NOM BLOG

NOM Commends Governor Christie For Once Again Proclaiming His Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 24, 2012

Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Anath Hartmann at (703-683-5004)


"NOM supports the right of NJ voters to vote on a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman" —Brian Brown

Trenton – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today praised Governor Chris Christie for once again expressing his opposition to same-sex marriage and his commitment to veto same-sex marriage legislation.

"NOM supports the right of New Jersey voters to decide this issue by voting on a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman just as voters in 30 other states have been able to do," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "We commend Governor Christie for his principled stance and commitment to veto same-sex marriage legislation pending in the Legislature should it reach his desk."

Christie said in a press conference that the issue of same-sex marriage was being used by legislators for political gain and said that such a "huge societal change" should only be considered in a vote of the people.

"The people of New Jersey do not support same-sex marriage and if given the chance to vote on a constitutional amendment would vote to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman," Brown said. "Voters in every state to consider this question have decided that traditional marriage should be protected and have rejected same-sex marriage. This is why legislative backers of gay marriage in New Jersey have already rejected putting a traditional marriage constitutional amendment on the ballot—they know they will lose."

"We urge all legislators to ask themselves if supporters of gay marriage are unwilling to let voters consider a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, is it really appropriate for legislators to impose their own views?" Brown said. "We believe that marriage, the foundational institution of society, should not be discarded under any circumstance."

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, [email protected], (x130) or Anath Hartmann, [email protected], (x105) at 703-683-5004.

###

27 Comments

  1. Kate
    Posted January 24, 2012 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

    What happened to his promise to veto it?????

  2. Louis E.
    Posted January 24, 2012 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

    I am disturbed that Governor Christie has characterized as positive his nomination of a Supreme Court justice he admits is "openly gay".

    There is a big difference between merely being afflicted by same-sex sexual attraction and unrepentantly declaring oneself entitled to gratify that attraction,which I think should be a character issue disqualifying anyone from judicial service.Homosexual activity is something legal but WRONG.

  3. Zack
    Posted January 24, 2012 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

    Thank you Christie.

  4. Bill
    Posted January 24, 2012 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

    Christie is playing the religious right like a fiddle, he's eyeing that VP spot with Mitt and is putting out the sound bites you guys drool over. A veto-proof vote is in the works and it takes a 3/5 legislative vote to put marriage on the ballot, like that will happen.

  5. Leviticus
    Posted January 24, 2012 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

    We need a man like Christie to lead this nation and fight SSm extremism.

  6. Louis E.
    Posted January 24, 2012 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

    Leviticus,I'd be much more comfortable with Christie if he had the guts to explicitly denounce the formation and maintenance of same-sex sexual relationships.

  7. Mike P.
    Posted January 24, 2012 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

    Bill, I wouldn't count on them getting a 2/3 majority to override a veto. Of course it is hard to get the measure on the ballot; the Democrats hate letting the people vote.

  8. Diana
    Posted January 24, 2012 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

    Christie is the man to make the right decisions. He knows that SSM "marriage" is a sick, twisted joke.

  9. Lefty
    Posted January 24, 2012 at 10:48 pm | Permalink

    @Louis E

    I think that gays can serve honorably as judges.

  10. Posted January 25, 2012 at 12:47 am | Permalink

    Civil union couples shall have all of the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, public policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage.

    What, exactly, is same-sex "marriage" supposed to solve, again?

  11. Little man
    Posted January 25, 2012 at 1:35 am | Permalink

    "Civil union couples shall have all of the same benefits..." - that's because legislators are lazy and don't want to draft up the particulars for same-sex civil unions. It's State marriage, but under another name. A compromise. Got to fight it too. But the economy is first priority, and should be. Same-sex civil marriage activists use this time when the economy is bad to put in their Bills, and then argue we don't care about the economy, if we fight back. Then they wonder why they are ignored by society.

  12. Dennis
    Posted January 25, 2012 at 1:36 am | Permalink

    Mr. Christie has an obligation to promote equality and justice and to serve "All" his constituents equally. To openly inflict his beliefs and morals on one sector of society serves to promote hatred and discrimination against the gay people of this state and country. Religious and moral beliefs and are the personal opinion and belief of Mr. Christies and like any other job must be kept out of the work place let alone the office of a public elected offical. Discimination and violation of constitutional rights must never be tolerated or promoted by any organization.

  13. Layne
    Posted January 25, 2012 at 1:48 am | Permalink

    @Michael: It will lead the fight all the way to DOMA, which is currently being fought in federal court, so we can have the 1,100+ federal benefits that are attached to marriage.

    To be put in a separate class is unacceptable.

