A majority of New Jersey voters agree with Gov. Chris Christie’s call to put gay marriage on the ballot, according to a poll released this morning.

The Kean University/NJ Speaks poll of 1,000 likely voters found 57 percent support a public referendum on whether to allow same-sex couples to get married, while 32 percent oppose it.

... Democratic members of the Assembly are meeting this afternoon to discuss gay marriage, which has already cleared the Assembly and Senate judiciary committees. Senate President Stephen Sweeney says he has at least the 21 votes needed to pass it in the upper house and has scheduled it for a vote a week from today. Supporters are still trying to line up the 41 votes needed to pass the lower house.

Yeomans' argument can all be boiled down to one of his lines: "Subjecting the civil rights of a minority to a referendum in which the majority rules has never been a reliable solution."

The rest of his argument attempts to align Gov. Christie (unfairly) with those who opposed racial equality and desegregation for African Americans in the past -- a line of argument that gay marriage activists continue to put at the tip of their rhetorical battering ram against the commonsense definition of marriage.

But as our President Brian Brown reminded Evan Wolfson this week, the question of marriage boils down to precisely this: "Is there a civil right to redefining marriage?" I don't think so. Yeomans evidently does.

Two more obvious rebuttals to Yeomans' argument: if it is unfair to subject the "rights" of a minority to a referendum, why have gay marriage activists in Maine done precisely this? Demanding that the people of Maine vote on marriage again, having already rejected same-sex marriage a mere two years ago? Will Yeomans compare gay marriage activists in Maine to those who supported the continuation of Jim Crow? I doubt it.

Second point: if subjecting the "rights" of a minority to a free and fair vote of the people is always wrong, why do gay marriage activists continually cite polls claiming that a majority of people in a given state support redefining marriage? All of Yeomans historical examples claim that if the civil rights of African Americans were to be voted on for much of our history, they would lose at the ballot box. But gay marriage proponents want us to believe that a majority of people, say, in New Jersey, support their agenda. And these same activists won't allow the only "poll" our democracy proscribes -- the people voting -- to be registered. So why cite polls? It's like claiming there is no need to vote on a President every four years if Gallup says a majority of Americans support the incumbent the day before the election.

In the end, no amount of false historical comparisons that Yeomans strings together can overcome the obvious self-contradictions in his argument.

Wolfson also says "there are basic rights, basic freedoms that are protected for everyone under the Constitution. And it's exactly what we don't do, is have a big debate about whether you should have freedom of religion, or whether I should have freedom of speech, or whether you should have the freedom to marry. We're all Americans, we're all entitled to basic rights and protections and we don't put that to an up or down vote."

Brian Brown responds: "But all of us agree on that issue, we agree that we have civil rights, the question is whether there's a civil right to redefine marriage. And we disagree on that."

After a long hearing that produced heated and emotional testimony Thursday, an Assembly committee voted 5-2 along party lines in favor of a bill from Democrats that would allow gay couples to marry in New Jersey.

The measure still faces votes in both houses of the Legislature, with the Senate vote set for Feb. 13. Republican Gov. Chris Christie has promised to veto the Marriage Equality and Religious Exemption Act if it reaches his desk.

My Dear Friends,

She Called You a "Coward"!

This is the week the gay-marriage movement is trying to break you and me. Pushing forward full-bore in Washington, Maryland, New Jersey, New Hampshire—NOM has never had a week where we've sent out so many action alerts to so many people.

This is the week we take up the gauntlet laid down by the First Lady of Maryland, who had the nerve to tell a gay rights group that those who oppose gay marriage are "cowards." (The governor had to go on an apology tour for that remark).

Even as they threaten the jobs, the businesses, and the livelihoods of people willing to stand for the great truths of Genesis—even as they bask in the accolades of Hollywood and a complacent media—even as they wallow in the silver coins flung into their campaign chests by billionaire gay-marriage backers—they call you and me "cowards"?

Here's how the people of Maryland responded, at a rally you'll never see on Fox News or ABC News—thousands, led by the black church, flooded Annapolis to make it clear that they will never give up the fight for what's right.

Listen as a brave clergyman stands up to government power and the epithets of the governor's wife:

"Never in human history has marriage been defined as two men. Never in human history has marriage been defined as two women. Who has the right to redefine it?"

