NOM BLOG

Gov. Christie: My Opposition to SSM "Very Well Publicized"

 

Governor Chris Christie begins to break his silence on the attempt by New Jersey Democrats to pass a same-sex marriage bill:

Christie noted in a interview with WNYC on Wednesday that the Legislature hasn’t been succeeded so far in passing a same-sex marriage bill, and emphasized that his opposition has been “very well publicized.”

“I think this type of societal change is something we need to do very deliberately and have as much public input as we possibly can,” the Republican governor said. -- Wall Street Journal's Metropolis Blog

13 Comments

  1. Zack
    Posted January 20, 2012 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

    There are some liberal outlets trying to say that Christie is considering a change of heart on the issue.

    These interviews suggest that he is firm in his support for traditional marriage.

  2. Bill
    Posted January 20, 2012 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    If Christie plans on vetoing this bill he would just come right out and say so. He's hedging because the majority of his constituents approve of marriage equality. The US is moving towards equality and Christie knows he has to fit in that world.

  3. Louis E.
    Posted January 20, 2012 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

    Bill,there is no excuse for not actively denouncing the attempts to make wrong "equal" to right,or for anyone to ever engage in a same-sex sexual relationship.

    Zack,it discourages me that he is not characterizing this particular "societal change" as something that must never be accepted and must be reversed wherever it occurs.

  4. Layne
    Posted January 20, 2012 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

    Bill is right. Christie is hedging on the issue. Either that or NOM just picked the wrong quote. Because it totally reads as Christie being open to "societal change", insofar as everybody has input on it.

    A far cry from Christie saying "I'll veto it no matter what."

  5. leo
    Posted January 20, 2012 at 9:52 pm | Permalink

    Well he did endorse Romney... Lets Remind him what he said to his voters who elected him. I don't think he will flip on his base, that would be a bad career move...

  6. Rick DeLano
    Posted January 20, 2012 at 11:59 pm | Permalink

    He's going wobbly.

    He was going wobbly back last year when he was interviewed on the question during the period he was considering a run for the Presidency.

    I would be surprised if he folds, but not shocked.

    Better put some fire in his belly.

  7. james2
    Posted January 21, 2012 at 8:35 am | Permalink

    Let's face it, the religionists are losing this battle. People aren't interested in denying equal legal rights to gay and lesbian Americans. There's no purpose in doing so.

  8. Randy E King
    Posted January 21, 2012 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    What you are demaning is specail rights for those that partake in sexual perversion James. Your side will lose, but we know your loss will not make you go away.

  9. Louis E.
    Posted January 21, 2012 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

    James2,what has to be faced is the fact that there is no legitimate issue of "denying equal rights to gay and lesbian Americans" in maintaining the critically necessary policy of guaranteeing preferential treatment to opposite-sex relationships.This is not a religious issue and I am not a religious person.

  10. Mr. Incredible
    Posted January 21, 2012 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    Where is the discrimination in a law that defines "marriage" as the union of a man and a woman, given that EVERYBODY is either a man/mal, or a woman/female? Which one is excluded?

  11. Mr. Incredible
    Posted January 21, 2012 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    mal ---> male

  12. yoshi
    Posted January 24, 2012 at 9:12 am | Permalink

    "Where is the discrimination in a law that defines "marriage" as the union of a man and a woman, given that EVERYBODY is either a man/mal, or a woman/female? Which one is excluded?"

    Myself and my husband of 11 years in most states. That's who.

  13. Mr. Incredible
    Posted January 24, 2012 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    You're not excluded by a law that defines "marriage" as the union of a man and a woman, if you are a man, or a woman, given that there is no third sex.