N.J. Gov. Chris Christie has proved a big disappointment. Having vetoed a marriage equality bill passed by the legislature, he’s now campaigning for reelection on his continuing opposition, although letting gay people marry has wide and growing support in his state (a Quinnipiac poll found 64% of New Jersey voters supporting gay marriage and only 30% opposed). But even worse, Christie went livid over the Supreme Court’s DOMA ruling, putting him to the social right of Sen. Rand Paul, who seemed to welcome the decision as turning the matter over to the states—despite his own stated belief that marriage should be reserved for a man and woman (which he plays up when courting evangelicals). Paul is a principled limited-government conservative unlike Christie, who seems to have no discernible political principles.
More. Christie may indeed by trying to outmaneuver Paul among socially conservative primary voters. That’s a good reason for gay Republicans and our friends to think about supporting Paul.
Furthermore. Christie lashes out at libertarians.
12 Comments for “Christie Fails to Evolve”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Governor Christie has every reason to be livid — the DOMA decision relegated his carefully calibrated “I’m for traditional marriage, but hell, let the people decide …” straddle on marriage equality into the garbage bin.
Here’s why: Lewis v. Harris, 188 N.J. 415; 908 A.2d 196 (N.J. 2006) is a New Jersey Supreme Court opinion that required the legislature to enact legislation within 180 days granting equal rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples. The legislature opted to provide marriage-equivalent civil unions.
Until the DOMA decision, Governor Christie could execute the “let the people decide” gambit, carefully making clear that he, personally, was a supporter of traditional marriage, but that the people were sovereign. Civil unions, he could argue, provided equal rights and responsibility without the word, so no harm, no foul.
That’s no longer the case. Lamba Legal and the other parties to the 2006 decision went into court the day after the DOMA decision, seeking a finding that civil unions no longer provided equal rights and responsibilities in light of DOMA’s demise, and seeking an order mandating marriage equality. The New Jersey Supreme Court will, if it follows its own precedent in the 2006 decision, have no option but to issue the order.
Meanwhile, Democrats in the legislature have initiated a push to garner support among Republican legislators to override Governor Christie’s veto of the legislature’s 2012 marriage equality bill. The legislature has until the end of this year to override the veto.
To successfully reach the required two-third majority and override the veto, Democrats need three additional votes in the Senate and 12 more in the Assembly. In light of the DOMA decision and the likely outcome of the motions when the matter reaches the New Jersey Supreme Court, it is possible that Democrats will be successful in garnering the required Republican votes.
So Governor Christie is in a “lose-lose” situation. The only strategy he has left, if he is to maintain credibility with the Republican national base, already severely damaged by his political handshake with the President after Hurricane Sandy, is to lash out about “judicial supremacy”.
In short, Governor Christie is stuck with a problem that Rand Paul can dodge, or try to, anyway
Senator Paul can rid himself (so he thinks, anyway) of the marriage equality problem — the increasing disconnect between public opinion and Republican Party intransigence by positioning himself as a strong supporter of traditional marriage while avoiding getting personally embroiled by shunting the issue to the states.
Governor Christie is embroiled because the matter is a hot button in his state right now, exacerbated by the DOMA decision. And he can’t get away from that fact. Governor Christie can’t go back on his veto without shooting himself in the foot with social conservatives. He looks weak if enough Republicans can be pealed off to override his veto, and social conservatives and Tea Party conservatives want, above all things, a tough guy.
So he’s stuck. His only viable option is to go nuclear on the courts and hope that the New Jersey Supreme Court acts quickly enough to take the issue away, leaving him free to fume about “judicial supremacy” and score points with social conservatives on that hot button.
posted by Jorge on
That article doesn’t appear to show him as “livid.” You are badly mischaracterizing him.
“What I’ve said all along is what I said when I vetoed the last one, ‘Let the people decide,’” Christie said on the Town Square Media “Ask the Governor” radio program.
…
“It’s just another example of judicial supremacy rather than having a government run by the people we actually vote for,” Christie said.
So just because someone takes a principled position in opposition to the outcome of a Supreme Court case, that person is angry and out of control? No, Mr. Miller, it does not work that way, so can it with the hyperbole.
I don’t agree with his veto. I do think he has a reasonable hypocrisy argument against the New Jersey Democrats politiclaly. And I think he is correct and understates things when he says that the Supreme Court decision is a wrongheaded judicial overreach and that the issue should be decided democratically.
posted by Thom Watson on
Assuming for argument’s sake that the people should indeed get to vote on civil rights for minorities (though personally I disagree with that assumption), didn’t the people of New Jersey already decide this issue, through the action of their duly elected representatives that passed a marriage equality bill to the governor? Isn’t that actually democracy (in the way it’s enacted in our constitutional republic) at work? You do say you disagree with Christie’s veto, but that you agree that the issue should be decided democratically. Wasn’t it? Isn’t Christie in fact actually obstructing the democratic process? It’s hypocrisy by definition for him to say that DOMA should be decided “by the people we actually vote for,” when he apparently doesn’t believe that marriage equality in his state should be decided by the people the New Jersey electorate actually voted for.
