Sen. Weinberg says Christie is afraid of same-sex marriage issue | State | NewJerseyNewsroom.com -- Your State. Your News.

newjerseynewsroom.com

Saturday
Nov 01st
  • Login
  • Create an account
    Registration
    *
    *
    *
    *
    *
    REGISTER_REQUIRED
  • Search
  • Local Business Deals

Sen. Weinberg says Christie is afraid of same-sex marriage issue

weinberg091710_optAddressing the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce dinner in Washington Thursday night, Gov. Chris Christie spoke of “saving (social issues) until we can get everybody back to work in New Jersey,” an apparent reference to the Democratic-controlled Legislature effort to legalize same-sex marriage in the state.

Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen) reacted to the comment Friday declaring that the way she sees it, “the normally straight-talking and strident governor is simply afraid of the issue.”

“The governor’s show is getting staler than the left-over pastries from last night’s Chamber of Commerce dinner,” Weinberg said. “It’s time to fess up, governor, you just don’t want to touch this issue because you’re afraid of what it will do to your national aspirations.”

Christie has stated that he will veto the same-sex marriage bill the Democrats are acting on. Instead, he has proposed that voters decide the issue via a referendum on the November ballot. The Democrats oppose a referendum.

“I know the governor can certainly work on more than one issue at once, as he has often pushed us to do just that,” Weinberg said. “Now, all of a sudden, he’s afraid to walk and chew gum at the same time. I know Senate President (Steve) Sweeney and my Democratic colleagues can focus on more than one thing at one time, including social issues and economic issues. We’ll be happy to fill the leadership void the governor created by deciding to abandon his constitutional responsibility to all residents to uphold their rights. No issue facing our state is mutually exclusive of another.”

Weinberg also questioned who, exactly, would be the one to determine when social issues might again be worthy of discussion.

“There is never a bad time to ensure people’s rights,” the senator said. “I don’t believe the suffragists stopped working because they thought they had to wait until the end of World War I. The 1960’s saw tremendous progress in numerous areas of social issues, and I don’t recall ever hearing anyone saying they should be punted until after the Cold War was over. The fact of the matter is the governor is simply too scared to deal with this issue head on, and the more he waffles the more obvious and tortured it becomes.”

—TOM HESTER SR., NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM

 
Comments (4)
4 Saturday, 28 January 2012 17:28
anonymous
With all due respect Senator Weinberg has no idea what she is talking about.

1. if the right is emodied in the state constitution no statutory law is necessary. And, the NJ S.Ct. did not hold ther is a state constitutional right.

2. Civil rights are rights granted by a gov't because they are not found in the constitution (federal ro start). What Weinberg seeks is to legislate a statute that effectively usurps the Constitutional process (state & federal).

3. Marriage rights are U.S. 1st, 5th and 14th rights. There is no such federal constitutional right and the state cannot expand it by legislation.

What Weinberg seeks is an end run on both the U.S. and State constitutions that seeks to create facts that have little, if any, associate with the law.
3 Saturday, 28 January 2012 16:54
Deciminyan
Costa is incorrect. There's plenty wrong with a referendum on civil rights. The last civil rights referendum in New Jersey, denied women the right to vote in 1915. Our Constitution does not say that civil rights are to be decide by "the wishes of a democratic majority." Why doesn't the Governor call for a referendum on extending the millionaire's tax? That certainly has a big impact on the quality of life in New Jersey. Perhaps he's afraid that such a referendum would go down in flames.
2 Saturday, 28 January 2012 15:15
Elizabeth Volz
This is nothing more then an attempt by our Governor to push off an issue he hasn't got the courage to face.

No one votes on when and who I marry so why should it be any different for same sex couples.

We don't put my decision to marry, have children, move or change jobs to a referendum.

Our individual rights should not be decided by a public vote.
1 Friday, 27 January 2012 22:19
Steve Costa
First, let me state that this comment offers no statement for or against the issue of same sex marriage... That said:

What is wrong with leaving it for a referendum?

Is the Speaker worried that the issue she is pushing does not actually represent the wishes of a democratic majority?

Assuming this is true, it might indicate that she is simply pandering in this effort.

November is neither too early, nor too late, to allow the People to decide.

Add your comment

Your name:
Subject:
Comment:

Follow/join us

Twitter: njnewsroom Linked In Group: 2483509