The crowd shouts: "No one!"

"This is reckless social experimentation. Marriage is the fundamental cell of society. If you mess with marriage, you threaten the very future of humanity. We ask our government to do their job. Fix the problems we already have. Don't make new ones! Do your job!"

Do your job. Fix the budget. Get the economy back to work. Solve problems, don't create them, and don't blame the people for refusing to accept your insults or your epithets as a substitute for rational argument.

Up in New Hampshire the same spirit of courage was demonstrated by Rep. Paul Ingbretson, who takes the gay marriage activists to task for what he calls "usurpation by redefinition":

We all know that the New Hampshire Supreme Court did a great disservice to the people of the state in their Claremont education opinions when they redefined out of thin air the word "cherish" in our Constitution (Part II, Art. 83) to "must fund." We've been paying the price ever since for that unconstitutional redefinition. Part of that price is that it encouraged the Democrat majority's willy-nilly usurpation-by-redefinition of the Constitution's word "marriage" in their "gay marriage" legislation a couple years ago.

Since 1784 the New Hampshire Constitution has included Marriage in Part II, Art. 76. Because that article includes the word Marriage, its required meaning is the 1784 definition. (Some would argue that since the word is capitalized, the actual definition precedes our Constitution.) In any case, the Constitutional definition of Marriage in New Hampshire has been, and still is, the 1784 definition: one man and one woman. In an arrogant "usurpation-by-statute" the Constitutional definition was altered two years ago.

Both Maggie Gallagher and Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse have penned eloquent responses to the claim that libertarians should support same-sex marriage. These are being distributed to legislators in New Hampshire now as we help the people of New Hampshire fight to overturn gay marriage in New Hampshire. (You can read them here [pdf] and here [pdf]).

Reading these state constitutions, which were drafted by men who founded our Republic, is an education in itself.

Here's how the drafters of the New Hampshire "live free or die" state constitution understood the grounding of religious liberty—in morality and piety:

"As morality and piety, rightly grounded on high principles, will give the best and greatest security to government, and will lay, in the hearts of men, the strongest obligations to due subjection; and as the knowledge of these is most likely to be propagated through a society, therefore, the several parishes, bodies, corporate, or religious societies shall at all times have the right of electing their own teachers, and of contracting with them for their support or maintenance, or both."

The Washington state senate just passed a gay marriage bill, which is being railroaded through without a vote of the people. In Washington, as in Maine and California we will fight for the people's rights by overturning this unjust law.

Meanwhile in New Jersey, even as Gov. Christie bravely promised to veto a same-sex marriage bill he undercut his own claim to be standing by his campaign promises by appointing to the New Jersey Supreme Court an outspoken advocate of gay marriage who equates traditional views of marriage to slavery.

In 2009, Bruce Harris sent an email to State Senator Joe Pennacchio urging him to vote for gay marriage:

When I hear someone say that they believe marriage is only between a man and a woman because that's the way it's always been, I think of the many "traditions" that deprived people of their civil rights for centuries: prohibitions on interracial marriage, slavery, (which is even provided for in the Bible), segregation, the subservience of women, to name just a few of these "traditions."

I hope that you consider my request that you re-evaluate your position and, if after viewing the videos, reading Governor Whitman's letter and thinking again about this issue of civil rights you still oppose same-sex marriage on grounds other than religion I would appreciate it if you'd explain your position to me. And, if the basis of your opposition is religious, then I suggest that you do what the US Constitution mandates—and that is to maintain a separation between the state and religion.

These are not the words of a judicial conservative, a man who believes in common sense, strict construction of the state constitution—in other words, the kind of judge Gov. Christie promised to appoint to the court.

A man who cannot tell the difference between supporting our traditional understanding of marriage and wanting to enslave a people lacks common sense and judicial temperament.

Please use the form below to urge Governor Christie to fix this terrible mistake by withdrawing the nomination of Bruce Harris for the New Jersey Supreme Court. Then tell your friends, and ask them to send a message of their own.

That message—marriage equals hatred and bigotry—is now being used against Gov. Christie for his support for marriage. The campaign to vilify and exclude millions of Americans from the mainstream because we stand up for marriage is ongoing and intensifying.

