Civil Rights and New Jersey

1. 0

   Sooner28posted 13 years ago

   Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey, is showing he lacks courage.  The New Jersey Congress has passed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, but he vetoed it, saying he would prefer a referendum instead of the New Jersey government legalizing it. 
   
   Why is this a problem you ask?  Imagine if we were to put our right to free speech up for popular vote, or our right to peacefully assemble.  Civil rights are not up to the majority's feelings.  Instead of having the courage to buck the backward elements of his own party by signing the bill legalizing gay marriage, Christie instead is attempting to avoid being the one directly responsible for it, even though he recently appointed a gay judge!
   
   It does not appear he is personally against it, but the fact he vetoed the bill is indefensible.  Even when politicians personally are in favor of a policy, the way Christie currently seems to be, politics are becoming the calculus many use to determine what actions to take.
   
   President Obama could also be accused of this, but at least he took steps to end DADT, something a modern Republican president would never have the gravitas to do.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      We do put our freedom up to a vote every day.
      
      Remember how pot is STILL illegal?
      
      Yeah.
      
      Sorry LGBTQ community, I recommend moving to Washington to get the marriage ability now, and then voting in Ron Paul who will prevent the Federal Government from overthrowing the state's power to allow gay marriage.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Sooner28posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         The freedom to smoke pot is not on par with the freedom to marry someone you love.  Paul also is not in favor of a national law to legalize gay marriage, unfortunately.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Being able to smoke pot (the right of property) IS on par with the freedom of association. In fact, they are the same right: the right of property. I own my body, you own your body, we mutually agree to hang out.
            
            You're right about Ron Paul, though. He's in favor of getting government out entirely.
            
            This is a MUCH better system than having government own your rights. If the government makes it legal, then they could always make it illegal in ten years.
            
            Get it out, keep it out, and enjoy freedom.

            replyreport
            1. 85

               lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               You cannot keep saying that when he voted for the Personhood amendment...it is disengenuous.
               
               He wants gvt in my uterus...the most private part of all.
               
               He needs to read the 4th and 8th.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  You can't have liberty if you're killing people without a trial.
                  
                  Here is Paul's clarifying statement (which proves he put more thought into it than everyone else. But, judging from your posts on the "Are Conservatives Idiots" forum, you clearly don't think that anyone with an R in front of their name has a brain)
                  
                  http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/RonPaul.pdf
                  
                  He clearly explains that there needs to be an amendment to the constitution; that the president does NOT sign amendments, it is purely an act of congress OR the states; and that the enforcement of laws is a state issue, not a federal one.
                  
                  He further explains that the intended amendment should NOT overturn the 10th amendment. Indeed, he explains, NO amendment repeals the 10th amendment, that's why it was never repealed.
                  
                  "As president, I will sign and aggressively advocate for a law that removes abortion from the jurisdiction of the federal courts."

                  replyreport
                  1. 85

                     lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Why abortion? Did you ever ask yourself that?
                     
                     There are myriad of issues that fall into this catagory...WHY ABORTION?

                     replyreport
   2. 60

      couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You can call Christie a few things, but lacking in courage wouldn't be one of them. Personally, I'd prefer to vote on everything. So there's always a different perspective.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Sooner28posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Actually, part of what it means to be courageous is standing up to the crowd, even when it is unpopular.  Saying things that will resonate with an angry electorate just to get elected isn't courageous. 
         
         He could have signed gay marriage into law today, and he decided against it.   That was political cowardice at it's finest.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Or bigotry.

            replyreport
         2. 60

            couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Maybe that's just what he believed was the right way to do it. So he stood up to the crowd and did what he believed was right even though it was apparently the unpopular thing to do (from what I'm seeing on forums all  across the web).

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Paul Wingertposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Christie is nothing but a fat, loud mouth bigot. I don't believe something like gay marriage should be put to the vote when we have Vern, Jim Bob, and Bobbie Jean as the voters. Something like gay marriaage should be an automatic right to begin with.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I agree with you on the right to marriage. All I'm saying is that this is what he believed is the way to go. So now fat people are evil, too. Something equally as evil as a bigot could be a name calling hater. Besides, all people from Jersey are loud mouths. It goes with the territory.
                  
                  I thought all the Verns and Jim Bobs and Bobbie Sues were in Tennessee and Jersey was full of Snookis, Frankies, and MaryElizabeths

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Sooner28posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I just want to say I am not speaking of his weight at all.  I find all Republican politicians who refuse to support gay marriage as cowards.  If one stands up for their beliefs, it must be based on a reasoned moral position.  If you are calculating your political future, then you are just like every other politico out there.  Christie has no defense for his actions.

                     replyreport
   3. 59

      logic,commonsenseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      If there are enough votes in the legislature, they can override his veto and the discussion is moot.  If there are not, one has to ask who is not voting to override and why.  I believe the legislature has a Democratic majority does it not?  Should be a slam dunk to override then shouldn't it?  Or are there Democrats who don't believe in civil rights?

      replyreport
      1. 85

         lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         This is why we need a new Constitution.
         
         There should be such a thing as Universal Rights.
         And marriage is one of them.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Just to play devil's advocate, do we draw the line at marrying animals, artificial intelligence (like robots who can think), interbreeding species, and the like? Cause I promise you, there will be someone somewhere who will want to do this.
            
            PS - I believe anyone (human) should be able to marry any one)

            replyreport
            1. 85

               lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               How come this would suddenly come up if gays are given equal rights?
               
               I mean---why wasn't this argument made when a man and woman wanted to marry?

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Repairguy47posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Gays have equal rights.

                  replyreport
                  1. 85

                     lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Really??
                     Where's the referendum on marriage between a man and a woman?

                     replyreport
   4. 59

      Repairguy47posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I have this sneaking suspicion that you would be in favor of many things put up for a vote. Just not this one thing.

      replyreport
2. 85

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   Me too. I want to vote on Citizens United, and the tax code!!!!
   
   Especially the part where churches pay no taxes. Vote!
   
   Why is Christie singling this out for referendum?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sooner28posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      At least Citizens United can be seen as an obviously horrific decision.  It's amazing to me that Supreme Court justices seem to not look into the future, where history will be a harsh judge.  "Separate but equal" is now seen as a ridiculous ruling.
      
      Imagine what historians will say about a Supreme Court (conservative majority 5-4) that ruled corporations could spend UNLIMITED amounts of money on elections.  We might as well put a "for sale" sign up on our Congress.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I remember when Obama said as much in a speech, and one of the Justices sat there shaking his nead "no".
         
         What--he's a Justice and he can't see that it's not good to let America go to the highest bidder?

         replyreport
      2. 60

         couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Odd that a corporate entity is legally viewed as an individual in the courtroom but not in the political donation arena.

         replyreport
3. 61

   steveamyposted 13 years ago

   Christie should read the 14th  amendment...

   replyreport
   1. 85

      lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      People pick and choose which parts of the Constitution they want to believe in.
      And fit it to suit their needs.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      And you should read the 10th.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         steveamyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         does not apply in this case ....

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            You're right, it doesn't.
            
            But you should still read it.

            replyreport