Following Christie’s logic on marriage equality, in fact, he should have to veto every single bill passed by the New Jersey legislature in favor of public referendum. Otherwise he is, at a bare minimum, the truest example of a hypocrite here.
posted by Houndentenor on
Christie is entertaining the prospect of running for president. He cannot face GOP primary voters with any chance at the nomination if he signs a gay marriage bill.
As for Rand Paul, I don’t see the two as comparable. If Rand Paul were governor instead of senator would he sign a gay marriage bill? It doesn’t sound like he’s saying he would. He’s a U.S. Senator so leaving it up to the states gets him off the hook for having to take any actual position.
posted by Kosh III on
” Paul is a principled limited-government conservation”
BS! His principles change depending on his audience, a point I’ve seen made here. His etch-a-sketch views are just not as noticeable because the corporate media is enamoured of him unlike with Romney.
He opposes freedom for gay citizens and women, his “state’s rights” routine is the same one trotted out by Govs. Wallace, Faubus and Maddox and other “conservationists” 🙂
If he really believed in liberty and limited govt he’d be offering bills to legalize pot(at least) to shut down our Empire, support equality for all, etc etc.
posted by Gus on
And it boggles how one can spout Ayn Rand and say one is a Christian.
posted by Walker on
Rand Paul is proposing to end mandatory minimums, roll back incarceration, limit drone use, and avoid further Mideast wars. That’s an agenda closer to “legalizing pot and shutting down the Empire” than any other senator.
posted by Kosh III on
“support equality for all”
But Paul fails on this count and that is for me the biggie, if you can’t support the most basic of our civic values, all the rest is worthless.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
More: Christie may indeed by trying to outmaneuver Paul among socially conservative primary voters. That’s a good reason for gay Republicans and our friends to think about supporting Paul.
Rand Paul is a self-described marriage traditionalist (See Note 1) with an explicit strategy of leaving the question of marriage to the states in order to buy sufficient time to turn the country against marriage equality (see Note 2). Why in the world would any gay person support a man with that intention?
More to the point, have you already given up on 2016? Why aren’t pro-equality conservatives working to nominate a candidate who isn’t actively working against us? At least make some noise about it, if nothing else, instead of rolling over right from the beginning.
It is ironic, to say the least, that you complain that Democrats are trying to keep the Republican Party anti-gay. It seems to me that you supposedly pro-equality conservatives are doing a fine job of that all by yourselves.
Note 1: “I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage.”
Note 2: “I think right now if we say we’re only going to have a federally mandated one-man, one-woman marriage, we’re going to lose that battle because the country is going the other way right now. If we were to say each state can decide, I think a good 25, 30 states still do believe in traditional marriage, and maybe we allow that debate to go on for another couple of decades and see if we can still win back the hearts and minds of people.”
posted by jared on
Rand Paul [has] explicit strategy of leaving the question of marriage to the states in order to buy sufficient time to turn the country against marriage equality (see Note 2). Why in the world would any gay person support a man with that intention?
Not exactly, although it fits your narrative. Paul has told evangelicals that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, and they should make their case in the states. I don’t for a minute believe that he believes they will ultimately prevail in the states, but he’s explaining to evangelicals why, primarily, he does not support a federal marriage amendment. The battle should be fought at the state level.
If you think we’re likely to lose at the state level, then I guess you’d be against this strategy. Those of us who believe we are likely to keep winning at the state level don’t have a problem with it, and certainly think it’s a better plan to sell to evangelicals than the federal marriage amendment.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Jared, all I can do is take Rand Paul at his word. I don’t have the ability to read his mind or see into his soul, so I don’t know one way or the other about he believes will happen in the states. I just take him at his word — he is a marriage traditionalist and has laid out a long-term strategy to “win back the hearts and minds of people”.
As to what I think about our prospects going forward, I laid that out in 2009. I think that two things have changed the picture since I wrote in 2009: (1) support for marriage equality has grown faster than Siver’s 2009 model predicted, so we are somewhat ahead of schedule, and (2) the issue is ripening more quickly in the courts than I then predicted. My guess is that the Court will settle the issue between 2018-2020.
posted by Shadow Chaser on
I will admit that I haven’t been follow New Jersey politics as closely as I should, so I have a couple of questions for Garden State residents who come to this site.
I know that there is a governor’s race this year in New Jersey and that Governor Christie is heavily favored (As of now I give his opponent Barbara Buone three chances of winning — slim, fat and no). Is the state legislature up for election? Correct me if I am wrong, but marriage equality need three more votes in the State Senate and 12 in the State House.
Is there any chance that the moderate Republicans in the state legislature (hey remember Thomas Kean, Christine Todd Whitman came from New Jersey) might break with Christie?
Just wonderin’