Ted Olson, the formerly conservative legal eagle who is now in court fighting to overturn Prop 8, wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal calling attention to the unjust attack on the Koch brothers by the President of the United States.

Here's the letter I would like to write in response: "Ted Olson is right about the Kochs and the misuse of government power by Pres. Obama 'to damage or demean one's political enemies.' It's ironic that this call to decency comes from a man who went to court to get the government to demean 7 million Californians who voted for Prop 8 as irrational bigots."

This is a spiritual battle. That's why, even when as in this week, the times look tough, our opponents try to overwhelm us with insults and defeats—we know this is temporary. We know Who will win this fight, in the end.

It was Dostoevsky who wrote, "Beauty is mysterious as well as terrible. God and devil are fighting there, and the battlefield is the heart of man."

For the beauty that is marriage, for the idea that we are made male and female—for a Reason—for these deep and great truths about who we are as people, and as a People—we will never give up. We will never stop fighting.

And we will, with the grace of God and your help, win.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

We can't let up now!

Despite Governor Christie's promised veto, Democratic leaders in both the Senate and Assembly are working overtime to rush the same-sex marriage bill through in New Jersey. Last week the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 8-4 (on party lines) to send the bill to the full Senate. Meanwhile, the Assembly Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing on the bill this morning.

Votes in both houses could come as early as next week.

We need to keep up the pressure on your state senators and representatives with phone calls and emails!

Use this link to take action now!

Gay marriage advocates are pulling out all the stops. The only way to stop them is for you—and all your friends and family—to let your legislators know exactly where you stand on marriage.

• Click here to send your legislators an email today.

• Click here to look up phone numbers for your state senator and assemblymember.

Governor Christie has called for a statewide referendum to decide the future of marriage—but Democrats in the legislature are stonewalling. Tell your representatives in Trenton that marriage is too important—with far-reaching implications for all New Jerseyans—to be decided by 121 politicians in the Statehouse.

Please, take five minutes to contact your legislators right now. Then forward this email to five friends, post it on Facebook, or print a copy and take it with you to church.

Together we can stop this effort, but it's going to take all of us.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

I need your help right now to stop Gov. Christie from making a horrible mistake—appointing a radically pro-gay marriage anti-Christian judge to the state supreme court.

Click here to send Gov. Christie a message.

Gov. Chris Christie has been the hope of millions of Americans across the country looking for honest conservative leadership.

Last week we asked you to thank Gov. Christie for saying he will follow through on his campaign promise to veto same-sex marriage.

This week, we have urgent and terrible news to report—Gov. Chris Christie's nominee to the New Jersey Supreme Court is not only an outspoken advocate for gay marriage, he has extreme and hateful views equating traditional Christian views on sex and marriage with slavery.

This kind of intemperate and extreme view should be totally unacceptable in a GOP judicial nominee.

Yet Gov. Christie's proposed supreme court nominee Bruce Harris sent this email in 2009 to State Senator Joe Pennacchio urging him to vote for gay marriage:

"When I hear someone say that they believe marriage is only between a man and a woman because that's the way it's always been, I think of the many "traditions" that deprived people of their civil rights for centuries: prohibitions on interracial marriage, slavery, (which is even provided for in the Bible), segregation, the subservience of women, to name just a few of these "traditions."

I hope that you consider my request that you re-evaluate your position and, if after viewing the videos, reading Governor Whitman's letter and thinking again about this issue of civil rights you still oppose same-sex marriage on grounds other than religion I would appreciate it if you you'd explain your position to me. And, if the basis of your opposition is religious, then I suggest that you do what the US Constitution mandates—and that is to maintain a separation between the state and religion."

Governor Christie says that Harris has promised to recuse himself when the same-sex marriage comes before the court, but even this unenforceable promise misses the bigger issue: a man who cannot tell the difference between supporting our traditional understanding of marriage and wanting to enslave a people lacks common sense and judicial temperament.

And to suggest that legislators should ignore the views of religious constituents, that moral views grounded in the Bible are somehow illegitimate in the public square, seriously compounds the offense.

These are not the words of a judicial conservative, a man who believes in common sense, strict construction of the state constitution—the kind of judge Gov. Christie promised to appoint to the court.

How did this happen?

When Assemblyman Mike Carroll was sent a copy of that email by a reporter, he had one word in response: "Yikes."

