Chris Christie to Democrat: Stop demagoging me on gay marriage, “numbnuts”

posted at 10:10 pm on January 30, 2012 by Allahpundit

The tough-guy bravado wears ever thinner over time but I don’t blame him for being irritated at a smear this nasty. He wants to hold a referendum on gay marriage and therefore he’s … George Wallace? What?

The punchline is that Christie’s pushing the referendum not because he’s militantly opposed to gays getting married and thinks the popular vote will vindicate his position but because he’s not militantly opposed and doesn’t want to be forced to issue a veto. Watch the second clip below from last summer’s chat with Piers Morgan for the basics of his thinking. He believes marriage should be for straights only but wants equal rights for gays otherwise and won’t even commit to the belief that homosexuality is sinful. He sounds, in fact, a lot like Obama in his lack of conviction for his supposed position. His problem is that if the New Jersey legislature passes a bill legalizing gay marriage, then Christie the blue-state governor and Christie the potential Republican VP have a conflict on whether he should veto or not. The cynical solution: Punt the issue entirely by encouraging a referendum instead. If it fails, great! The people have spoken. If it passes, oh well. Not his fault. It’s not a show of principle but it’s not Christie standing in the chapel door either. (The possibility that he might have to cast this veto doubtless helps explain why he just appointed a gay Republican to the New Jersey Supreme Court.)

That said, I’d like to see the language of the referendum he has in mind. Is he proposing to let the public amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage or to specifically legalize gay marriage or to decide on both questions? His critics are hammering him for encouraging a majoritarian solution to a question of equal protection, which of course is not the way constitutional rights work. But gay-marriage supporters have been perfectly comfortable using democratic means to advance their own position, most famously last year when the New York legislature passed gay marriage. That statute is different from what Christie has in mind with a referendum — the latter would take the issue out of the courts’ hands via a constitutional amendment whereas the statute is subject to judicial review — but if the referendum is limited purely to whether to legalize gay marriage (without saying anything about banning it), then the courts could still consider the equal protection claim later on even if the referendum fails. Curious to know how Christie, who seems not terribly invested in the idea of keeping gays from marrying, feels about that.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

It’s not just the “Christians” it’s cultures throughout time…it’s only the past 20 years, of tens of thousands, that such acts are wanting to be embraced.

Argumentum ad populum logical fallacy.

Just because X number of people believe something doesn’t make it correct.

Everyone believed the world was the center of the universe at some point, and that didn’t make it true.

Good Lt on January 31, 2012 at 10:24 AM

You know…if you want some dude to puncture your tater, I guess you like what you like.

Heterosexual couples engage in that kind of sexual activity, you know.

Good Lt on January 31, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Christie is a COYTO: Conservative On YouTube Only.

Crusty on January 31, 2012 at 10:43 AM

I have to admit, you two have the emotional argument on your side. The relationships you point out are, from my cultural perspective, ludicrous and laughable.

beselfish on January 31, 2012 at 9:23 AM

I didn’t intend to make an emotional argument. I can’t speak for Bubba, but my intention was to point out other areas where government places restrictions on who a person can marry. I don’t have a dog in this fight, but the one thing that should be understood, is that once you lift the restriction of “one man one woman”, you’re opening the door for all sorts of alternative arrangements. Whether people find this acceptable or not, it needs to be a part of the larger debate on gay marriage, because gay marriage is a precedent that opens the door for an even greater expansion of the definition of marriage.

HarryBackside on January 31, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Re: RINO Chris Christie …

He believes marriage should be for straights only but wants equal rights for gays otherwise and won’t even commit to the belief that homosexuality is sinful. He sounds, in fact, a lot like Obama in his lack of conviction for his supposed position. His problem is that if the New Jersey legislature passes a bill legalizing gay marriage, then Christie the blue-state governor and Christie the potential Republican VP have a conflict on whether he should veto or not.

