Groups Opposing Same-Sex Marriage Renew Call For Voter Referendum
A new coalition opposed to same-sex marriage said today its members will aggressively fight legislative efforts to override Gov. Chris Christie’s veto of gay marriage, calling instead for a voter referendum.
“We believe strongly, with Gov. Christie, that this issue should be decided by the people,” Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, said at a Statehouse press conference today. “Same-sex marriage is not about civil rights. It’s about special rights for people who do not want to marry someone of the opposite sex.”
The New Jersey Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage includes numerous organizations that support traditional marriage, among them the Family Policy Council, the state Catholic Conference, New Jersey Family First and the state council of the Knights of Columbus.
Members of the groups admitted they were out-funded by organizations supporting gay marriage, but said they believe a majority of New Jerseyans agree with them. They said they were confident Democratic leaders in the Legislature would fail to find enough votes to override the governor. And they also rejected claims that they had “Neanderthal” mentalities or are stuck in the “dark ages.”
The renewed push comes less than a week after a state Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson ruled that same-sex couples in New Jersey were being denied their equal rights and must be allowed to marry, setting an Oct. 21 starting date.
The Christie administration said on Monday it would appeal the ruling directly to the state Supreme Court to prevent the marriages, bypassing the appellate courts, which is the normal procedure. It has asked Jacbobson to put same-sex marriages on hold while it appeals.
Representatives from the groups said the court should not decide on an issue that, in their view, “redefines” marriage and threatens religion.
Activist John Tomicki called Jacobson’s decision “56 pages of moral relativism which now is going to supposedly set the policy for the state of New Jersey.”
“It would completely strike at the heart of religion and religious freedom,” Tomicki said of allowing same-sex marriage.
Jim White, who was representing the state council of the Knights of Columbus, said same-sex marriage would open the gates to arguments for polygamy, polyandry, group marriage and marriage between siblings.
“Marriage under the present definition has served humanity well for millennia, and we change the definition at our own peril,” White said. “Finally, keep in mind that defending marriage is not bigotry, and change is not necessarily progress.”
Gay rights groups have argued that civil unions, currently allowed in New Jersey, do not provide same-sex couples rights equal to those afforded married couples. Many do not want a voter referendum because they say it not an issue of public opinion but rather civil rights. –Nj
A new coalition opposed to same-sex marriage said today its members will aggressively fight legislative efforts to override Gov. Chris Christie’s veto of gay marriage, calling instead for a voter referendum.
“We believe strongly, with Gov. Christie, that this issue should be decided by the people,” Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, said at a Statehouse press conference today. “Same-sex marriage is not about civil rights. It’s about special rights for people who do not want to marry someone of the opposite sex.”
The New Jersey Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage includes numerous organizations that support traditional marriage, among them the Family Policy Council, the state Catholic Conference, New Jersey Family First and the state council of the Knights of Columbus.
Members of the groups admitted they were out-funded by organizations supporting gay marriage, but said they believe a majority of New Jerseyans agree with them. They said they were confident Democratic leaders in the Legislature would fail to find enough votes to override the governor. And they also rejected claims that they had “Neanderthal” mentalities or are stuck in the “dark ages.”
The renewed push comes less than a week after a state Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson ruled that same-sex couples in New Jersey were being denied their equal rights and must be allowed to marry, setting an Oct. 21 starting date.
The Christie administration said on Monday it would appeal the ruling directly to the state Supreme Court to prevent the marriages, bypassing the appellate courts, which is the normal procedure. It has asked Jacbobson to put same-sex marriages on hold while it appeals.
Representatives from the groups said the court should not decide on an issue that, in their view, “redefines” marriage and threatens religion.
Activist John Tomicki called Jacobson’s decision “56 pages of moral relativism which now is going to supposedly set the policy for the state of New Jersey.”
“It would completely strike at the heart of religion and religious freedom,” Tomicki said of allowing same-sex marriage.
Jim White, who was representing the state council of the Knights of Columbus, said same-sex marriage would open the gates to arguments for polygamy, polyandry, group marriage and marriage between siblings.
“Marriage under the present definition has served humanity well for millennia, and we change the definition at our own peril,” White said. “Finally, keep in mind that defending marriage is not bigotry, and change is not necessarily progress.”
