Gov. Christie Vetoes Same-Sex Marriage Bill

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 07:10:21 PM EST
Tags: same-sex marriage (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has vetoed the same-sex marriage bill passed by the state legislature, but he calls it a conditional veto.

Gov. Chris Christie this afternoon conditionally vetoed the gay marriage bill and suggested appointing an ombudsman to address complaints of same-sex couples and strengthen New Jersey’s civil union law.

"I have been just as adamant that same-sex couples in a civil union deserve the very same rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples — as well as the strict enforcement of those rights and benefits,’’ Christie said in a prepared statement.

Is anybody fooled that this is not a veto? A referendum will not happen. Legislative action has ended for now, and the deadline for an override of the veto is Jan. 14. [More...]

Here's the Statement of Garden State Equality.

For us, this is not about politics. This is about our fundamental American right to
conduct our lives with a full life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Equality.
And until we achieve it, we will fight with our every last breath.

< Friday Open Thread | Whitney Houston Funeral >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Gov. Christie Vetoes Same-Sex Marriage Bill | 26 comments (26 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Wrong side of history (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by MKS on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 07:41:55 PM EST

Blot on his career--and he knows it....

: spread the cheese (5.00 / 0) (#3)
by Dadler on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 08:18:54 PM EST

the man is as serious a human being as a soda cracker.

the equal protection clause trumps (5.00 / 0) (#6)
by cpinva on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 09:56:54 PM EST

any state or federal law. by definition then, gay people have the very same right to marry whomever they so choose, as white, black or asians do. absent compelling evidence of harm to society, by gay people being able to marry each other, there is no constitutional reason for them not to able to. there is no actual need of legislation to enable this.

as amply demonstrated in the recent litigation of CA's Prop. 8, the very best, most compelling evidence provided by the proponents of the law is "we don't like it". the equal protection clause is superior to "we don't like it".

: It is well established (none / 0) (#8)
by andgarden on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 10:26:07 PM EST

that marriage is a fundamental right. The Supreme Court said so 9-0 in the 1980s So I think you're right that we're going in that direction. I think we'll eventually get Kennedy's vote. But it's probably going to be a while.

The idea (5.00 / 0) (#9)
by NYShooter on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 10:47:24 PM EST

of putting a class of citizens' rights up for public referendum is so repulsive, so degrading, it defines the term, "shocks the conscience."

When I see today's spectacles regarding referendums I can't help but be reminded of Rome and its spectacles in the Coliseum.

And yet, closer in time, and nearer to home, egomaniacal pigs like Christie seem to have learned nothing from Jim Crow, or more recently, the one he seems to favor, "separate, but equal."

How strange it all is, at a time of unprecedented advanced in technology, medicine, and communications that those images must be juxtaposed with Neanderthals masquerading as "Leaders."