"Res publica": The people's affairs...

The Republican Governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, did what he said he would do, vetoing a bill that would legalize homosexual marriage in the State of New Jersey.

Reading the New York Times account of the Governor's veto, The Motley Monk noted that it was "conditional."  That is, Mr. Christie asked the State Legislature to amend the bill to establish an ombudsman who would handle complaints that the State's civil union law does not provide homosexual couples the same protections that marriage does.  This amendment would comply with the 2006 New Jersey State Supreme Court statement that homosexual couples deserve the same benefits that married couples enjoy.

The veto didn't please advocates of homosexual marriage.  For example, a New York Times editorial called the veto "misguided and intolerant":

That does not change the message of intolerance or lessen the pain for gay residents and their families. Mr. Christie compounded the insult when he dismissed the Legislature's support for the rights of gay people as merely "an exercise in theater." The only one who deserves that accusation is Governor Christie, who is clearly pandering to his own conservative base....This isn't about theater and shouldn't be about politics. Marriage equality is a basic right.

For their part, advocates have vowed to fight “with every last breath” to override the veto.

Securing that override will be an uphill slog, requiring 54 votes in the State Assembly and 27 votes in the State Senate.  (The bill passed with 42 votes in the State Assembly and 24 in the State Senate.)  Time is on the advocates' side, however, as they are allowed two years---until January 2014---to attempt an override.

For his part, the Governor has upped the ante in this battle of political will, reiterating his call for the State Legislature to put a referendum concerning homosexual marriage on the 2012 November ballot.  He said:

An issue of this magnitude and importance, which requires a constitutional amendment, should be left to the people of New Jersey to decide.

The Motley Monk thinks Governor Christie's approach to dealing with the issue of homosexual marriage is "just about right."  While the Governor says that he is personally against homosexual marriage, whether that's due to moral, religious, legal, or political reasons matters not insofar as The Motley Monk is concerned.  What matters is that rather than impose his will upon his fellow citizens in the State of New Jersey---as if the Governor of New Jersey is the Emperor of New Jersey---Mr. Christie has called for the people of the State to decide the matter for themselves at the ballot box.

Isn't that how constitutional republics are supposed to work?

Let the discussion begin...


To read the New York Times article, click on the following link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/nyregion/christie-vetoes-gay-marriage-bill.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha29

To read the New York Times editorial, click on the following link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/opinion/gov-christies-misguided-and-intolerant-veto.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha211