Slog
News & ArtsFriday, January 27, 2012
2012 / LGBTQITSLFA Teabaggy New Jersey Governor Thinks Civil Rights Should've Been a Referendum
Posted by Paul Constant on Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 11:32 AM
New Jersey governor Chris Christie has promised to veto any gay marriage law that crosses his desk. Remember, this guy is on every shortlist for Republican vice presidential material:
See, as part of his push to have New Jersey voters vote on gay marriage in a referendum (so that he doesn't have to be on the record vetoing or not vetoing gay marriage) Christie said: "The fact of the matter is, I think people would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights rather than fighting and dying in the streets in the South." But would they have?
Newark mayor Cory Booker, to name just one of a chorus of Christie critics, certainly didn't agree with the sentiment. "I shudder to think what would have happened if the civil rights gains, heroically established by courageous lawmakers in the 1960s, were instead conveniently left up to popular votes in our 50 states," he said.
But Christie isn't backing down...
This is a remarkable statement. Usually, when you tie gay marriage to the civil rights movement, Republicans run in the other direction, diminishing marriage into something smaller and more specific than a right. But Christie is running headlong into the argument, saying that we did civil rights wrong in the first place. (Can you imagine? They'd probably still be trying to pass a civil rights referendum in Mississippi.) It shouldn't be surprising at this point, but it is. Somehow, Christie manages to say what every Republican is thinking, and he gets away with it every time. The worst part is that Christie emboldens other Republicans to repeat what he says as a fact; I'm willing to bet that other conservatives will soon pick up this "Civil rights should have been a state's rights issue" idea and run wild with it.
(Thanks to Slog tipper Rob.)
1
Ron Paul's been waving that banner for a while now. So much for hoping it would stay on the fringes.
2
Not too surprising. A couple debates back Ron Paul said that he thought racial inequality would have worked itself out without any gov'mint help if only we'd had a fully free Free Market.
GOP done become crazypants revisionist central these days!
GOP done become crazypants revisionist central these days!
4
Sorry 1960's black folks, you'll get civil rights when the southern white folk are comfortable about with having to share bathrooms, and bus seats with you. I'm sure they'll stop bombing black churches, and killing civil rights activists as real soon, and vote to give you equal rights.
5
Yes of course. Civil rights of minorities should always be left up to mob rule. Awesome plan.
/sarcasm
/sarcasm
6
I wish someone would just ask these ingrates the obvious question: "If you believe civil rights should be a matter of popular vote, would you agree to putting such issues as: divorce, miscegenation, racial and gender equality, heterosexual marriage, etc., etc. up for public votes as well?"
Now, I'm sure there are enough conservative wing-nuts out there who would probably say "yes!" to at least a few of these, but clearly not all of them. Which, of course leads to the inevitable follow-up: "If you believe SOME of these civil rights should not be subject to popular vote, why do you believe ANY of them should be?"
Now, I'm sure there are enough conservative wing-nuts out there who would probably say "yes!" to at least a few of these, but clearly not all of them. Which, of course leads to the inevitable follow-up: "If you believe SOME of these civil rights should not be subject to popular vote, why do you believe ANY of them should be?"
7
Civil rights laws WERE put to the popular vote. Both California and Maryland repealed laws forbidding racial discrimination in housing. And one of the New Jersey legislators noted that the last successful voter referendum in the state was when voters cancelled letting women have the vote.
9
Can't wait until whites are a minority and everyone else decides to put the civil rights of white people on a ballot. Wonder what this ass will think then?
10
The voters did get a chance to decide, at least once, and they blew it. In response to the 1963 Rumford Act (which banned housing discrimination based on race), in 1964 California voters were presented Proposition 14, which prohibited the State from denying a person the right to rent or sell property "to any person as he chooses." They passed it by a 65% majority. The State was specifically prohibited from guaranteeing people their rights to rent or buy a home where they wished, until the State Supreme Court and then the US Supreme Court threw the initiative out as unconstitutional.
That's why we HAVE courts (and legislatures)--to act as a check when the people have spoken, and they have spoken stupidly (and in violation of their own constitution).
That's why we HAVE courts (and legislatures)--to act as a check when the people have spoken, and they have spoken stupidly (and in violation of their own constitution).
11
LBJ was willing to sacrifice the South for his party because he had the stones to lead people, many against their will, to civil rights for all citizens. He paid a steep personal price for this act of bravery.
The media like Christie because he's a blow hard who talks in sound bites, but he doesn't have 1/10th the balls of a guy like Johnson.
The media like Christie because he's a blow hard who talks in sound bites, but he doesn't have 1/10th the balls of a guy like Johnson.
12
We didn't need to fight a civil war either. We should have put slavery to a vote. Right? Ignoramus.
15
Marriage is a rite, not a right. No pair of people have the "right" to marry. Unlike gender identification, sexual preference, ethnicity, etc., it's always a matter of choice.
Which is not to say that knot-tying must be limited to opposite sexes. Nor that popular referendum is appropriate as a means of validating which sorts of pairs are allowed to make that choice. (It shouldn't require "validating" at all ... instead, the choice should be permissible for any pair of consenting adults who aren't already married to others.)
