, but not really a defense at all.

It is not factually accurate. Christie is lying because he is embarrassed knowing that he is on the wrong side of history. This is what President Obama said after the New York legislature passed same sex marriage:

Obama praised the New York decision as "a good thing," saying that "what you saw was the people of New York having a debate, talking through these issues. It was contentious, it was emotional, but ultimately, they made a decision to recognize civil marriages. And I think that's exactly how things should work."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/29/obama-new-york-
gay-marriage_n_886944.html

This is what he said in support of legislation to repeal DOMA:

The president is “proud to support” the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, Carney said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/19/obama-defense-of-marriage-gay-rights_n_903680.html

These passages don't sound like the words of someone who would veto a gay marriage bill, passed by a legislature, and brought to him for his signature. I get that Obama will not publicly say he is for gay marriage because he is running for re-election. His actions and words pretty clearly demonstrate, however, that he will not take any steps to block gay marriage.

 

[JB3]

It is not factually accurate. Christie is lying because he is embarrassed knowing that he is on the wrong side of history. This is what President Obama said after the New York legislature passed same sex marriage:

It IS factually accurate if you're talking strictly about marriage. Obama still opposes it, and still prefers civil unions.

A quote from your piece:

The president also uttered forceful words in support of gay equality, but without advancing his own position – which he's described as "evolving" – in support of civil unions but not gay marriage.

"I'll keep on giving you the same answer until I give you a different one. All right? And that won't be today," Obama said when pressed on his views at a White House news conference.

Also, the very fact that Obama (and Christie, and anyone else in their position) believes that we need a law passed by a legislature for gay marriage makes his position indefensible. A right is a right. Period. It is not up for debate, it is not up for discussion. Anything less than that is unacceptable.

Obama praised the New York decision as "a good thing," saying that "what you saw was the people of New York having a debate, talking through these issues. It was contentious, it was emotional, but ultimately, they made a decision to recognize civil marriages. And I think that's exactly how things should work."

 

[Kulindahr]

Also, the very fact that Obama (and Christie, and anyone else in their position) believes that we need a law passed by a legislature for gay marriage makes his position indefensible. A right is a right. Period. It is not up for debate, it is not up for discussion. Anything less than that is unacceptable.

Yeah. Does he think Prop 8 was a good thing?

Or is he meaning that the process of people talking about it is a good thing?

 

[TX-Beau]

It IS factually accurate if you're talking strictly about marriage. Obama still opposes it, and still prefers civil unions.

I don't think that I've ever heard Obama oppose gay marriage. he's said he thinks marriage is man and woman, but I've never heard him say people who think otherwise should be stopped.

Christie has gone out of his way to say he'll stop it.

Their positions are not the same in any way but the most superficial.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't think that I've ever heard Obama oppose gay marriage. he's said he thinks marriage is man and woman, but I've never heard him say people who think otherwise should be stopped.

Christie has gone out of his way to say he'll stop it.

Their positions are not the same in any way but the most superficial.

Given a lack by Obama of remarks chastising states for adopting gay marriage, he and Christie are definitely different. Call Obama a laissez-faire opponent of gay marriage: he doesn't like it, but he doesn't bother people with that view -- call Christie an active opponent: if it gets close to him, he'll swat it down with all the power at his disposal.

 

[JB3]

I don't think that I've ever heard Obama oppose gay marriage. he's said he thinks marriage is man and woman, but I've never heard him say people who think otherwise should be stopped.

Christie has gone out of his way to say he'll stop it.

Their positions are not the same in any way but the most superficial.

Their positions on the base issue of marriage are the same. Their actions on those positions are very very different.

 

[hotatlboi]

Their positions on the base issue of marriage are the same. Their actions on those positions are very very different.

No, their positions aren't the same. Obama supported gay marriage publicly in 1996 when most other people in both parties were supporting DOMA. People don't go backwards on this issue, which is why his actions are different.

Obama is just a liar on the position statement while Christie is a bit more plain spoken. The reason why Obama lies is obvious.

Obama has done more for gay equality than all other presidents combined, but he felt that if he ran on being a gay equality crusader (his real position) that he quite possibly would not have been elected.

And even though I think it's pathetic that Obama is still lying, as you point out actions do speak louder than words.

His lying has gotten so transparent that it's just a joke at this point. There have been several interview where he was asked about gay marriage where he has said that he wasn't going to "make news on that today", meaning he wasn't going to choose that moment to stop lying.

 

[CoolBlue71]

Stop making excuses for Christie. Regardless if he promised to veto gay marriage and stood by his "Republican moral character," it is still wrong.

This was a social injustice.

You should be outraged! You should be angry! This man doesn't deserve an explanation, he deserves spit in his face! For every self-respecting homosexual, there comes a time when you no longer accept your rights as a "political issue." I am not a veto, nor am I campaign promise. I am an American citizen, and my future partner that I raise a home and family with should be recognized by the state and federal government as my husband. There is no compromise. There is no excuse. There is only equality and fairness under the law that I abide and pay taxes for!

^ This is the most honest response to this topic. (Bravo.)

The excuses from gay Republican voters has no merit. The sidetracking of the issue, to give focus to Gov. Christie's weight, is a waste.

My interpretation is that Christie exercised the veto because of strategical purposes … not because of the issue, specifically, but the potential affect on his political future.

 

[rareboy]

^ It is entirely baffling why the reactionary republican homo supporters on this site just jump over themselves to rationalize and defend their own 'boys' at every chance.

And always with the 'Yah But' response as though what Obama thinks has fuck all to do with what a state does with respect to marriage and always overlooking the fact the Prez is actively pursuing the demolition of DOMA.

I swear that they'd defend the devil himself if he was branded with GOP.