Chris Christie is publicly opposed to same-sex marriage and indeed, to his credit, he fulfilled a campaign promise by vetoing a gay-marriage bill. But he raised eyebrows and doubts by appointing to the New Jersey Supreme Court an openly gay judge who has publicly pushed for gay marriage.
Now a New Jersey judge has reinstated a gay couple’s claim that New Jersey’s marriage laws violate the federal Constitution — in part, she said, because the defense of the marriage law offered by Christie’s attorney general, Jeffrey Chiesa, was so weak: “tradition.”
Chiesa is not some rogue Republican; he was Christie’s chief counsel for several years before the governor made him AG. It raises eyebrows, because it’s frankly what Obama’s attorney general did for years — pretend to defend the law, by offering only a token defense. Odd to see this happening now with a Republican governor beloved by Ann Coulter
One interesting thing about same-sex marriage has been that a lot of otherwise mainstream Republicans (including many here) have been sympathetic, while a significant number of longtime Democrats - particularly inner-city blacks and Hispanics -are adamantly against. I suspect it is a class thing: the same-sex marriage movement is firmly rooted in the affluent white community, where there are significant numbers of Republicans (even if not a majority), while poor communities are more concerned with deterioration of traditional marriage and its impact on child-rearing.
Like immigration, it is an issue where the fault-lines do not run strictly between the Democratic and Republican Parties; in general, the poverty and working classes are on one side of the issue, while the leadership and the affluent classes are on the other side.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs a former Christie fan, I don't know why Christie has decided to sabotage his chances for national office as a Republican, but he has done just that with the nomination of this judge. All Christie even knew about Harris was that he was "diverse." The nomination was completely incompetent, regardless of Christie's views about redefinition of marriage. I can't think of a more inexplicable political act in recent times. As far as national office is concerned, Christie is done unless he wants to switch parties. If I were the dems, I wouldn't have him.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgreed, except the more we learn about Chris Christie the more I'm inclined to think that he knew a lot more about Harris than that he was "diverse." Perhaps Christie knew the best path to redefining marriage in the state would be through the courts, and perhaps he nominated Harris specifically to achieve that end. In other words, he's following Obama's lead on this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt just doesn't add up to me. Christie expended a lot of capital a year or two ago in allowing the position of a liberal African-American jurist to lapse, and he replaced that judge with a conservative. And he is now pushing for a state-wide referendum on marriage. I really can't figure it out. Regardless, unless he withdraws the nomination and comes up with one heck of an explanation, I have no more use for him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGovernor Christie would make a better President than President Obama and anyone at all likely to win the Democratic nomination for President in 2016, 2020, 2024 etc. Don't let the fantasy of a perfect candidate be the enemy of a good Governor and a potentially good President.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNominating originalist judges is pretty basic. If he can't manage to do that one thing, nothing more needs to be said.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Take the good with the bad" is a pretty basic saying that we should all understand. I don't agree with what seems like his stance on gay marriage. But I'm not so foolish to believe that if we could scale back the welfare entitlement state that all things would be horrible because we went backwards in terms of judges.
Bush led to an expansion in the state and nominated originalist judges. He was good in one area and really bad in another. His really bad decisions as it relates to the management and intrusiveness of the federal government lead to Obama having the carte blanche he is having now.
I would see Christie as the inverse of Bush. He may not give us exactly what we socially want in terms of judges, but he would give us what we want in terms of the government's spending habits.
Truth be told, social conservatives must win hearts and minds first. It would be a hollow victory if we merely managed to enact "what we want" by government fiat due to getting enough votes an election cycle or two, only to have our country torn a part because 50% of sociey has not experienced a might change in heart necessary to appreciate and support those changes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can't agree. What would be a hollow victory would be to elect people who pass legislation we like, only to have that legislation overturned by tiny groups of appointed tyrants.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen you do things like this, you're not a good governor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, this means he is not as good a governor as he could be. It may mean that he is not a great governor. But, it certainly does not mean that he is a bad governor or, more importantly, that he is a worse governor than Jon Corzine or other persons who could be governor. In addition, while this probably means that he would be a worse President than John Engler, it most certainly does not mean that he would make a worse President than many of the actual options, both Republican and Democrat, who will be available in 2016, 2020 or 2024,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe may be the best New Jersey can do. Obviously, Corzine would also appoint bad judges. And Christie might "make a worse President than many of the actual options," but that is saying nothing. With a divided Court, Roe v. Wade hanging by a thread, and two or more Justices about to age out, we are not going to nominate anyone for President who does not have a firm adherence to originalism. That is not going to happen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCTL is right in that I would totally vote for Christie over Obama. However, the point is that Christie is not as conservative as some think and that is exactly why we should not have a late entry at this point. Primaries are good for discovering who the candidates are, all their strengths and weaknesses. Allowing someone in at this point would be disastrous.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseChristie's stock is sinking lower and lower by the day.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBeing anti- gay marriage now is like being pro-slavery a century ago. You wish it were so, but you cant help feeling, deep down, that you are on the wrong side of history.
Lets face reality- most well off gay couples can provide a better, more stable and loving up bring for children than the average dysfunctional traditional man/woman family unit. To be anti-gay marriage is to be anti-family values.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI realize you're trying to sound reasonable, but your statement includes the kind of hyperbole that appears inseparable from most activist language — which, consequently, undermines the cause.
Nobody has a right to be wed. Marriage is a legal status codified by law. Denying a license according to the letter (the applicants aren't of the opposite sex) isn't unequal treatment (i.e., a homosexual man barred from marrying a woman). That's not even miscegenation, let alone slavery!
The matter should be as straightforward as arguing for, then adding a codification for like sexes. But it isn't. Proponents conflate legal and civil rights, committing acts of judicial and executive fiat. Or they accuse opponents of bigotry. Or they attack straw men of celebrities' marital frivolity, as if DUIs obviated driver's licenses. And they frequently hold rallies that mock not only traditional mores but decency itself, with crude, intentionally offensive displays.
Who cares about the merits of the cause? There's no honor in its advancement.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI know you're trying to sound reasonable, but in the context of what marriage is (please don't redefine for the purpose of same-sex marriage discussions, ok?), expecting a gay man to either marry a woman or just don't get married is highly unreasonable. If marriage is important to you, then it's important to anyone else, even a gay person. The US Supreme Court has frequently ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. Considering what marriage is, and what it means to participants, it's hard to imagine that a fundamental right can be reserved for one group, and denied to another.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor the record, I agree with you. Also for the record, no one else here will. Our party seeks ever more opportunities to exclude voters. Now, you must be white, hetero, no-taxes-under-any-circumstances, religious male to have any hope of avoidning the RINO label.
And to think that we all used to hate the idea of calling Clarence Thomas an "uncle Tom." Now it is perfectly acceptable to do the same with regard to fellow Republicans. Thank goodness Reagan is not alive to see us now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExpat, some facts would help you out. One, every study on the subject shows that homosexuals do not often form stable families. It is not part of the lifestyle, which is far more about what we could call "free love". Monogamy is an outdated tradition of the straights, which is exactly why in those countries and U.S. states where same-sex marriage is allowed, there aren't many takers. Basically you're just spouting your opinion without any basis in reality to back it up. This is a common problem that liberals have.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou can say what I feel "deep down" with no evidence but your wishful thinking and fanciful imagination, but I can say you are full of baloney about how I feel "deep down" with perfect knowledge. And that's not even counting the rest of your baloney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, for all that gay marriage advocates rely so heavily on comparisons to interracial marriage, they're not so much similar as mirror opposites.
Interracial marriage was about creating artificial boundaries where none existed. Gay marriage is about pretending there are no boundaries where real boundaries exist.
In the case of interracial marriage, opposing it meant denial of nature and reality. In the case of gay marriage, it is those in favor of it that necessarily must deny nature and reality.
Opposing interracial marriage meant hurting and delegitimizing children. Gay marriage is exactly the inverse: it is those who support gay marriage who hurt and delegitimize children, because gay marriage rests on the fiction that children "don't mind" having a father and a stepfather instead of having their own real parents (both of them) raising them.
One movement came at the start of a civil rights dialogue, when having a "privileged identity" meant being a cultural elite, and being "oppressed" meant being hit with fire hoses. The other movement is coming at the end of the same cycle, and being "privileged" is a taunt - used to mock those who complain about losing rights that are supposed to be basic (like freedom of speech, association, or religious belief) while those with "oppressed" identities are the ones parading down the street (like Orangeman trying to intimidate the Catholics at the height of the Troubles in Belfast), and punishing anyone who refuses to pay them homage.
All children have the right to a relationship with their own real biological family. That right should only be severed in cases where doing so is best for the child. That right there is the #1 reason why interracial families should be recognized - and gay "families" should not.
The situation is not so much similar as exactly opposite. Like a mirror.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse