The hopelessly-leftist NJ Legislature can vote on whatever it wants, Save Jerseyans. Declare unicorns the official state animal. Ban guys named “Chris” from holding statewide office. Redefine ancient institutions to appease a political constituency.
Governor Christie doesn’t have to sign it.
Back in June, the Governor made it abundantly clear that he will not support legislation to legalize gay marriage:
“In our state, we’re going to continue to pursue civil unions. I am not a fan of same-sex marriage. It’s not something that I support.”
Without Christie’s assent, the only other option post-passage would be a super-majority composed of Democrats and Republicans united to overturn the Governor’s veto. They’ll get some wrongheaded Republicans on board, yes, but both sides acknowledge that they won’t get enough. Most of our caucus still retains a semblance of a backbone.
So why vote on something that can’t be adopted into law?
Perhaps this is part of state Senate President Sweeney’s attempt to ingratiate himself to liberals in advance of a U.S. Senate bid? We know he recently opened a federal PAC. He’s staked out some “moderate” positions in recent years, supported pension reform and even voted against gay marriage last time around. He has since called that vote a mistake. Is this is way of correcting said mistake before it dooms his primary chances?
More likely, this is a distressingly cynical attempt by Democrats to further divide the electorate along ethnic, religious, gender and sexual orientation fault lines. They can’t win running on a positive vision for the future; Obamanomics is blowing up in their faces. Promising less liberty for higher taxes isn’t that persuasive, either. Forcing the Governor to shoot down a bill he’s already verbally-vetoed, and pissing off thousands of gay New Jerseyans in the process, will suit their electoral designs just fine.
Pathetic…
What's "pathetic" is the stance of republicans on this. Why should anyone care who someone wants to marry. Get out of the marriage business and let people just live their lives. Isn't that the creed of republicans? Only when it suits you, I guess.
Pass a constitutional amendment (1) for or (2) against, or (3) take marriage away from government altogether and make it a purely contractual exercise.
What a majority of voters reject is a secular legislature unilaterally redefining an ancient, religious institution. I'm waiting for a Democrat to propose a mature solution like those listed above. What we're seeing in Trenton right now is 100% pure political theater.
Its not a just a religious institution, but a secular one. Where does religion come into it when you get married by the Mayor? Justice of the Peace? Ships Captain? Gimme a break. And really…a constitutional amendment? You have got to be kidding.
GOP is likely on the losing end of this argument long term, but to be fair Rick, it was a religious institution long before any mayor or justice of the peace had any ability to preside over a wedding. Government adopted the term marriage from the religious tradition, if they had just given everyone civil unions from the start and not adopted the term 'marriage' they would have saved us a ton of trouble now, but alas…
Yes Hank, but as we evolved with other issues and rights, then it just makes sense to evolve here. Slavery had been around for thousands of years also, and we evolved. Just 50 years ago, it was illegal to have an interracial marriage in some southern states, yet we evolved. Lots of things have changed over the centuries, so why just stick to this one? Because its a selling point for the republican base. Sure, some religious institutions will still ban same sex marriage, and that would be their right. But the state should not.
I think we are arguing two different points. I am not saying that we should not "evolve" past the issue (although I really do not believe that to be the right word for this issue), just saying that the origin of marriage is religious and not secular.