In a post this morning on the bold policy initiatives the governor of New Jersey has been putting forward, Jennifer Rubin looks at how he is handling the contentious issue of state recognition of same-sex marriage:
Take [Chris Christie’s] decision to send the issue of gay marriage to the voters. He can read the polls like anyone else. They show in the blue state strong support for gay marriage, so if that’s what the people want, what are state Republicans going to complain about? And, since he is personally opposed to gay marriage (and would lose street cred with elements of the GOP base), he satisfied Republicans by vetoing the legislation, giving conservatives the chance to make their case with the people of New Jersey.
As he said in a CNN interview, “And if the people in New Jersey, as some of the same-sex marriage advocates suggest the polls indicate, are in favor of it, then my position would not be the winning position, but I’m willing to take that risk because I trust the people of the state.”
Or, thinking about it from the other direction, if the people of New Jersey vote for gay marriage, Christie will have ensured political consensus and obviated conservatives’ concerns about gay marriage being ”imposed” on the citizenry. Many who think that opposition to gay marriage is becoming an unsustainable position but who respect the views of social conservatives would look at Christie’s maneuver and conclude: Ah, he’s figured out how to get the party from here (stuck on the side of an argument that’s largely been lost) to there (let gay marriage come into law by popular acclamation that reflects the changed views of Americans).
Bit of fancy footwork indeed. Now, wonder why advocates of state recognition of same-sex marriage bristle at the notion of sending this to the voters. With the polls showing strong support for such recognition, this could provide the first victory for gay marriage at the ballot box.
Consider for a moment what he says about trusting the people of his state.
Dan, because of Christie’s veto, the only way to have same sex marriage in NJ before Christie is no longer governor (assuming he doesn’t change his position) is to have it pass by referendum. No problem there. My only fear is that it will become a three ring circus with clowns coming out of the woodwork from all across the nation, just like it did in California.
Believe it or not, I would accept (although obviously not happy with) a defeat, if this really was a referendum about same sex marriage, and not about who can raise the most money and bring more slime to this state than we already have.
Pat, politics is a circus, if nothing more.
However, I wonder about the “clowns” you mention. There are two sides and each have clowns. Which “clowns” do you anticipate with the greatest sense of concern?
The circus is just getting started over here in Washington
What affect would this have on the same-sex marriage debate? If NJ were to be the first to legalize marriage through a referendum, would advocacy groups and politicians change there minds on allowing certain issues to be decided at the ballot box? Would same-sex marriage still be considered a “civil rights” issue (as some have called it)?
Heliotrope, it would be clowns of any stripe that I am concerned about. I don’t know which side will have more clowns though. I guess we’ll find out when it comes out on referendum.
Too bad states aren’t truly autonomous “states” and the money used to push referendums was actually from within the “state.” Heck, too bad we have the referendum process when we hire politicians to enact laws in the first place. We don’t have a referendum process at the federal level, do we?
The reason to bristle at sending matters of equality to the voters is that it validates the idea that gays were not created equal to straights and are not endowed by the Creator with certain UNalienable rights.
That is why this matter will properly be settled by the judicial branch.
I notice that social conservatives are outraged that a Christian pastor is about to be executed in a Muslim majority country for his beliefs — which he willfully chose and are something in his power to change yet he perversely resists doing so. Isn’t majority rule part of the rationale for his execution? Oh, wait, it turns out their love of majority rule totally depends on whose ox is gored.
Cynthia, assuming your statement is true about gay people being endowed with inalienable rights by God (including a right for a gay person to marry one of the same gender), I don’t necessarily see this issue being decided by the judiciary, and don’t think it’s the best course to do so. The problem is there is still disagreement amongst people as to this right being inalienable. This includes judges.
I have to LOL@ the idea that marriage was ever considered an “inalienable right.” It’s a social construct and contract. It’s like complaining that I got sent to jail for killing someone because he wanted me to do it.
Well, let’s test that theory, Cynthia.
Will you apply it to people whose sexual orientation is to blood relatives?
How about those whose sexual orientation is to children? Maybe animals? Or whose sexual desire is to have more than one spouse?
Are laws preventing any of these stating that these people are not created equal, and thus a violation of their “unalienable” (sic, it’s actually “inalienable”) rights?
Or will you argue that the people have the right to vote on these matters and establish standards, even though doing so would violate what you state is “equality”? Are you willing to state that the majority should be allowed to vote on marriage for some people and not for others?
And that leads us to this:
So your argument is that it’s right in the United States to use the force of law to compel people to change their religious beliefs, but not to use it to change their sexual orientation.
I will simply point out that your attitude directly contradicts the First Amendment on that one. Your support of executing Christians is also duly noted.
I fully support gay couples finding happiness, I do not support government telling the people what a marriage is or is not. This goes for DOMA as much as the latest craze of state legislature bills. Government needs to get out of the marriage business and leave it to the people to decide what a marriage is for them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEo4JEaBSgo
@Cynthia
I find your comparison of the state definining the conditions of a recognized government contract to the execution of a man because of his beliefs wrong at best, offensive at worst.
Last time I checked no government official was arguing that gays should be killed rather than married in the US. Indeed, you have the same access to a legally recognized marriage that any woman (in the US) does. How is that discriminatory?
@Diego
“I do not support government telling the people what a marriage is or is not. This goes for DOMA as much as the latest craze of state legislature bills.”
Like Cynthia, I believe you miss the point. We’re talking Government recognition of your contract. There’s nothing stopping you from getting a man, two girls or a poodle and calling them your ‘wife’. Heck I refer to my Chihuahua as my child. What the crux of the argument is that the conditions, set by the people (either directly or through their elected representatives) for the government recognizing you and your partner(s) as being married. Indeed, Prop 8 (and Ohio’s defense of marriage amendment) are both the exact opposite of what you are complaining about. It’s the direct will of the people telling government what marriage is defined as. Likewise, the legislatures of Connecticut and Washington have spoken. Obstensively the people through their elected representitives have told the government what they want marriage to be.
Recently the head of Freedom to Marry Ohio (Oh what a difference a comma makes!) said that even if they lose the ballot initiative, or lose the vote to change the Ohio Constitution. I take them at their word. I also take people at their word that there will be no retreat and no compromise in the defense of marriage. The issue is not going away, and no cries of “We won, give up!” are ever going to change it.
@The Livewire
I thought Connecticut was decided by the courts.
I was going from Dan’s articles on the issue.