One way of reading New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's call to put marriage equality on the ballot is to say that he "avoids all the thorns in the thicket." Another, as expressed by Newark Mayor Cory Booker, is that it is plain "infuriating." Put fiscal issues up for a referendum, Mayor Booker said. Ask people to vote on a millionaires tax to create more millionaires.
But dear God, we should not be putting civil rights issues to a popular vote, to be subject to the sentiments, the passions of the day. No minority should have their rights subject to the passions and sentiments of the majority. This is a fundamental bedrock of what our nation stands for.
I get very concerned that we have created in our state, and we refuse to address and call it like it is, that we’ve created a second-class citizenship in our state. That’s what we have in America right now, we have two classes of citizenship. Jackie Robinson said the right of every American to first-class citizenship is the most important issue of our time.
…
I read the 14th Amendment clearly. It talks about equal protection under the laws, and that was never something that should go out to a popular vote, whether blacks, women or other minorities should be equal, first-class citizens.
FWIW, the Philadelphia Inquirer quotes Governor Christie as saying, "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." I'm not sure which "people" he would be talking about.
In other news, activists for marriage equality in Maine announced that they will use the 100,000 signatures they've gathered -- nearly double the amount needed -- to ask for a referendum on the issue. When the rights of the minority were last put to a popular vote in Maine, in 2009, the state vetoed marriage for same-sex couples by 53-47. From the Portland Press-Herald:
Betsy Smith, executive director of EqualityMaine, said polling by gay marriage supporters indicates 54 percent of state residents now support gay marriage.
"The number of signatures we gathered and the thoughtful conversations we've been having with voters tell us that Mainers are eager to speak on this question again," she said.
The juxtaposition of what's happening in New Jersey with the news from Maine is striking and even strange. For the record, marriage equality has almost always lost in the referendum process -- 33 losses to one win, by Nate Silver's calculation earlier this year.
Leave a Comment:
I don't know for sure, but I'll wager that C. Christie wasn't even alive in the early 60's when "... fighting and dying in the streets in the South." It is difficult to empathize if you have no experience to relate to.
Christie was born in 1962, so he's not really big on first hand experience.
Someone needs to point out the reason behind the Repugs interest in denying GayRights has nothing to do with religion (which has no place in legislation) but rather ALL to do with the financial impact on those "corporate persons" who would be forced to supply benefits to an increased number of spouses.
It is always about the money! Repugs just know the right way to "language it" to appeal to their base.
Even if one wanted to believe it was a faith-based argument they make, the counter is that another's immortal soul is no one else's responsibility. If one "chooses" to burn in hell (form your point of view), it's his/her business.
This is about inalienable rights and pursuit of happiness . . . oh yeah, and MONEY! I know which I vote for.
Ditto.
Couldn't agree more.
Thanks to the Tea Party, the Republican voting base sucked in all of the "Archie Bunker" bigots that "have God on their side".
I am so going to he11 for that one.
Personally, I believe this has a lot more to do with election-year politics than it does about money... Christie wants a referendum to drum up Republican support in an election year to help a Republican win the Presidency...
ditto on that Jo6Pak.
I beg to differ. It has everything to do with religion (well, that and cultural biases that use religion for justification.)
The POG (Party of God) uses these culture-war issues to keep the Faithful loyal and distracted from how thoroughly their Lords and Masters are screwing them over on trivia like jobs and living standards.
Just like the reason they are against abortion is they need the population to grow to feed the economy and, hence, their pockets. Just like they are pro-guns because guns breed fear and fear causes people to turn to authority to protect them, giving up their freedom in the process. Just like they are pro-war because war requires materiel which makes the rich richer. It's all part of the same plan - put all the money and all the power in the hands of the 1%.
The real honest christian people of America do not judge others...they let the Lord do it on his time...... .... .... .. how does the GOP take the government out of our lives when they are in the bedroom.... ... ... ... making more laws .... idiots.
Once upon a time a large group of people felt a great sense of entitlement to violate the constitution, which is based on immigration.
They were a "powerful majority" and decided they could voted to deny rights to a smaller groups of people that was unable to defend itself because it was a minority.
So they did so.
They invented the term "illegal immigrant" to describe minority immigrants.
So the smaller group of people left after their constitutional rights had been infringed by the descenants of other immigrants from other countries that achieved a majority.
Now children. Listen closely.
There were abandoned houses and banking failures as far as the eye could see.
Millions of people lost their jobs when the dearly departed stopped paying rents, mortgages, and car payments.
Ultimately, the stock market failed and bankruptcies boomed across the country.
When did this happen?
1929. Hoover. Republicans.
That worked so well that as soon as the "powerful majority" regained control of both houses of congress and the presidency, they did the same exact thing again in 2006.
Moral?
You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out of office.
You can't fix stupid
smiling you can if the stupid was smart enough to be less stupid.
under republicans stupid is the new dumb down.
Oh.
By the way.