Which is not to say that knot-tying must be limited to opposite sexes. Nor that popular referendum is appropriate as a means of validating which sorts of pairs are allowed to make that choice. (It shouldn't require "validating" at all ... instead, the choice should be permissible for any pair of consenting adults who aren't already married to others.)
16
@15, the right in question is legal recognition of the rite of marriage. If one set of people is able to accrue specific benefits from the state by virtue of the rite of marriage, others have the right to expect the same benefits from that rite.
18
@16 and @17:
Understood. I was referring to a reality-based universe, not the one in which we reside.
Understood. I was referring to a reality-based universe, not the one in which we reside.
19
Civil marriage is a right. Marriage in churches in a rite.
I don't think Catholics acknowledge that people who have divorced and remarried are married in the eyes of God. Their children are bastards.
I don't think Catholics acknowledge that people who have divorced and remarried are married in the eyes of God. Their children are bastards.
20
@8 ...Which came only after the Supreme Court of New Jersey found that the state's constitution demanded such arrangements be available to New Jerseyans. Not to mention the second-class status these unions offer relative to marriage.
I've always felt a certain admiration for the northeast because most of it's states don't allow for initiatives, which has been a big help in keeping anti-gay groups from rolling back protections. I don't understand how Christie expects to have this 'referendum,' since his state has no provision for it.
Christie is a bully, hypocrite, and blowhard. He's one of the loudest voices for austerity outside of Congress, yet all of his "belt-tightening" seems to be upon the necks of the middle-class. And this man is on the GOP short-list for Vice President? Typical.
I've always felt a certain admiration for the northeast because most of it's states don't allow for initiatives, which has been a big help in keeping anti-gay groups from rolling back protections. I don't understand how Christie expects to have this 'referendum,' since his state has no provision for it.
Christie is a bully, hypocrite, and blowhard. He's one of the loudest voices for austerity outside of Congress, yet all of his "belt-tightening" seems to be upon the necks of the middle-class. And this man is on the GOP short-list for Vice President? Typical.
22
When your ass is the size of two beach balls, you can say anything and get away with it.
Except "America needs to tighten its belt and..."
Except "America needs to tighten its belt and..."
23
@20 - My guess is the legislature could put the issue to a vote, but citizens cannot petition for a referendum.
24
How different is having same sex marriage being shoved to the voters in Washington state? You're asking people to vote on other people's civil rights. This.is.wrong.
26
@23 No, NJ lacks provisions for any sort of direct democracy. That includes popular initiatives and legislative referendum.
27
Yeah. Well all these so-called anti-government conservatives all change their tune when the demographics of their States inevitably turn against them. Then they scream how the federal government needs to step in and rescue the poor dying white Christian race!
28
It's nice to see the Republican party's fat shitty old white men getting back to their racist roots. It feels... honest. When I see Chris Christie or Newt Gingrich, I expect to hear them ranting about how Civil Rights was a mistake, you know? It's in their bearing. They just have racist fuckhead auras.
Seriously, though, David Duke is gonna come back and run in 2016 at this rate. Ugh.
Seriously, though, David Duke is gonna come back and run in 2016 at this rate. Ugh.
29
@23 I stand corrected. I see New Jersey allows legislative amendments but not legislative statutes.
30
Once again for the idiot brigade-
Being born female or black or asian or caucasion or blue eyed or brown haired or short or tall aren't choices. Being blind or confined to a wheelchair aren't choices.
Choosing a homosexual lifestlye is a conscious choice you make or you don't. I wouldn't for a moment dream of interfering with that choice, so long as you're sufficiently adult to accept the consequences of it.
You folks are like someone who can walk just fine but prefers the ride of a wheelchair insisting on others installing ramps for your convenience. The only rational answer to this is of course- go to hell.
We have constitutional protection from discrimination based on traits in which we had no volition in simple justice. We (with a few first amendment exceptions like faith or expression) have no such protection for those things we choose to do.
Quit falsely equating the Gay Priviledge
agenda with the valid human rights struggles of actual minorities. It's not only incredibly stupid, it's incredibly insulting to people with real problems.
Being born female or black or asian or caucasion or blue eyed or brown haired or short or tall aren't choices. Being blind or confined to a wheelchair aren't choices.
Choosing a homosexual lifestlye is a conscious choice you make or you don't. I wouldn't for a moment dream of interfering with that choice, so long as you're sufficiently adult to accept the consequences of it.
You folks are like someone who can walk just fine but prefers the ride of a wheelchair insisting on others installing ramps for your convenience. The only rational answer to this is of course- go to hell.
We have constitutional protection from discrimination based on traits in which we had no volition in simple justice. We (with a few first amendment exceptions like faith or expression) have no such protection for those things we choose to do.
Quit falsely equating the Gay Priviledge
agenda with the valid human rights struggles of actual minorities. It's not only incredibly stupid, it's incredibly insulting to people with real problems.
