N.J. Gov. Christie vetoes gay marriage bill

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie warns a questioner to be brief as he addresses a large gathering in Voorhees, N.J., during a town hall meeting Jan. 18, 2012. / AP Photo

TRENTON, N.J. - Gov. Chris Christie has followed through on his promise to reject a bill allowing same-sex marriage in New Jersey by quickly vetoing the measure Friday.

The veto came a day after the state Assembly passed the bill. The state Senate had passed it on Monday. Christie, a Republican who opposes same-sex marriage, had vowed "very swift action" once the bill reached his desk.

In returning the bill to the Legislature, Christie reaffirmed his view that voters should decide whether to change the definition of marriage in New Jersey. His veto also proposed creating an ombudsman to oversee compliance with the state's civil union law, which same-sex couples have said is flawed.

"I am adhering to what I've said since this bill was first introduced -- an issue of this magnitude and importance, which requires a constitutional amendment, should be left to the people of New Jersey to decide," Christie said in a statement. "I continue to encourage the Legislature to trust the people of New Jersey and seek their input by allowing our citizens to vote on a question that represents a profoundly significant societal change. This is the only path to amend our State Constitution and the best way to resolve the issue of same-sex marriage in our state."

Democrats who had pushed the bill forward said they were disappointed, but not surprised, by Christie's action.

"It's unfortunate that the governor would let his own personal ideology infringe on the rights of thousands of New Jerseyans," said Reed Gusciora, one of two openly gay New Jersey lawmakers and a sponsor of the bill. "For all those who oppose marriage equality, their lives would have been completely unchanged by this bill, but for same-sex couples, their lives would have been radically transformed. Unfortunately, the governor couldn't see past his own personal ambitions to honor this truth."

Senate President Steve Sweeney was more blunt in his criticism of the governor.

"He had a chance to do the right thing, and failed miserably," Sweeney said.

Proponents of the bill said gay marriage is a civil right being denied to gay couples, while opponents said the definition of marriage as a heterosexual institution should not be expanded. The legislation contains a religious opt-out clause, meaning no church clergy would be required to perform gay marriages and places of worship would not have to allow same-sex weddings at their facilities.

Steven Goldstein, chairman of the state's largest gay rights group, Garden State Equality, said Christie's national political ambitions guided his action.

"He won't veto the bill because he's anti-gay," Goldstein said in a statement issued before the veto was issued Friday. "He'll veto the bill because the 2016 South Carolina presidential primary electorate is anti-gay."

Goldstein, who said he has a cordial relationship with the governor, promised to continue fighting him vigorously on the issue. "And we will win, so help me God," he said.

Another gay marriage supporter, Washington state Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire, also reached out to Christie, a practicing Catholic. Gregoire sent the governor a letter last month offering to talk about gay marriage because, in her words, "while I am a Governor, I am also a Catholic."

The Roman Catholic Church opposes same-sex marriage.

Gregoire signed a gay marriage measure into law in Washington on Monday. Her spokeswoman, Karina Shagren, said Christie hasn't responded to the letter.

Thirty states, including South Carolina, have adopted constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriages, most by defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Six states and Washington, D.C., allow gay marriage. Washington state's new gay marriage law is set to go into effect in June.

Lawmakers in New Jersey have until the end of the legislative session in January 2014 to override the veto.

They would need two-thirds of the lawmakers in the Assembly and Senate to agree. Both votes to pass it fell short of that mark. Christie has virtually guaranteed that no override would succeed because Republicans wouldn't cross him.

The Democratic-controlled Legislature has failed in every previous attempt to override Christie, most notably on a cut to women's health care and an effort to reinstate a tax surcharge on millionaires.

Christie -- and most Republican lawmakers -- want to put the issue to a public vote. One GOP lawmaker, Sen. Kip Bateman of Somerset, has proposed a ballot question asking voters to allow same-sex nuptials. However, the most powerful Democrat in the Legislature, Senate President Steve Sweeney, has said that won't happen.

Democrats are hoping that support for gay marriage -- 52 percent for gay marriage, 42 against it, in New Jersey, according to one recent voter poll -- will continue growing.