Same issue for LGBT.
Same issue for elderly social security recipients.
Same issue for unemployed.
Same issue with non-Christian religions.
And so on.
Not sure what is going on, but Newsvine is hacking up my posts by changing the words.
Think a bit. There was a lot of money from around the world seeking a place to invest. Banks needed a place to park that money so they committed fraud on everyone to make a buck. The fraud included fraud against investors and fraud, in many cases, against home buyers. Fuel on a fire.
However, on another side of the equation, there was an oversupply of labor who could build houses and do landscaping cheaply. This cheap labor was the air to the fire. If house could not have been built quite so cheaply, then the banks would not have had as many new McMansions to sell.
This is not an anti-immigrant statement. I'm just asking people to look at the big picture.
BTW, were all the people who thought they could buy anything without saving.
Christie: "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."
What, you mean the people who were fighting and dying just to be able to vote? I'm sure a referendum would have worked out smashingly for them. Except not.
(translation):
"If only the people who were not allowed to vote would have agreed to put the question on the ballot to give the people who didn't want them to vote a chance to voice their opinion. Yeah, that would have worked."
I make this comment as an emphatically hetero female, whose mother fought tirelessly for the rights of everyone during the Equal Rights Amendment debate: That this is even being discussed or debated causes my mind to boggle.
I think that marriage (which really is a financial construct) should be between 2 consenting adults -- regardless of whether their genitalia is different or the same. I could rave on, but at the end of the day, that's really all there is to it.
I think we should vote on whether or not we get to ban Christie from Dunkin Donuts.
These Reps. always put me in a bad mood so here's this for Mr. Christie and his political party and his do-nuts .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXH_12QWWg8
I'm at a total loss as to understand how an overstuffed buffoon like Chris Christie ever got elected to anything, let alone as governor of a large, diverse and populous state. Put civil rights to a vote? Good grief, it would have lost in a landslide in no small measure because the people the law was written to protect usually weren't allowed to vote.
Mayor Booker is absolutely correct. Marriage equality is about the opportunity for individuals to live their lives peacefully in any way they choose. My rights aren't infringed or violated if yours include marrying someone of the same sex. May we all be protected from rabid, right wing Christians and conservatives who seem to think that they "know" what their god is thinking.
Chris Christie is the Governor of New Jersey because he ran againse Jon Corzine. You could have run a wet paper bag full of dog excrement against Corzine and the paper bag would have won in a landslide.
THAT is why we are stuck with the Republican's golden boy in NJ...
Thank you. Well said. May I quote you?
As a devout heterosexual Christian, I can state unequivocally that it does not affect me in the least if two loving individuals of the same sex want to get married. It is entirely their between them (and their God, if they choose to believe in one). For those fanatics who really say that they want to protect the institution of marriage, they should outlaw divorce. Let's see how quickly all those defense of marriage people would vote for that.
Thanks Lauri. Feel free to use the line.
Isn't this a popular Republican tactic? Put a socially conservative referendum on the ballot of a major election year (see: Presidential Election) to draw more socially conservative individuals to the ballot to vote conservatively (see: Republican).
And then never mention it again until the next election. Bush 43 ran for re-election in '04 promising a federal marriage amendment, but after beginning his second term started yammering about spending his political capital on gutting Social Security instead.
Which brings up an odd thing about the current crop of elected Republicans: they're actually making an effort to deliver on some of their age-old culture war issues. They seem to have forgotten that it's all about distracting voters from real issues and motivating the base. You don't actually ever give people the damned carrot. Not only are they risking doing serious harm to the country by delivering on their perpetual agenda, they're risking a dog-catches-car scenario.
What is clear to me is that:
1) being gay - should & does NOT deny you your rights as a citizen of this nation with all the rights and benefits that every other American (white/male/hetero) enjoys!
2) being gay did NOT just start at the beginning of the 21st century!!
3) being gay is NOT a disease that you catch or give to others!!
4) being gay if you are NOT is NOT your business (unless it's your family member & even then it's NOT for you to judge)!!!
5) being gay and being allowed to f--k up like heterosexuals and be miserable in marriage should be your choice - and it's NONE of MY BUSINESS!!!
Well done, Zora!!!! I agree with you 100%. Bless you for writing the truth!
As a New Jersey voter who DID NOT vote for Christie, I still might have expected better from him. He showed a glimmer of courage when he spoke out in defense of his appointment of a Muslim judge, and called some tea-party extremists "crazies." Where is that courage now? Oh, I know, he wants to run for President in four years, and he needs those "crazies" to vote for him.
Equality is equality is equality. Thank you, Mayor Booker.
Booker is correct that civil rights should not be the subject of a referendum. I would agree with BigJayNJ that the referendum is designed to bring out conservative voters. But if it is forced as a referendum, then the referendum should not be set for this November, but rather another date for state or local elections or primaries or even a special election if it is allowed. This is a state issue and should not become entangled with federal elections.
