Maggie Gallagher Asks: "Is Chris Christie Pulling an Obama on Gay Marriage?"


Over at NRO's The Corner blog:

Chris Christie is publicly opposed to same-sex marriage and indeed, to his credit, he fulfilled a campaign promise by vetoing a gay-marriage bill. But he raised eyebrows and doubts by appointing to the New Jersey Supreme Court an openly gay judge who has publicly pushed for gay marriage.

Now a New Jersey judge has reinstated a gay couple’s claim that New Jersey’s marriage laws violate the federal Constitution — in part, she said, because the defense of the marriage law offered by Christie’s attorney general, Jeffrey Chiesa, was so weak: “tradition.”

Chiesa is not some rogue Republican; he was Christie’s chief counsel for several years before the governor made him AG. It raises eyebrows, because it’s frankly what Obama’s attorney general did for years — pretend to defend the law, by offering only a token defense. Odd to see this happening now with a Republican governor beloved by Ann Coulter.


  1. Jim
    Posted February 23, 2012 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    Christie is only "weakly" anti-gay (insofar as the veto was "weak") because he knows that support for equality is on the rise. Like any other GOPer who wants to position him/herself for the presidency in 2016, he knows he needs to tread carefully regarding marriage equality.

    The actions of GOP politicians who are serious about 2016 is great proof that equality is achievable within the decade.

  2. Leo
    Posted February 23, 2012 at 11:32 am | Permalink

    NOM, I think Christie is one govt that we will need to keep a careful watch on. I think NJers should call the govt out on his contradictories... Counter attack should be our slogan, and in every State there is SSM legislation pending, moving forward...

  3. Randy E King
    Posted February 23, 2012 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    Ann Coulter joined "GoProuds" board back in August and should in no way be viewed as an advocate for this nation’s history and traditions as they relate to marriage.

    Are we beginning to see the link here?

    1)Romney was first Governor in U.S. to mandate marriage corruption in his state.

    2)Chris Christy endorses Romney and appoints openly pro-marriage corruption "Homosexual" judges

    3)Ann Coulter strongly supports both Romney and Christie; recently joins GOProud as "Gay Ambassador."

    If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck the odds are in favor of it being duck.

  4. Zack
    Posted February 23, 2012 at 1:41 pm | Permalink


    Romney did not mandage same-sex marriage. In fact he proposed a bill to amend his states constitution and it was narrowly defeated. Shows that support isn't as partisan as liberals would like us to believe.

    While I don't agree with Chris Christie on many issues, I don't think he jumped the gun when appointing this person to the court. In the end the man is just doing his job and when dealing with a state as liberal as New Jersey, he figured that he can't govern from the right so much if he wants to get things done.

    Ann Coulter does what she does. Ever since she started praising Romney for the failed healthcare mandate, I stopped listening to her.

  5. Louis E.
    Posted February 23, 2012 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    Jim,the "equality" you refer to must be permanently abolished and prohibited...right and wrong are not equal,nor are the importances to humanity of opposite- and same-sex sexual relationships.

  6. Leo
    Posted February 23, 2012 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    R E King, preach it!

    I smell trouble brewing with that clan you mention a
    (diversion tactic)...

    R.E. King, this is what I've have been saying, people need to carefully listen to what Mitt, Christ say and don't say to find clues how they would govern and deal with the SSM issue, moving forward.

    As for MItt, he says all I want to hear on the issues that matter to me like protecting marriage and traditional values, but my gut, and guides tell me not to trust him, I am starting to "see" what my guides could see at the time...

    Also, Mitt talks about gay rights as if they are second class people; instead of treating them as heterosexuals who has chosen to exclusively engage in same sex relationships ( a behavior issue of no benefit to the general public). To me, SSM=gay rights=the promotion of homosexuality=increase STDs=a public health concern not a gay "right" concern. These sexually related issues are closely linked, for which our govt at State, the Federal level should NOT be promoting for the protection( public health) of the general welfare of all people, including those who feel the urge to engage in the activity.

    Rick Santorum is my choice for the next President of the United States, because I believe he sees this link too...

    I voted for Obama last time by mistake, well maybe, it did not seem that way from what I was being feed by the media...had I known what I now about Obama's past, I would not have voted for him. I learned my lesson, take what you hear in the media lightly, and don't believe everything you hear, and then do a through research on your candidate... weight the pros vs cons, listen careful of the subtle messages your candidate conveys and the "audience" he is trying to convey it to. Then make your decision.