If same-sex couples can't win gay marriage through legislation, they have engaged in a parallel fight in the courts. Seven gay couples and several of their children have sued, claiming that the state's civil union law doesn't work as intended.

Civil unions were designed to provide the benefits of marriage to gay couples without the title. They were adopted after the Supreme Court instructed the Legislature to provide marriage equality to same-sex couples.

The state's own review commission has since found problems with the law, and same-sex couples have backed that up with testimony before the Legislature.

John Grant and Daniel Weiss, an Asbury Park couple who are in a civil union, are among those who testified in support of gay marriage.

When Grant was in a life-threatening automobile accident and rushed to a New York hospital in 2010 -- before that state legalized gay marriage -- Weiss said he couldn't authorize badly needed surgery or even go through his partner's wallet to find his health insurance card. He said their civil union was essentially worthless; Grant's neurosurgeon even asked, "What is a civil union?"

A gay marriage bill was defeated in the Senate two years ago, just before Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat who supported the measure, left office. Advocates' hopes dimmed with the arrival of Christie, who spoke against gay marriage when asked about it during his campaign.

[Bocarge2]

I don't c any thing wrong with the Governor's decision. It was his promise b4 election and he stuck to it. He respects the constitutional provision on Marriage and the Supreme court can't overturn the decision of the people as enshrined in the constitution which they Voted for. Christie's Decision has nothing to do with with the Presidential elections But has everything to do with the Values he Holds dear to him.On the other hand it is the Democrats who will do anything to get voted into office by painting the other party as insensitive and against the liberties of the people per the constitution. What they will not say is that the Father's of Democracy where Fervent Believers of God too .They can not be talking of Liberties fought by our Father's without talking of the Values they hold dear. Now the Democrats are afraid to be against Gay Marriage because that is the only Card they have to play politics with. They have nothing they stand for which they are deeply convince is the right thing to do but every thing to do which they know will keep them in office even if it is what they don't believe. They Accept one side of the coin as being legit but the other side as being counterfeit `after all the Media will help us galvanize sympathizers'.

[readmanthepaper]

The founding fathers were not christians and you christofascists need to stop saying they were. This is not a theocracy, you fool, and your religious standards hold no weight in policy-making.

[nomad55779]

Answer to Gay Pro-Marriage Question: "Why Should Others Care if We Get Married"?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have heard this question asked a number of times by pro-gay marriage folks - "why should it matter to others if gays get married"?

My opinion on this comes from a "religious and humanistic standpoint", not so much from a "natural standpoint", although I feel the gist of the "naturalists" arguments are also valid - in that one can normally discern (by nature itself) that homosexuality would be destructive to life itself because it doesn't propogate on a "natural basis", and left to itself, a species would nornally die off (not a good thing).

From my own experience, because most "pro-marriage" gays do not have a whole lot of regard or appreciation for the "sacred", I will give a "figurative 'humanstic' example" of why (believers - and many others for that matter) "should dare care if gays get married" (the original question discussed here). On a humanistic level it could be compared to the following: It would be similar to, if your family had been handed down a beautiful painting from an ancestor who lived thousands of years ago. The painting, is, (and has been) considered precious and priceless. The original owner of this painting - thousands of years ago, gave specific directions on its care - how it was to be regarded, handled, and with many rules attached to it. Again, this painting is, and has been, considered priceless and precious to all of the families who have owned it for hundreds of generations in that family. It is, as if, gays, have forcibly entered the home of that family, tried to rob the family of this painting, and then trampled on the precious painting - of course, all along, not realizing what it was worth.

This was my example of why "others should 'dare' care" if gays get married.

[podboq]

Homosexuality is in NO way, itself, destructive to humanity. If homosexuals choose to live monogamously with their mates, then the ENTIRE issue of sexually-transmitted diseases is off the table; excepting blood transfusions or drug use, of course, which anyone is susceptible to. And again, homosexuality is in no way itself destructive to society simply because heterosexuals will always outnumber homosexuals (which of course makes homosexuals a minority who should be protected from the wrath of the majority) and therefore will NEVER cause a situation such that humanity's population falls as a result. You heteros are over-populating the world as it is. It's YOU heterosexuals who are causing resource depletion, mass starvation, wars over resources(Iraq), environmental pollution on a scale that's simply beyond definition, and a million other problems that you surely are familiar with without my speaking to them here.