31
@23 Stupid typo above. I meant to say that the New Jersey legislature can put a change in the constitution before the voters, but not a law for them to enact. My guess is the Governor suggests amending the state constitution to specifically permit marriage equality, which they could do. But they cannot vote to enact a law permitting it.
32
@30- So your saying it's OK for us to ban marriage between Jews and Catholics, since religion is a choice?
33
@ 30, 31 - What's the view like, with your head so far up your ass that way?
Kinda confining, I would imagine...
A person doesn't choose to be born gay any more than they choose to be born straight. Educate yourself.
Kinda confining, I would imagine...
A person doesn't choose to be born gay any more than they choose to be born straight. Educate yourself.
34
@33
I don't know or care what sexual urges a person who chooses homosexual behavior suffers from. I don't know or care if they're born with those urges or not. Choosing a same sex romantic partner IS a choice though. Make that choice if you like and it isn't my business. Assume that choice means others owe you something and it is my business.
@32
The First Amendment protects religious choice. Where do you read it protecting the choice to be a pervert?
I don't know or care what sexual urges a person who chooses homosexual behavior suffers from. I don't know or care if they're born with those urges or not. Choosing a same sex romantic partner IS a choice though. Make that choice if you like and it isn't my business. Assume that choice means others owe you something and it is my business.
@32
The First Amendment protects religious choice. Where do you read it protecting the choice to be a pervert?
35
Being born hungry isn't a choice, Alleged, but the "eating lifestyle" certainly is. Should we be allowed to deny civil rights to people based on whether or not they choose to eat?
For that matter, believing in supernatural entities isn't a choice, but practicing the "religious lifestyle" is, so we should be able to outlaw that too, right?
Right? I mean, I can totally see your logic here. I just don't know if you can see it yourself.
For that matter, believing in supernatural entities isn't a choice, but practicing the "religious lifestyle" is, so we should be able to outlaw that too, right?
Right? I mean, I can totally see your logic here. I just don't know if you can see it yourself.
36
What civil rights? Show me where in the constitution you have the right to make choices and foist the results of those choices off on others.
And again, religious expression is a choice based behavior specifically Constitutionally protected. The same can't be said of being a pervert.
Born with the urge to eat doesn't mean born with the right to claim your food from others. Born with a perverted diseased sexual inclination doesn't mean born with a right to have others socially or legally applaud your perversion. Assuming of course that you're born with such an urge, which hasn't been proven by any reputable scientific process.
Again, screw around like a deviant with same sex lovers all you like. Not my business nor do I want to know about it. Think that your deviancy means you're some special rights citizen and that's where I begin to care.
And again, religious expression is a choice based behavior specifically Constitutionally protected. The same can't be said of being a pervert.
Born with the urge to eat doesn't mean born with the right to claim your food from others. Born with a perverted diseased sexual inclination doesn't mean born with a right to have others socially or legally applaud your perversion. Assuming of course that you're born with such an urge, which hasn't been proven by any reputable scientific process.
Again, screw around like a deviant with same sex lovers all you like. Not my business nor do I want to know about it. Think that your deviancy means you're some special rights citizen and that's where I begin to care.
38
I have to say, politicians will say damn near anything to "rally" their "base", and keep the misinformation / confusion going amongst the "voting classes". If ol' racist-pants Christie actually becomes V.P. (rue the day...) he'll disappear like Biden has done, and toe the line of the corporate elite like BushCheneyCo. did. *yawn*
Hopefully this illl-advised honesty will trash C.C. all the same.
Hopefully this illl-advised honesty will trash C.C. all the same.
39
@21:
What's Reddit? Whatever it is, you didn't see me there.
What am I wrong about? Are you saying that marriage isn't a mutual choice by the pair?
What's Reddit? Whatever it is, you didn't see me there.
What am I wrong about? Are you saying that marriage isn't a mutual choice by the pair?
40
@Morons, the lot of you: you are so full of shit! I can hardly believe that you would make such a (stoopid) ridiculous comment and MORE, on this forum! You need to pull your head out of your ass, you moron. You may like living in the 19th century: fine! Kill yourself, and go back there, idiot! Seriously...kill yourself...slowly...
41
@36: May I point you towards these studies and papers, which have found clear physiological and neurochemical differences between the brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals?
http://pdn.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob…
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art…
http://pdn.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob…
There is plenty of evidence out there that sexual orientation is a deep-seated neurological trait, but you lot insist on ignoring it. I guess ignorance is bliss if it excuses your bigotry, eh?
http://pdn.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob…
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art…
http://pdn.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob…
There is plenty of evidence out there that sexual orientation is a deep-seated neurological trait, but you lot insist on ignoring it. I guess ignorance is bliss if it excuses your bigotry, eh?
43
"I think people would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights rather than fighting and dying in the streets in the South"
And it was people like Christie who denied them the referendum, so they were required to fight and die.
@42: This is what period troll does. It's all he does.
And it was people like Christie who denied them the referendum, so they were required to fight and die.
@42: This is what period troll does. It's all he does.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Have You Ever Heard of...? by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (43) RSS