Gov. Christie's nomination of Bruce Harris appears to be a result of a failure in the vetting process, not a deliberate backhanded backroom betrayal by New Jersey's governor. If so, the Governor can and must honorably withdraw the nomination.

The next generation of GOP leadership on the national level have to understand: knowingly appointing radical anti-religious justices is unacceptable.

Please, right now, send Gov. Christie a message keep him from making a terrible mistake marring his record. Tell Christie: Withdraw the Bruce Harris nomination today. Protect our judiciary from radically unconservative judges with extremist views pushing gay marriage and equating Christianity with slavery.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie lashed out at a fellow Garden State politician Monday, calling an openly gay state legislator a “numbnuts” in response to the lawmaker labeling him a racist last week.

A visibly perturbed Christie made the comment during a news conference on Monday, reported the New Jersey Star-Ledger.

It all started last week when Christie called for a voter referendum on gay marriage.

“I think people would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights rather than fighting and dying in the streets in the South,” Christie said.

Those comments upset Democratic assemblyman Reed Gusciora, who responded last week by saying, “Govs. Lester Maddox and George Wallace would have found allies in Chris Christie over efforts by the Justice Department to end segregation in the South.”

On Monday, Christie called Gusciora’s words “transparently political.”

“You have numbnuts like Reed Gusciora, who put out a statement, you know, comparing me George Wallace and Lester Maddox.”

Gay rights advocates in New Jersey have been pushing for a decade to get state courts or lawmakers to recognize same-sex marriage. But last week, they demurred when Gov. Christie called for a public vote to settle the topic.

Their main reason is based on principle: It's not fair, they say, to let voters decide a civil rights issue.

But there's another consideration: It would be a costly and divisive fight, and the advocates know the odds are against them, even if recent polls have shown the majority of New Jersey voters support allowing gay marriage.

...Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, said his organization and others would put millions of dollars into a campaign against allowing gay marriage.

"The other side has put forward a number of lies," Brown said. "Our job is to expose them."

So far, his side has been winning.

Thirty-one times states have had votes on constitutional amendments to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. The referendums have been approved 30 times. In the one exception, in Arizona, voters two years later passed a similar amendment.

This year, marriage amendments could be on the ballots of about a half-dozen states. Only two are being pushed by groups that want gay couples to be allowed to marry. Those are in Maine and California, where there are efforts to overturn constitutional bans.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie found himself on the defense Monday over his two Supreme Court picks just a week after announcing that he was moving to diversify the state's all-white Supreme Court by nominating two firsts: an openly gay black man and an immigrant.

Christie said Bruce Harris, who is gay, told the governor he would recuse himself from hearing any gay marriage cases because the nominee, a former Chatum Borough mayor, has advocated for the issue.

Years ago Harris, 61, wrote to several state senators asking for their support of a same-sex marriage bill being heard by the Senate in late 2009. Christie, a Republican who supports civil unions but opposes calling it marriage, said Harris volunteered the information about his writing.

"He told me he favored same-sex marriage, had advocated for it in his political capacity and as a result, if he were confirmed to the court, would recuse himself from that matter because he did not want there to be the appearance of bias," the governor recalled.

Christie said of Harris and his other nominee, Phillip Kwon of Bergen County, “I did not ask them about specific cases.” He pointed to two other cases of concern to conservatives, the Abbott school-funding decisions and the Mount Laurel decisions on affordable housing, and said “to the extent that they’ve taken positions on those issues, they’re going to have to let us know that.”

It turns out Harris has already done so, at least when it comes to same-sex marriage. Back in 2009, he sent an e-mail to the Republicans then representing Chatham in the Legislature urging all three to vote in favor of same-sex marriage.

“You have met me and my partner of nearly 30 years, Marc, on more than one occasion at various political gatherings” he wrote. “The New Jersey Supreme Court has already determined that our relationship is entitled to the equal protection guarantees of the State Constitution.”

The e-mail went on to urge the legislators to go to the site of Garden State Equality, a gay rights group, to view two videos “that provide sad examples of the failures of the civil union law.”

One of the recipients of the e-mail was state Sen. Joe Pennacchio. When I phoned him, he said he recalled having a brief talk with Harris after receiving the e-mail.

There’s a brouhaha brewing in New Jersey over Gov. Chris Christie’s nomination to the New Jersey Supreme Court of Bruce Harris. Turns out Harris wrote a letter in 2009 supporting gay marriage — and equating support for our marriage tradition with slavery.

Bruce Harris wrote this in a 2009 e-mail to State Senator Joe Pennacchio:

When I hear someone say that they believe marriage is only between a man and a woman because that’s the way it’s always been, I think of the many “traditions” that deprived people of their civil rights for centuries: prohibitions on interracial marriage, slavery, (which is even provided for in the Bible), segregation, the subservience of women, to name just a few of these “traditions.”

I hope that you consider my request that you re-evaluate your position and, if after viewing the videos, reading Governor Whitman’s letter and thinking again about this issue of civil rights you still oppose same-sex marriage on grounds other than religion I would appreciate it if you you’d explain your position to me. And, if the basis of your opposition is religious, then I suggest that you do what the US Constitution mandates — and that is to maintain a separation between the state and religion.

When the assemblyman charged with vetting judicial nominees was sent a copy of this intemperate email, he responded: “Yikes.”

This is a potentially huge red flag for those who see Christie as the future of the conservative movement. Can he be trusted to care enough to appoint judicial conservatives? Will Governor Christie stand by this kind of judicial appointment, or will he admit that mistakes were made in the vetting process and withdraw the nomination?

Legislation to allow same-sex marriage in New Jersey cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee tonight after more than seven hours of emotional debate and testimony, setting the stage for a showdown in the full Senate.

... The 10:06 p.m. vote came after more than 1,000 people flooded the Statehouse today in an effort to sway lawmakers’ opinions on one of the most controversial bills of the decade.

... During the marathon hearing, opponents — including Orthodox Jews and Catholic officials — argued that same-sex marriage would damage religious freedom and is not needed because the state already permits civil unions. Supporters -- including civil rights leaders and legal experts -- said gay couples do not have equal rights without being allowed to marry.

... Josh Pruzanzsky, executive director of the Agudath of Israel of New Jersey, said same-sex marriage legislation "would endanger religious freedom, inhibit free speech and undermine the preferred status of marriage. It would convey a social message that is deeply offensive to many residents of the state of New Jersey and lead to further erosions in the traditional conception of family."

... It’s unclear if the measure has enough support to pass the entire Senate, where it could reach the floor for a vote as early as Thursday. -- Statehouse Bureau

...across the country, the right to same-sex marriage has been granted mostly by court decision or legislative action. Same-sex-marriage advocates noted that almost every one of more than 30 ballot questions on gay rights had failed to broaden them; even in 2008, when the country elected a Democratic president, voters in California approved Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage.

“It’s a hard dynamic to win at the polls,” said Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, a Trenton Democrat who is openly gay. “At the end of the day, gays are a minority and they can’t match the crazies, who are out there and really motivated to vote against it.” -- The New York Times

Marriage as a union of a man and a woman has its roots in natural law. Throughout all of human history marriage has been held to be a union of man and woman. Marriage as a union of man and woman existed long before any nation, religion or law was established. Marriage which unites mothers and fathers in the work of childrearing is the foundation of the family, and the family is the basic unit of society.

Sadly, the institution of marriage is being challenged by a society so concerned with individual freedom that some view marriage as a temporary or disposable convenience. Now, there is even an attempt in the New Jersey Legislature to pass a law that would change the very definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

As citizens, we must protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Same-sex unions may represent a new and a different type of institution, but it is not marriage and should not be treated as marriage.

What can you do to help protect marriage? Today, we ask all people of good will to do three simple things. First, pray for all married couples and all families. Second, reflect on this important question, “How can I help my family and the families I touch to grow in hope, love, peace and joy.” Third, we ask everyone to reach out to your neighbors, your legislators and the governor with a simple message: “Preserve the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman.”

Why should citizens care about the state’s definition of marriage?

Citizens must care about the government’s treatment of marriage because civil authorities are charged with protecting children and the common good, and marriage is indispensable to both purposes. Citizens have the right and the responsibility to hold civil authorities accountable for their stewardship of the institution of marriage. Citizens also have the responsibility to oppose laws and policies that unjustly target people as bigots or that subject people to charges of unlawful discrimination simply because they believe and teach that marriage is the union of man and a woman.