Next....

If gays' choices in life were RESPECTED by others, simply because personal choices in love towards another SHOULD be respected by others, MORE would choose monogamy... but many see no social benefit to such an arrangement; and that is primarily caused by society's /cough 'dislike' and disdain towards the love between two men or two women.

It's really NONE of your business.

Next.....

'Pro-marriage' gays "do not have a whole lot of regard or appreciation for the 'sacred'????! Are you out of your fkin mind?? Have you actually TALKED to many gays to inquire as to what THEY feel is sacred, or do you just judge them for not believing that what you think is sacred, is sacred??

What's really 'priceless' about marriage is the fact that others generally respect the vows between the two involved, especially so if the two involved really mean their vows, and stick to them, through thick and thin. That's IT, and that's all there is to its 'pricelessness'.

Respect.

Why do you disrespect love between two consenting adults?

How can anyone honestly disrespect love?

That's the 'emotional' side of gay marriage, and doesn't really speak to the LEGAL ramifications of presenting heterosexual couples with special societal priviledges...

Tax-payers should have equal rights across the board. At no point, and in no circumstances should one tax-payer, or two tax-payers, get benefits as a result of their personal choices in life that other couples do NOT get, based solely on their status as a male-male or female-female couple. Such differentiation is complete ********.

Equal protection under the law.

[Bocarge2]

In respond to podboq, i will say the Homosexuals are in no way a minority. they have coined themselves that way baptized by the media who have nothing to report on and supported by The So called protectors of Civil liberty (Democrats) who have nothing they can talk to the people about. They complain they are not being treated fairly but the question is have they treated the Christians who have their own belief which is in line with the founding Fathers of America fairly?
I think if there is anybody who has gone against the Constitution of the United States of America and have disregard for the Founding Fathers of America it is Gays

[pammmmmm]

Well think of it this way...If same sexes aren't allowed to marry there will be no need for messy divorces now will there.

[waterdoc123]

Senate President Steve Sweeney:"He had a chance to do the right thing, and failed miserably" Make that the 500 and 1st thing that Christie failed miserably on.

How this fat slob stays in office is beyond me. How his helecopter takes off given the weight factor is another mystery.

[Catch22ofNJ]

Does your mommy know that you're on the computer?

[Transatlantique]

Marriage is a constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[Transatlantique]

I'm sure he'd veto a bill designed to keep fat people from marrying.

[1pheasant1]

The law allowing same-sex marriage would do nothing to the integrity of our heterosexual marriage. Why should my wife and I oppose this law the way Christie has? He wants this to be solved by the people, through a vote, because he doesn't have the courage to do what is right on his own. Pathetic example of leadership.

[Mike_in_USA]

He doesn't have the courage to do what YOU think is right, therefore pathetic leadership? So are you 'everyone's' moral compass too?

[royalstar05]

Christe= lardass piece of ****.

[Mike_in_USA]

Fact free name calling! Wow, p[lease stay on the kindergarten playground with your peers.

[fedup12]

So is Christie the Moral Majority now.

Isn't Gluttony a sin.

[Mike_in_USA]

He vetoes a bill and somehow becomes the moral majority? Then you go from there to mentioning a sin. So, do you have any proof, or do you just free-associate because it make you feel better?

[Bocarge2]

who is the glutton? and who has sinned. Is it the person who talks just because he want to talk or the one who talks because he/she believes in it?

[podboq]

Suppose for the duration of this writing, that individuals' choices in life should be respected by others so long as those choices don't adversely affect other people, so long as the choices they make, that include others, are made with the other's express consent and participation....

Suppose two people of the same gender decide to create a life together... they'll share the ups and downs, the bills, the vacations, the chores, the sicknesses, responsibilities, laughter and tears and love... all the things that opposite-gender couples share....

Suppose these two people spend their lives together, building each other up, saving money, planning for the future...

Suppose, along the way, that they decide to gift a child, or two, or more with a stable home, healthy food, good habits, education... love.