Gay rights groups have argued that civil unions, currently allowed in New Jersey, do not provide same-sex couples rights equal to those afforded married couples. Many do not want a voter referendum because they say it not an issue of public opinion but rather civil rights. –Nj
>>>>*<<<<
Take Your Hands Off The N.J. Constitution
The Legislature’s effort to insert new minimum-wage rules into the New Jersey Constitution is but the latest attempt to corrupt the document, from fundamental law to a collection of special-interest policies. It’s the Democratic majority’s petulant response to Gov. Chris Christie’s conditional veto of a bill to raise the minimum wage, followed by regular cost-of-living increases.
We deserve better. The state constitution shouldn’t be used as an end run when traditional lawmaking fails.
The delegates who wrote New Jersey’s constitution in 1947 had opportunities to pad the document with language promoting their own pet causes and ideas. Other states had done so. New York’s 1938 constitution, for example, set length and width restrictions for ski trails on Whiteface Mountain. The provision is still there — showing how tough it is to remove anything from a state constitution once added.
With some exceptions, New Jersey’s 1947 delegates had the guts and self-discipline to avoid the same pitfall. They knew what a constitution should be: a framework for government and politics in New Jersey. They laid out the basic structure, powers, processes of and restrictions on our state government, and articulated the rights and privileges of the citizenry. Their handiwork has served us well.
Unfortunately, over the years, the commitment to what a constitution should be has eroded. Special interests, when frustrated by the Legislature or the governor, now try to push their causes by amending our constitution. Because initiative and referendum — the ability of voters, as well as legislators, to enact new laws — isn’t available in New Jersey, the only alternative is asking the public to approve a constitutional amendment.
That shouldn’t excuse making the constitution a last-chance substitute for the legislative process.
Besides compromising the very nature of the document, special-interest preferences create other problems. One is verbosity. Wary of future change, proponents of the amendment approach go into painstaking detail about what they want in the way of public policy. As a result, sections of our state constitution are a wordy, barely understandable mishmash.
Take hazardous-waste policy: First addressed through the constitution in 1999, additional amendments in 2003, 2005 and 2006 have produced a confusing melange that is longer than our Bill of Rights. Must we regulate underground tank inspection in the constitution?
Another problem is inelasticity. By inserting timelines, dollar amounts and similar details into the constitution, public policy is frozen by the language itself. Note the provisions dealing with property taxes for veterans and senior citizens. Given the size of today’s property tax bills — highest in the nation — how much relief do veterans and seniors get from a constitutionally fixed $250 deduction? The deduction is a constitutional mandate; any change requires another new amendment.
A third problem is that old bugaboo: unintended consequences. When one interest group gets its policy wishes enshrined in the constitution, aren’t other groups encouraged to do likewise? Check the avalanche of bills tossed into the legislative hopper every session. To date, it contains almost 200 proposed constitutional amendments.
Unless there is substantial media attention, a proposed constitutional amendment can slip by with little more than the support of its sponsoring groups. (Note that the ballot’s "yes/no" box is typically accompanied by a sparse, "feel-good" explanation.) Will this be the case on Nov. 5? With gubernatorial and legislative races crowding the news — and the ballot — how many voters spend time on referendum questions?
Even proponents of a minimum-wage increase should realize what they’re doing by endorsing the constitutional amendment approach. They are putting into our state Bill of Rights — and thus setting policy for the foreseeable future — a minimum wage fixed, except for cost-of living adjustments, at $8.25 per hour. Why satisfy the short term and put a straightjacket on the future? -Nj
The Legislature’s effort to insert new minimum-wage rules into the New Jersey Constitution is but the latest attempt to corrupt the document, from fundamental law to a collection of special-interest policies. It’s the Democratic majority’s petulant response to Gov. Chris Christie’s conditional veto of a bill to raise the minimum wage, followed by regular cost-of-living increases.
We deserve better. The state constitution shouldn’t be used as an end run when traditional lawmaking fails.
The delegates who wrote New Jersey’s constitution in 1947 had opportunities to pad the document with language promoting their own pet causes and ideas. Other states had done so. New York’s 1938 constitution, for example, set length and width restrictions for ski trails on Whiteface Mountain. The provision is still there — showing how tough it is to remove anything from a state constitution once added.
With some exceptions, New Jersey’s 1947 delegates had the guts and self-discipline to avoid the same pitfall. They knew what a constitution should be: a framework for government and politics in New Jersey. They laid out the basic structure, powers, processes of and restrictions on our state government, and articulated the rights and privileges of the citizenry. Their handiwork has served us well.
Unfortunately, over the years, the commitment to what a constitution should be has eroded. Special interests, when frustrated by the Legislature or the governor, now try to push their causes by amending our constitution. Because initiative and referendum — the ability of voters, as well as legislators, to enact new laws — isn’t available in New Jersey, the only alternative is asking the public to approve a constitutional amendment.
