For NJ Gays, changing of the guard is a decisive moment

by smkovalinsky | November 15, 2009 at 07:36 am
130 views | 24 Recommendations | 14 comments

Photos

Catholic church opposes gay marriage in ME

Catholic church opposes gay marriage in ME

see larger image

uploaded by smkovalinsky

For New Jersey gays,  a decisive moment has been reached.  With the election of Republican Chris Christie to replace Democrat Jon Corzine as the state's governor,  the gay marriage issue has reached a turning point.  

Corzine has been an advocate of gay marriage,  while Christie has said he would support a federal amendment banning it nationally.  (all emphasis below is mine:)

For gay couples in New Jersey, and the millions of people who want to see them achieve full equality under the law, the moment has finally arrived.


Within the next several weeks, probably in early December, the Legislature will take up the question of gay marriage.

This will be high political drama. Because while most Democrats support marriage equality, they do not have nearly enough votes to pass it on their own. They need Republican support if the measure is to have any chance.

And that means Chris Christie, the Republican governor-elect, is about to make his first really important decision.

He opposes gay marriage and said during the campaign he would use his veto power as governor to block it.

But will he try to intervene now, before he takes office, by pressing his fellow Republicans to oppose marriage equality? His decision will tell us a great deal about his priorites as governor.

Because if Christie jumps into this debate, he will pay a price. He will drive a wedge between himself and the Democratic leadership of the Legislature even before he swears his oath. He will anger the many voters who support gay marriage with passion.

And perhaps most important, he will ensure that this debate continues into his term, distracting attention from the crushing agenda he faces during this economic crisis. After basing his campaign on jobs and taxes, he will have opened a second front over a social issue.

Those are the political calculations. The deeper question goes to the merits of marriage equality.

During the campaign, Christie never articulated a forceful argument against it. He didn’t invoke God’s will, or label homosexuality as deviant. He said simply that he felt in his gut that marriage should be between a man and a woman. He even tried to think of it differently, he said, and it just didn’t fit.

That’s understandable, of course. This would be a giant change. Millions of reasonable people share his discomfort.

recommend Add a comment
1
Rhonda J Mangus

"Millions of reasonable people share his discomfort."

Key word: Reasonable? I'm insulted:)


1
Tomitheos

I agree with you Rhonda and if reasonable people compromise individual rights, what's next?

0
Rhonda J Mangus

Thanks, Tomitheos:)!


0
smkovalinsky

Well,  as this is being said by an advocate of gay marriage,  I think he is talking about millions in a sea of billions.  Trying to reassure them that change is always uncomfortable.  The thing which got me angry when Corzine lost,  is that I know gays in NJ who voted for Christie, ( for economic reasons)  even when he said plainly that not only would he block and veto any gay marriage bill,  but absolutely believes in a federally amendment banning it on a national scale.  And they went and voted him in!  I was heartbroken to see the lovely Jon Corzine go :(

1
Rhonda J Mangus

I don't think so:). What the author of the original article implies by simply using this 'keyword' is that anyone who supports same-sex marriage is 'unreasonable'. 

Live and learn:)!



0
smkovalinsky

But.....but......but..........isn't he an advocate of gay marriage????????


And he says this,  as well:  And in the end, this is not about gut feelings anyway. Gay people in New Jersey are not asking the Legislature for love and acceptance. They want equality under the law. And there is simply no justification for denying that.

0
Rhonda J Mangus

Christie, may be!:) But this article is actually written by The Star-Editorial Board -- if I am not mistaken:)! Consequently, the use of the term 'reasonable' is suspect in my eyes -- especially given it is in the last paragraph:) and is clearly an Opinion:)



1
albertacowpoke

People won't select a candidate on a single issue.  This gay marriage issue will be hard to resolve as long as it.s left to the majority.  The younger generation, I'm sure, has no problem with it.

0
smkovalinsky

Yes,  true,  ACP.  Quite true. 

1
77

Hopefully New Jersey will resolve this problem peacefully. Once again, I do not support gay marriage because of my religion which is Baptist but, I do not hate gay people or people that  support gay rights I just simply do not condone such behavior.

1
Tomitheos

As intelligent beings we should never blindly follow any type of religious institution created by another man and lose the ability to think for ourselves.  Religion should not be used as an excuse or a shield to justify a reason of not supporting individual freedom(s) or to mask personal prejudgement(s), including your reference that love is something that has certain levels and for it to be considered as a 'behavior' to be condoned for some and not for others (?) there is a certain level of contradictory information in your statement, religion in theory should bring humanity closer together not separate people further apart, some states already have that job. I hope one day we will look back as a society and think of how far we've come on these topics and hopefully religion will be on the same page.

1
77

I am not following man's religion rather, I am following the path that Jesus Christ has set for me. You are trying to make me out to be a gay marriage hating and ultra religious person that despises anyone who is not a Christian. This is not the case, friend. I may be religious but, I will never hate anyone no matter what they do. I may hate their ways but, I will never hate them as a person.  On the other hand, I do not appreciate you saying that my religion is something set fourth by man. I will not allow you to insult mine and the religion of so many other people like the way you did. I think that you are just a child of God that has lost their way.

1
Roy C

Neither should dogma of Marxism, fascism, psychoanalysis (not even close to a science) or even economics (a system of thought, not a real experimental science).

Now, if all the anti-religious people took their own principle seriously of not following blindly dogmas, dogmas of any kind, we could avoid the next world war, and making this economic disaster worse, letting ourselves by sold down to river on all the major trans-national solutions, just to name a few to start.

There is no rational need for anything beyond a well-written law on civil unions. Gay marriage is part of the dogma of the left, part of a rebellion against traditional culture by the heirs of the hysteria of the French Revolution and its attempt to make believe that they, the Revolutionaries, were the alpha and omega of Reason, while they conducted their campaign of terror.

1
Hugh Askew

"Now, if all the anti-religious people took their own principle seriously of not following blindly dogmas, dogmas of any kind,....."

Roy, you need to lay off the pharmaceuticals, get into rehab, and after that, spend some time alone, contemplating your sins.  The world simply would not - could not - exist if that were to happen.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.

What is NowPublic?

NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.

Find out more

Crowd Power

Rhonda J Mangus
First Flagged at 7:51 AM, Nov 15, 2009 by Rhonda J Mangus
These members have powered this story:

Most Recommended Stories in World

Recommendations (24)

Most recently recommended by:
 

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from