Only to have to live in a society who 'cherishes' freedom which tells them, "NO!!", and that what they're doing is WRONG.

The children they might have supported instead continue bouncing around often abusive and loveless foster homes or orphanages; the taxes they would have paid as a couple were never given in support of their nation; the support they may have given each other, to have a stable life, is disallowed, based on the opinions of people not involved in their lives.

Hear that: the OPINIONS of people not involved in their lives. Opinions.

Lets turn that around, shall we?

Two opposite-gender people decide to make a life together: NO, you're not allowed, because I said so... because WE said so... Outrageous, right?!

Can you folks who believe that Gay Marriage is an abomination to God really sit back and apply the Golden Rule to this situation, and say that you would take such abuse lying down?

Those children I mentioned earlier? Still in orphanages or foster homes... No stability in their lives, no one to love them... their hetero-parents are unable or unwilling to care for and love them.... Many gay couples would love to adopt, if for no other reason than they can't produce their own children together, but more often because they just want to help. Instead, they keep hearing, from all corners of the Nation, and in many different ways: The People of the United States do not WANT your help. Nor do WE want your taxes.... WE don't want you to have stabile lives together, because God hates you. God hates you, so WE hate you.

Can anyone say ******** on that??

We hear constantly from Christendom how each person needs to have a personal relationship with Christ to be saved... PERSONAL relationship. So why is it so hard for Christians to keep their personal relationship with Christ between themselves and Christ? Because Jesus said to preach the Gospel? So preach it! But you can't overstep your 'authority in Christ' and deprive others of the choices and actions you take for granted. Each of us has the responsibility, according to scripture, to mind our walk with Christ, to follow his foot-steps closely... to be an exemplar of Christ in our own lives. I recall Jesus saying in regards to judging a known prostitute publicly, "He that is without sin, cast the first stone." Do you people not listen?? Lets move on, the United States is a secular nation, not a theocracy... Religion is part of our private lives, and there it should stay.

No, the United States is not a Theocracy, folks... sorry to have to break that to you. The Kingdom of God is not of this Earth, and His followers are not the ones to install it where God Himself has, up to the time of this writing, neglected to install it Himself.

[gigat]

Do you really think that Gay couples will adopt a child? Get real! They can do it right now. What's stopping them? I know plenty of gay couples and it's not something that crosses their minds. Don't use children to justify your point of view, like gay marriage will make the world a better place.

You're right it's not a theocracy and the kingdom of God is not on this earth yet. He didn't install it, left his people to do it and we're doing a lousy job. But, he'll fix that soon enough.

There is no way that you can keep your religion "private". It is part of every being that follows a religion, that's what makes it personal. Same way you can't keep shut about your gay view, and are trying to make the whole world accept it. And please don't make it like religious people are so uneducated and so closed-minded.That's hogwash. It's another lame line used...

BTW, christianity is not about doing good, it's about faith and obedience, and love for your God. Christians may not get it right, but that's where the personal comes in. It's a striving to become like Christ, that is part of the journey. And love is part of that journey, as long as it doesn't cause a rift in that God-man relationship..

[podboq]

He didn't 'leave his people to do it', LOL, seriously? Where's that in Scripture?

And yea, if gays had Federal marriage protection, I have no doubt more would adopt.

Keeping religion 'private' includes not being a d*ck about it, it means simply being an example of what you believe in, practicing what you preach, walking the walk... remember those rebuffs that most religionists get?

There's no sense in keeping quiet about how unconstitutional depriving gay couples the recognition on a Federal level that straight couples enjoy, and take advantage of for any number of reasons, the difference is gays aren't trying to OUTLAW straight marriage, as straights are trying to keep gays in the closet, out of their comfortable world-view.

How precisely did I 'make it out that religious people were uneducated'? I said they don't listen, and for far too many, it's the truth, because if they listened, they would DO it correctly...

What exactly does 'obedience' entail if not DOING good?? Faith without works is dead... read scripture much, honestly? If you did you wouldn't make silly comments like that. Striving to become like Christ is walking his walk, and his adult life was filled with good works, good teaching, never belittling or condescending or legislating against those He was trying to entreat to love God out of a good heart.