Gee, fat thug Christie would have preferred a referendum for deciding to revolt against King George, too. Civil Rights on a referendum? Who would have voted? I doubt the people that it was representing would have had the chance. It's a shame that history and current events is being rewritten or just plain ignored to serve the politics of the day.
Considering Christie is thought of as a actual plausible Presidential candidate (deadlocked convention!).. this is even dumber than "Maybe I'll have tacos for dinner tonight."
LOL his job creation has been a busted.
80 million to Goya foods to come to New Jersey. 9 jobs created.
888888 dollars per employee, LOL
Bzzzzzzzzzzz Bzzzzzzzz Bzz Bzz Watching all this activity going on, I am amazed at how a Fly on crap is more useful than these Republicans.
I have a very good idea which "people" he's talking about. I have ancestors on both sides of the
War of Northern AggressionWar Between the StatesAmerican Civil War, and I wouldn't dare to speak for Ta Nehisi Coates on this.But fortunately, he is very good at speaking for himself. Go, read.
And of course the vote would have to be for straight white males of faith.
Thomas Paine said it best.
“It has been thought,” he wrote in The Rights of Man in 1791, “…that government is a compact between those who govern and those who are governed; but this cannot be true, because it is putting the effect before the cause; for as man must have existed before governments existed, there necessarily was a time when governments did not exist, and consequently there could originally exist no governors to form such a compact with. The fact therefore must be, that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.”
from-http://www.thomhartmann.com/articles/2001/12/restore-democracy-first-abolish-corporate-personhood
I got an idea that will put this whole liberal nonsense behind us:
Put a referendum on whether or not straight people should be allowed to marry
Put a referendum on whether or not people of two different races should be allowed to marry
Put a referendum on whether or not people of two different nationalities (meaning where they have citizenship) should be allowed to marry
Put a referendum on whether or not people of different incomes should be able to marry
Put a referendum on whether or not people of different career types should be able to marry
Put a referendum on whether or not mentally ill people should be able to get married
Put a referendum on whether or not people receiving government benefits of any kind should be able to get married
Put a referendum on whether senior citizens should be able to get married
I mean technically speaking on 2 of those issues was ever voted on and if we need to see the will of the people exercised to know what's ethical then we need to have a vote on all these issues to establish them, no?
PS- That banging sound you heard while reading this comment was the sound of my forehead hitting my desk -.-
Nicely said.
Every time I see the word "liberal" I think of this. It is worth repeating.
"...if by a liberal they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, their civil liberties... if that is what they mean by a "liberal" then I am proud to be a liberal."
~ John F. Kennedy
I'm no JFK but I agree totally
Love Cory Booker, love his statement on marriage equality.
I have my differences with Gov Christie, but I never thought I would call him a "coward". But, this is ridiculous. "the Philadelphia Inquirer quotes Governor Christie as saying, '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.'" ?!? UM, NO, actually, let's think about this for a moment. How do you think that voter referendum would have gone down, Gov? Maybe a some voter intimidation? Maybe a few riots? Maybe people dying anyway, I won't feign to have an idea how many, over the struggle? Maybe traumatic feelings of SHAME and DISGUST as members of the minority class watch people take a VOTE on whether they are as human as everyone else? I appreciate Mayor Booker's visceral level of abhorrence to this idea. Gov Christie has a lot to learn from the Mayor on the subject of humanity and morality.
"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." !!!???
Did Gov. Christie really say that? Was he trying to suggest that, if the provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were put on the ballots in the southern states, they would have been passed by the voters!!? That's as crazy as Michelle Bachman's theory that the framers of the constitution put the 3/5 rule in Article 1 because they wanted to ensure that someday slavery would be abolished. She thought the slaves were allowed to vote. But, there are still people who think she would make a great president. Just like Christie.
If I were feeling at all generous towards Christie, I could suppose that maybe his intent was to say that people would have preferred voting as an alternative to violence if it had been an option. But I'm not feeling generous. The man is a bully, and it wouldn't surprise me at all were I to learn that he relishes the idea of making people beg for their inherent, inalienable rights from the majority community he devoutly believes is just as bigoted as he is.
There are interesting layers in the Maine story beyond that the law was overturned by a 53-47 margin. I proudly state that I was a part of that 47%, and I signed the petition this time around.
NOM is still violating Maine law by not disclosing donors, and every now and then a blurb will pop up in the papers about that court case. I'm sure we'll see some more of this case in the future now that Equality Maine is going by route of citizen's initiative.
Also, there is a documentary out there about this campaign, and on camera they've got the guy who was the head of the opposition to same-sex marriage talking about their ads and that they knew they were deliberately deceptive and just scare tactics. They were ads about how if we allowed the law to stand, small children would learn about same-sex marriage in school, and we don't want the schools putting such ideas in children's heads, etc. I hated those ads, and now I hate them even more given what I know now. So, the supporters already have a ready made campaign ad, from the mouths of the opposition. :)