There’s a brouhaha brewing in New Jersey over Gov. Chris Christie’s nomination to the New Jersey Supreme Court of Bruce Harris. Turns out Harris wrote a letter in 2009 supporting gay marriage — and equating support for our marriage tradition with slavery.
Bruce Harris wrote this in a 2009 e-mail to State Senator Joe Pennacchio:
When I hear someone say that they believe marriage is only between a man and a woman because that’s the way it’s always been, I think of the many “traditions” that deprived people of their civil rights for centuries: prohibitions on interracial marriage, slavery, (which is even provided for in the Bible), segregation, the subservience of women, to name just a few of these “traditions.”
I hope that you consider my request that you re-evaluate your position and, if after viewing the videos, reading Governor Whitman’s letter and thinking again about this issue of civil rights you still oppose same-sex marriage on grounds other than religion I would appreciate it if you you’d explain your position to me. And, if the basis of your opposition is religious, then I suggest that you do what the US Constitution mandates — and that is to maintain a separation between the state and religion.
When the assemblyman charged with vetting judicial nominees was sent a copy of this intemperate email, he responded: “Yikes.”
This is a potentially huge red flag for those who see Christie as the future of the conservative movement. Can he be trusted to care enough to appoint judicial conservatives? Will Governor Christie stand by this kind of judicial appointment, or will he admit that mistakes were made in the vetting process and withdraw the nomination?
Those who see Christie as the future of the conservative movement need new glasses.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThose who see Christie as the future of the conservative movement need new glasses.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"This is a potentially huge red flag for those who see Christie as the future of the conservative movement. "
Well, considering that social conservatives are marching in near lockstep behind a thrice-married serial philanderer, it's very difficult to make a compelling case about the sanctity of "traditional marriage".
If Newt Gingrich is the future of the conservative movement, then how important is marriage to these same conservatives?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe pharisees never minded hypocrisy in their ranks as long as they could crucify a humble, virtuous man who was in the way of their power.
You could spin that against Romney or Gingrich. But the key difference, is Christie has always campaigned on fiscal issues. Not on moral issues. Newt actually talks about morality and panders to the morality wings of the party. Christie is not the hypocrite here...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, Christie campaigned as a supporter of traditional marriage and promised to veto any bill that would redefine marriage. But the more fundamental problem with what he has done here isn't his position on "moral issues"; it's a question of basic competence and philosophy. He didn't even vet these judges, one of whom now appears not to understand constitutional construction. This is shameful.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou are right with respect to the social conservatives who do support Gingrich, although I think most of those are protest votes and won't pan out for Gingrich in the end. In any case, it is hardly the case that social conservatives "are marching in near lockstep."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseScott, the answer is: Not very. Another reason I'm a Santorum supporter. Gingrich's infidelities are not past since but part of a pattern of grandiosity and self-importance--some of which has allowed him to accomplish good things--but which leads him to self-destruct visibly and repeatedly. I do not understand who trusts him to be President at this point.
But obviously a bunch of conservatives disagree with me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust like Mitt Romney - who appointed Democrats to the state bench 75% of the time when he was governor of Massachusetts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis should put an end to the delusion that if only Christie had gotten in, we would be seeing a very different GOP race.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOnly a huge red flag if you think the future of conservatism has anything at all to do with gay marriage, which I suppose you do if you're a social con and don't if you're not. I'm sure the republican party on balance is anti-gay marriage, but I would bet they are much more divided as to whether it is an important issue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're not a conservative unless social issues are part of your stable of ideas. You can be fiscally right wing, but not conservative. Read Russell Kirk and Edmund Burke. Hell, read Bill Buckley for that matter. Abandoning social standards is about as un-conservative a position to take as possible.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's a fair point. One could probably argue that the libertarian/small government wing of the Republican party is not, in fact, "Conservative," even though generally referred to as fiscal cons rather than social cons. Although, in any case the issue to us is not about "abandoning social standards" rather it's about those who want to pass constitutional amendments proscribing what those standards should be.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm sure Ann Coulter will be along shortly to insist that this is further proof of how Chris Christie is the only hope for our country. You just have to close your eyes and believe.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, he doesn't equate traditional marriage with slavery. He's making a point that adherence to tradition - any tradition - in and of itself is not an iron-clad argument against revisiting and expanding certain notions.
A better example: There was a tradition in this country for years that women were not deserving of the vote. And there were many 'conservatives' at the time who fought tooth and nail against them having it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusefrank1914 is right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, he is right. But who would ever argue that "adherence to tradition - any tradition - in and of itself is . . . an iron-clad argument against revisiting and expanding certain notions"? I venture to guess nobody in the world.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseReally? So what, precisely, are anti-marriage activists arguing when they say things along the lines of "marriage has always been between one man and woman!" If that isn't an appeal to tradition I don't know what is. Now certainly the more intelligent anti-marriage activists don't make this their central argument, but they still use it. And frankly I haven't found any of their other arguments to be any more cogent than their appeal to tradition has been.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou need to reread Frank1914’s post. Note the "in and of itself” and the “iron-clad argument.” Yet of course tradition should be a consideration.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKeep your logic and critical-reading out of this gay marriage thread. It's not welcome here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExactly. Pointing to a tradition is never a sufficient argument for a particular policy, and that's partially what the nominee is alluding to here. That doesn't mean that all such traditions are equally bad.
I doubt this is a huge red flag for anyone other than Maggie Gallagher and her Marriage Monomaniacs. By the by, has Maggie ever bothered providing *any* evidence that straight marriages are somehow threatened by the increasing number of gay marriages in the country? My marriage remains unthreatened, somehow, though I'd be happy for Gallagher to point out what I'm missing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse