Political Cowardice: Chris Christie Edition

So, big and brave Chris Christie, who trumpets his independence, mocks "culture warriors", is proud of his appointments of openly gay people to high office, and believes "same-sex couples deserve the same benefits enjoyed by married couples," vetoed a gay marriage bill.

I don't get it. Does anyone really believe Chris Christie gives a flying fuck about gay marriage?

I've criticized Barack Obama for not supporting gay marriage, but he never had a bill placed on his desk.

Christie was given the opportunity, and punted.

Why? Is a second term, VP consideration, and/or 2016 viability that important to him?

He's never going to be VP or President. He was given a chance to do something historic.

It's pure political cowardice. And, it's even more disappointing when it's someone like Christie, who pretends to be immune to this sort of thing.

 

I don't know. Seems like easy way out would have been to sign the bill. In this day and age probably took more guts not to sign.

What's wrong with putting it to a vote?

 

And YF, he waited until taking out the trash time to do it.

Boom, you don't put civil rights to votes.

 

Should we put the First Amendment up for a vote?

 

Lots of Catholics in NJ (Wikipedia says 37%), but while the Church is officially against gay marriage, I'm not sure the voters of NJ are.

It's a fairly liberal, Northeastern state. The trend on this issue is for acceptance of gay marriage. I'm not even sure he'd lose that many votes.

But, it's the cowardice that offends me. I don't even care where you stand on this issue. Christie could do this. But, he put political viability ahead of principle.

 

I'm on your side, but this doesn't make sense.

The First Amendment is in the constitution. There can be no debate about whether it should be put up to a vote.

 

How is that the same?

Total cowardice by Christie, by the way, but I suppose he thinks that the political calculus in a GOP primary favors this maneuver. A lot of men and women are going to end up on the wrong side of history on this issue. As many have noted, that very notion is probably keeping Anthony Kennedy up at night these days.

Christie reminds me of Mitch Daniels, who also turned culture warrior when flirting with a presidential run.

 

I wondered this, too. I'm assuming that POO - who I believe is a lawyer, if I remember correctly - thinks that the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to same-sex marriage.

 

A lot of legal experts think the exclusion clause does just that.

 

No one serious can argue that a state allowing gay marriage is unconstitutional. On the other hand, the case that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional builds every day. By vetoing a bill that would have affirmatively sanctioned gay marriage and quashed any serious debate on the issue, Christie has decided it ought to be up for a vote. So, yes, there's a good case that he has put a constitutional right up for a vote.

It would take me about 90 seconds to draft a bill that would clearly violate the First Amendment while at the same time garnering broad popular support. Would Christie put that up for a vote as well?

 

For sure. The group includes two legal experts - also known as judges - on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. But until it goes to the Supreme Court, we're not sure.

 

Well, the answer is probably yes. Congress has done it many times, most recently in statutes trying to target child pornography.

As far as gay marriage goes, I think it's a pretty tenuous comparison to the First Amendment until either the Supreme Court rules on it or there is a consensus among the Courts of Appeals. Right now, it's a very borderline case, as you know, with the Ninth Circuit subjecting the ban to rational basis review, a very low bar for the state to clear if it can find anything resembling a rational basis for the ban.