Doherty Criticizes Christie’s Call

By Matt Rooney | The Save Jersey Blog

Mike DohertyIt’s fair to say that a solid majority of New Jersey voters are either happy with or indifferent to gay marriage’s arrival in the Garden State.

At least one legislator, however, remains strongly critical of both how it came about and the Governor’s Monday morning decision to stop fighting it in the courts.

“As a member of the Legislature, I am disappointed that same-sex marriage is apparently now the law of New Jersey despite neither the enactment of legislation nor a vote of the people to amend our state constitution,” Sen. Michael Doherty (R-16) said in a statement released by his legislative office.

“For four years, Governor Christie has repeatedly stated that he supports traditional marriage and that the voters of New Jersey should decide this important issue,” he continued. “By dropping the state’s appeal, Governor Christie has acquiesced to the same judicial activism that he has long railed against. His action will ensure that the people of New Jersey, and its elected representatives in the legislature, will have no part in deciding this major, societal-changing issue. By refusing to challenge the court’s decision, he is also blocking the opportunity for third parties to present their case to the court via amicus briefs.”

6 thoughts on “Doherty Criticizes Christie’s Call

  1. .

    Here's the problem, Justin: regardless of your position on this ruling, the unelected Men In Black have once again decided for we, the people, what should have been decided by our state representatives, or voted on by the public in a referendum…

    "… same-sex marriage is apparently now the law of New Jersey despite neither the enactment of legislation nor a vote of the people to amend our state constitution…”
    – Sen. Michael Doherty

  2. As a widow, I have a unique perspective…everyone in a committed relationship should be protected from legal intrusion from their lives, and should be equally protected under the law, and should receive the same benefits all heterosecual couples receive.

  3. If he doesn't like it then he should push his wing of the party to vote for candidates in the legislative elections who 1) are more likely to appoint conservative judges who won't legislate from the bench (ie: Abbott, Mt. Laural, etc.) and 2) can win. It's not like this ends the possibility of a court fight for the matter anyway. The decision was made by a Superior Court judge. The first time a vendor is sued for not dealing with a same sex couple or a religious organization is sued, this decision can be revisited.

  4. Protected from legal intrusion! How lovely that sounds. Would love to push that down to Washington!!!!

Comments are closed.