That shouldn’t excuse making the constitution a last-chance substitute for the legislative process.
Besides compromising the very nature of the document, special-interest preferences create other problems. One is verbosity. Wary of future change, proponents of the amendment approach go into painstaking detail about what they want in the way of public policy. As a result, sections of our state constitution are a wordy, barely understandable mishmash.
Take hazardous-waste policy: First addressed through the constitution in 1999, additional amendments in 2003, 2005 and 2006 have produced a confusing melange that is longer than our Bill of Rights. Must we regulate underground tank inspection in the constitution?
Another problem is inelasticity. By inserting timelines, dollar amounts and similar details into the constitution, public policy is frozen by the language itself. Note the provisions dealing with property taxes for veterans and senior citizens. Given the size of today’s property tax bills — highest in the nation — how much relief do veterans and seniors get from a constitutionally fixed $250 deduction? The deduction is a constitutional mandate; any change requires another new amendment.
A third problem is that old bugaboo: unintended consequences. When one interest group gets its policy wishes enshrined in the constitution, aren’t other groups encouraged to do likewise? Check the avalanche of bills tossed into the legislative hopper every session. To date, it contains almost 200 proposed constitutional amendments.
Unless there is substantial media attention, a proposed constitutional amendment can slip by with little more than the support of its sponsoring groups. (Note that the ballot’s "yes/no" box is typically accompanied by a sparse, "feel-good" explanation.) Will this be the case on Nov. 5? With gubernatorial and legislative races crowding the news — and the ballot — how many voters spend time on referendum questions?
Even proponents of a minimum-wage increase should realize what they’re doing by endorsing the constitutional amendment approach. They are putting into our state Bill of Rights — and thus setting policy for the foreseeable future — a minimum wage fixed, except for cost-of living adjustments, at $8.25 per hour. Why satisfy the short term and put a straightjacket on the future? -Nj
>>>>*<<<<
Gov. Christie: Implementing Same-Sex Marriage Now Will Cause ‘Irreparable Harm’ To New Jersey
Chris Christie, as he promised, has filed an appeal to last week’s NJ Superior Court decision on same-sex marriage. The Court clearly ruled that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry. The Court added that denying marriage to same-sex couples is an attack on their equality.
The Court ruled that “same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in order to obtain equal protection of the law under the New Jersey Constitution.”
It doesn’t get much clearer than that.
LOOK: Fighting Court Ruling, Chris Christie Says Marriage Should Be On The Ballot
The Court’s ruling was scheduled to go into effect October 21, but the New Jersey Governor now is demanding the Court stay that ruling and delay that date to allow him time to appeal.
Why?
“If the court single-handedly, without guiding precedent and without input from the [NJ] Supreme Court, reverses this course and overrides the intent of the democratically elected branch, the state will suffer irreparable harm,” the motion from Christie’s acting Attorney General claims.
Let’s unpack the sheer offensive arrogance and, frankly, stupidity of that statement.
First, “the state will suffer irreparable harm”? No, it will not, as Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and California — all states where marriage equality was instituted by the judicial branch — have not suffered “irreparable harm.”
Not to mention, the ones who are suffering “irreparable harm,” as the Court ruled, are New Jersey’s same-sex couples. Tax-paying, law abiding, loving and responsible same-sex couples.
So the state’s argument is ludicrous on its face.
Second, “If the court single-handedly, without guiding precedent…” There is “guiding precedent.” The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against the federal marriage ban of DOMA. Further, the New Jersey Courts for years have demanded the state implement equality in marriage, and ultimately if the Superior Court’s ruling does not take effect October 21, the NJ Superior Court will rule in favor of same-sex marriage. Period.
Third, “overrides the intent of the democratically elected branch.”
Really?
The “democratically elected branch” — the people’s branch, both chambers of the New Jersey state legislature — passed marriage equality and sent it to Governor Chris Christie, who “single-handedly” vetoed and overrode “the intent of the democratically elected branch.”
I’m not an attorney, but I can read and this motion from AG Hoffman is an embarrassment. It just makes clear that Christie is fighting a losing battle, he has nothing of substance to offer as to why New Jersey’s tax-paying same-sex couples are being denied their equal rights, and it’s, yes again, offensive.
Troy Stevenson, Executive Director of Garden State Equality told The New Civil Rights Movement via an email conversation that he is “offended.”