    Remember, "a tax on yarmulkes is a tax on Jews."

  14. Bill Snyder
    Posted January 25, 2012 at 8:31 am | Permalink

    How come Christie nominated a gay judge to the bench then if he's so marriage friendly?

  15. Bill
    Posted January 25, 2012 at 9:17 am | Permalink

    Matt, all of NOM's members are anti-gay, and NOM itself is SPLC certified anti-gay. Bottom line, their animus is doing our work for us. You should see NOM's Facebook page, it's pure gold for the cause.

  16. Randy E King
    Posted January 25, 2012 at 11:50 am | Permalink

    Bill/Matt,

    Define Gay!

    I know you miscreants contend that words can mean whatever you want them to mean. But, considering the fact that courts are ruling against your ridiculous assertions due to a lack of a cohesive definition for the words you are corrupting, maybe you could provide mutually agreed upon definitions for the words you are corrupting for the sake of clarity.

  17. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted January 25, 2012 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

    Same sex marriage is the vehicle that separates children from a parent. Many children are having feelings about their absent parents, uncomfortable questions about their origins, and complex emotions about being partially purchased.

    SSM advocates do not care one whit. It's all about them.

  18. TC Matthews
    Posted January 25, 2012 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    Being pro-marriage has nothing to do with sexual orientation. There are people of every persuasion who believe in upholding marriage between a man and a woman, for good reason.

  19. Louis E.
    Posted January 25, 2012 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

    Dennis,standards of conduct apply equally to everyone,not just to those not minded to violate them in the first place.The unconscionable practice of same-sex sexual relationships must be unambguously discouraged for the public good,and no claim that those calling themselves "gay" are in any way exempt can be allowed.Otherwise,any "Don't do X" law could be invalidated by a claim of "but I'm one of the persecuted people who want to do X,you hate me and am trying to take away my rights!"

    There is no public interest in protecting a relationship that is not between persons of opposite sexes in the manner for which the institution of marriage was devised to promote opposite-sex relationships.(And nothing other than morality can justify the existence of any morality whatsoever...religion is another matter entirely,I am not religious and never have been).

    Matt S,there is no excuse for refusing to be "anti-gay",even for homosexuals...the "gay" identity is based on lies and is entirely harmful,honest evaluation of homosexuality in oneself or others must take its place.(Bill,I've already told you the same).

  20. Posted January 25, 2012 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    To be put in a separate class is unacceptable.

    Separate?

    Married couples and civil union couples can attend the same schools, ride in the same rail cars, sit at the same lunch counters, sit on neighboring seats in buses, drink from the same water fountains....

    The only difference is that in some public restrooms, same-sex civil union couples can use them at the same time, while married couples can not.

  21. Bill
    Posted January 25, 2012 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

    But, considering the fact that courts are ruling against your ridiculous assertions due to a lack of a cohesive definition for the words you are corrupting...

    Randy, I see you still resort to making things up.

    TC, every persuasion as long as they're not gay, right. Looks like you've been taking lessons from Louis E.

  22. Randy E King
    Posted January 25, 2012 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    Bill,

    I provided you with a case name, number, and file date. The summary dismissal in question is far more real than any of rediculous assetions to the contrary you have made in support of your depravity.

  23. TC Matthews
    Posted January 25, 2012 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    Bill, what do you have against people with SSA?

  24. Louis E.
    Posted January 25, 2012 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

    Layne,the benefits attached to marriage exist to reward the formation of opposite-sex relationships in recognition of the benefits society receives from the specific practice of opposite-sex relationships.Those who refuse to qualify by doing what is required to qualify,have no entitlement to those benefits.

  25. Layne
    Posted January 25, 2012 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

    "Married couples and civil union couples can attend the same schools, ride in the same rail cars, sit at the same lunch counters, sit on neighboring seats in buses, drink from the same water fountains...."

    However, same-sex couples pay higher taxes, have higher healthcare costs, and have higher estate tax bills, all because of the lack of equality.

    That's a separate class.

  26. TC Matthews
    Posted January 25, 2012 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

    People are people. People pay taxes, people make choices, people have rights, not couples. If you don't like your choices, work to change them. Bending marriage into something it's not doesn't really solve anything, it just creates more problems.

  27. Louis E.
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 12:38 am | Permalink

    Layne,the manifestly superior usefulness to humanity of opposite-sex over same-sex sexual relationships entitles them to lower taxes,lower healthcare costs,and lower estate tax bills.That's policies that should be seen as compulsory under the General Welfare Clause.People are not entitled to have all their choices in life treated as if of equal merit.Unless you choose to form an opposite-sex relationship,you don't get the rewards reserved for doing so.