Christie Vetoes Same Sex Marriage Bill

[Conley]

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Friday vetoed a bill that would allow same-sex couples to wed, setting up a confrontation with a Democrat-controlled legislature that has vowed to eventually get the bill into law.

The General Assembly on Thursday passed the measure, which the Senate had approved Monday.

Lawmakers have until the legislative session ends in January 2014 to override Christie's veto. They would need a two-thirds majority in both houses to succeed.

Christie, the subject of speculation as a possible GOP vice presidential candidate, has said the issue "should not be decided by 121 people in the statehouse in Trenton."

He has advocated putting the issue to a referendum.

"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," Christie said in a statement. "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."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/17/us/new-jersey-same-sex-veto/index.html

I had to dig deep in CNN for this one, the front page is covered with nothing but Whitney Houston. :rollseyes:

I'd like government to not be involved in this sort of thing but let the citizens vote if it must be decided.

[Mister D]

She's getting buried in a local (to me, that is) cemetery. Glad I didn't have to travel in that area. I'm sure everything is blocked off.

Anyway, if the citizens vote and the left doesn't like the outcome it will be overturned in the courts and remain unresolved.

[Peter1469]

Good. I am not against giving gays the benefits (and headaches) of marriage. I am just not willing to re-define words.

[Conley]

She's getting buried in a local (to me, that is) cemetery. Glad I didn't have to travel in that area. I'm sure everything is blocked off.

Anyway, if the citizens vote and the left doesn't like the outcome it will be overturned in the courts and remain unresolved.

Yes, I was thinking of Prop 8. If the Supreme Court refuses to hear it then I think that might be it for the issue? Even if SCOTUS does rule, it seems that it would be so narrow that other states would still have issues. The whole thing is so unimportant compared to the real problems we're facing. I know the radicals on both sides disagree with me but so be it.

[Mister D]

Good. I am not against giving gays the benefits (and headaches) of marriage. I am just not willing to re-define words.

I'm a little more hostile to gay radicals but I more or less agree.

[Mister D]

Yes, I was thinking of Prop 8. If the Supreme Court refuses to hear it then I think that might be it for the issue? Even if SCOTUS does rule, it seems that it would be so narrow that other states would still have issues. The whole thing is so unimportant compared to the real problems we're facing. I know the radicals on both sides disagree with me but so be it.

Like I've said many times, gay marriage is inane and there is no reason to redefine marriage to suit the demands of gay radicals for social acceptance. That said, I'm all for extending the same benefits to civil unions. Easy compromise but it's not good enough because it's not about imagined rights or marriage per se. It's about social acceptance.

Yes, you're right. While Rome burns these idiots argue about the "right" of gays to marry.

[Conley]

It does seem like benefits should extend for civil unions as well but if those are easier to get in and out of than marriages I can see why there would be blowback because of it. I don't know how civil unions work in terms of property, etc. If people can just go down to the courthouse and pay 50 bucks to get their friends' benefits I can see how that would be a problem. It varies. That's a big reason why I wish government would just drop the whole thing all together