  7. Leo
    Posted February 23, 2012 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

    Put Zack, it is what NJers want not what government wants, dems or republicans...That is, government is not for the people who is doing the governing, but for the people they govern...You are injecting big government, this is not a "fight for traditional values" is not to advance Christ Christy position, or Republicans vs Democrats, even though the two parties making it out to be... these are just politics ideology positions where the people play along. The reality, people want govt for the people NOT for career politicians, or special interest groups. Christ Christy will need to do his job in accord with what is best for NJrs and the popular vote on the issues, or suffer the consequences by being vote out. There most come a time when the back room deals and wanting to get along with other political party must be sacrifice for the greater good of the general public. Govt. needs to be for the people not against them, support for SSM, homosexuality ideology in no way benefits general public. Special interest groups are not the general public especially when their mission will harm society at large. .

  8. John Noe
    Posted February 23, 2012 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

    Yes this bears watching a sad and very corrupt trend. You come out and be opposed to SSM and get votes that way. Then you cowardly appoint judges who will impose SSM to get you off the hook. The activists judges who are not elected bail you out as you cowardly hide behind the courts decision.
    This happened in CA when the legislature violated the will of the people and voted in SSM in direct conflict of Prop22 voted in by the people. Then Gov. Arnold vetoed it talking about respecting the will of the people. But when the courts cowardly imposed it he hid behind the courts ruling and took no responsibility.

  9. AJ
    Posted February 23, 2012 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

    Special interest groups like NOM, I suppose? I mean, they're practicing parachutage in numerous states to forward an agenda that first seeks to stop marriage equality and, as we've seen from commenters and various blogs, work backward through any pro-LGBT legislation on down to government-sanctioned reparative therapy.

    Then maybe it's on to a mix of Tennessee and Uganda after that.

  10. Leo
    Posted February 23, 2012 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

    AJ, NOM represent a GOOD, not an EVIL for our Nation...

    SSM is nothing more then a tactic by the left and activists in support of, to legalize sodomy, recognize and promote homosexuality in the public arena...
    That's it, there has been no laws enacted to stop people who engage in SS relationships from creating unions at their peril, but to go as far to promote and try to force acceptance for your behavior under false representation as something worthy and good for the 98% of us, is where the line must be drawn in the sand... You want a fight, we will give one and put you back in the closet where perversion belongs, we can only take so much, it just just adds fire to a flame...

  11. Creighton
    Posted February 23, 2012 at 11:08 pm | Permalink

    Leo, you really need to meet some gay people and realize that everything you are saying is complete nonsense. I am a man who will one day marry the man I love. Unlike you, I don't care one bit about the sexual orientation of others. My simple request is for the government to not treat me and my partner as legal strangers.

    This is not about behavior. My relationship with my partner isn't about sexual behavior. It's about mutual love, attraction, friendship, and support. Our request is simple: Leave us alone.

    If, however, you wish to cause us harm and treat us as less-than citizens and "put us back in the closet", we will never be silent. Ever.

  12. TC Matthews
    Posted February 23, 2012 at 11:34 pm | Permalink

    Creighton, the reality is that no one cares about your proclaimed sexuality. It just doesn't enter into the equation. It's not interesting to me in the least what you do in the privacy of your own home. The only thing I care about is that marriage not be watered down, redefined into oblivion. Simple. It has nothing to do with you, your choices, or your life. It has everything to do with forcing your political views on an unwilling populace.

  13. JR
    Posted February 24, 2012 at 1:06 am | Permalink

    TC - But it has everything to do with treating people with equality. Welcome to America.

  14. TC Matthews
    Posted February 24, 2012 at 8:29 am | Permalink

    Exactly JR. Treating people equally, not people's actions or choices. The people. You are treated equally according to the law, as anyone else.

  15. KAK1958
    Posted February 24, 2012 at 11:43 am | Permalink

    TC - how is marriage watered down by this? My brother and wife live in NY and last I checked they still consider their marriage very valid and real. NOM and others set out on this "redefining" marriage defense, but I've never understood that. The gay couples are making a legal commitment to each other. That would seem preferable to the alternative of transient relationships.