“I believe that the state will be hard pressed to prove that loving and committed couples getting married will do irreparable harm to the state of New Jersey. And more importantly, it will be a hard sell to prove they have any likelihood of success in an appeal. I am actually offended that the state would attempt to claim that the court is trying to override the intent of the democratically elected legislature, when that very legislature passed the freedom to marry through both houses of the legislature just last year.”
Stevenson has promised to bring marriage equality to New Jersey “before the end of this year.”
Meanwhile, it’s clear the Governor is playing politics — with the lives of New Jersey’s same-sex families and couples.
The election for governor of New Jersey is just one month away.
The really sad part: if Christie “caved” and signed the marriage equality bill he vetoed, he would still win re-election. 64 percent of New Jersey voters support same-sex marriage. He’s a Republican in a Democratic state.
So why is he blocking equality?
Chris Christie wants to run for President, and he thinks he can’t win — at least the GOP primary — as a Republican if he is seen as having allowed equality for gay people.
That, even more than his AG’s argument, is what’s really offensive.
-New Civil Rights Movement
Chris Christie, as he promised, has filed an appeal to last week’s NJ Superior Court decision on same-sex marriage. The Court clearly ruled that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry. The Court added that denying marriage to same-sex couples is an attack on their equality.
The Court ruled that “same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in order to obtain equal protection of the law under the New Jersey Constitution.”
It doesn’t get much clearer than that.
LOOK: Fighting Court Ruling, Chris Christie Says Marriage Should Be On The Ballot
The Court’s ruling was scheduled to go into effect October 21, but the New Jersey Governor now is demanding the Court stay that ruling and delay that date to allow him time to appeal.
Why?
“If the court single-handedly, without guiding precedent and without input from the [NJ] Supreme Court, reverses this course and overrides the intent of the democratically elected branch, the state will suffer irreparable harm,” the motion from Christie’s acting Attorney General claims.
Let’s unpack the sheer offensive arrogance and, frankly, stupidity of that statement.
First, “the state will suffer irreparable harm”? No, it will not, as Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and California — all states where marriage equality was instituted by the judicial branch — have not suffered “irreparable harm.”
Not to mention, the ones who are suffering “irreparable harm,” as the Court ruled, are New Jersey’s same-sex couples. Tax-paying, law abiding, loving and responsible same-sex couples.
So the state’s argument is ludicrous on its face.
Second, “If the court single-handedly, without guiding precedent…” There is “guiding precedent.” The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against the federal marriage ban of DOMA. Further, the New Jersey Courts for years have demanded the state implement equality in marriage, and ultimately if the Superior Court’s ruling does not take effect October 21, the NJ Superior Court will rule in favor of same-sex marriage. Period.
Third, “overrides the intent of the democratically elected branch.”
Really?
The “democratically elected branch” — the people’s branch, both chambers of the New Jersey state legislature — passed marriage equality and sent it to Governor Chris Christie, who “single-handedly” vetoed and overrode “the intent of the democratically elected branch.”
I’m not an attorney, but I can read and this motion from AG Hoffman is an embarrassment. It just makes clear that Christie is fighting a losing battle, he has nothing of substance to offer as to why New Jersey’s tax-paying same-sex couples are being denied their equal rights, and it’s, yes again, offensive.
Troy Stevenson, Executive Director of Garden State Equality told The New Civil Rights Movement via an email conversation that he is “offended.”
“I believe that the state will be hard pressed to prove that loving and committed couples getting married will do irreparable harm to the state of New Jersey. And more importantly, it will be a hard sell to prove they have any likelihood of success in an appeal. I am actually offended that the state would attempt to claim that the court is trying to override the intent of the democratically elected legislature, when that very legislature passed the freedom to marry through both houses of the legislature just last year.”
Stevenson has promised to bring marriage equality to New Jersey “before the end of this year.”
Meanwhile, it’s clear the Governor is playing politics — with the lives of New Jersey’s same-sex families and couples.
The election for governor of New Jersey is just one month away.
The really sad part: if Christie “caved” and signed the marriage equality bill he vetoed, he would still win re-election. 64 percent of New Jersey voters support same-sex marriage. He’s a Republican in a Democratic state.
So why is he blocking equality?
Chris Christie wants to run for President, and he thinks he can’t win — at least the GOP primary — as a Republican if he is seen as having allowed equality for gay people.
That, even more than his AG’s argument, is what’s really offensive.
-New Civil Rights Movement
No comments:
Post a Comment