Yo, Gov. Christie, put up or shut up. Take a stand like you did vis á vis labor unions. Maybe then, some of us will anoint your fatty feet in oil like Ann Coulter is wont to do, but not this conservative.
A referendum, IF it doesn’t involve a core principle, is the coward’s way out.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 31, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Yo, Gov. Christie, put up or shut up. Take a stand like you did vis á vis labor unions. Maybe then, some of us will anoint your fatty feet in oil like Ann Coulter is wont to do, but not this conservative.
A referendum, IF it doesn’t involve a core principle, is the coward’s way out.

Spoken like a “true conservative.”

Good Lt on January 31, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Oh, so now we’re tired of his bravado? I wonder why?

Cindy Munford on January 31, 2012 at 11:20 AM

If you must take my beloved fat Governor away from my state where it does so much good, why cannot you appoint him where he will shine even more, e.g. as NLRB Chair or HHS Sec?

Archivarix on January 31, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Honestly, this is one of the rare occasions where I think Christie’s abrasiveness works. He’s attacking someone who put a really filthy smear in print, not a teacher with a different opinion. This kind of thing, I think, will resonate more with the average voter.

MadisonConservative on January 31, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Marriage is a religious institution. The government needs to stick to civil unions for everyone and let each church decide who they will “marry.”

caldfyr on January 31, 2012 at 11:31 AM

You really have to question Ann Coulter when she claims to be a conservative and her hate for liberals when her picks are Romney and Christie. I have nothing against Christie as Governor of New Jersey, but would I vote for him right now for V.P. or President? Heck no. I’ll bet if conservatives stop buying the books of all these talking heads, there would be less of them. I’ll bet even Glenn Beck might have to eat a little crow when his ratings go down after calling Gingrich a Marxist and Communist.

lea on January 31, 2012 at 11:45 AM

I’ll bet even Glenn Beck might have to eat a little crow when his ratings go down after calling Gingrich a Marxist and Communist.

Newt Gingrich is not a conservative.

Sorry to break the news to you.

Good Lt on January 31, 2012 at 11:58 AM

… I don’t have a dog in this fight, but the one thing that should be understood, is that once you lift the restriction of “one man one woman”, you’re opening the door for all sorts of alternative arrangements. Whether people find this acceptable or not, it needs to be a part of the larger debate on gay marriage, because gay marriage is a precedent that opens the door for an even greater expansion of the definition of marriage.

HarryBackside on January 31, 2012 at 10:49 AM

so, “an even greater expansion of the definition of marriage” will ensue. So what? Are you worried that the marriage of a woman with a horse will somehow delegitimize or dismiss the beauty of a true romantic marriage between a man and a woman?

Let me ask you, do you also lump all Puerto Ricans together and/or all Black people together in discrete groups as you evaluate the character of any one you may meet? Or do you judge people as individuals based on what he or she says and does? From what you consider an important “part of the larger debate on gay marriage”, it appears you ascribe to the former. Are you…? no. can’t be. Are you…hmmmmmmm…. are you a racist?!!

beselfish on January 31, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Crispy Creme Christy makes another tough call! BS! This guy is a leader in his own mind. He is a North Eastern liberal in everything except teacher’s unions. He has a good stand on taxes but knows that the legislature will not let him do all of the things he really doesn’t want to do but will look good in asking for it. He has a very poor record on the second amendment and this issue of gay marriage is another one where he cannot stick his neck out and make a solid choice. God only knows what else lurks in his mind.

inspectorudy on January 31, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Let me ask you, do you also lump all Puerto Ricans together and/or all Black people together in discrete groups as you evaluate the character of any one you may meet? Or do you judge people as individuals based on what he or she says and does? From what you consider an important “part of the larger debate on gay marriage”, it appears you ascribe to the former. Are you…? no. can’t be. Are you…hmmmmmmm…. are you a racist?!!

beselfish on January 31, 2012 at 12:00 PM

When did you stop beating your wife? I think your being a little over dramatic, don’t you think? It takes a pretty large leap to reach the conclusion you somehow meandered to.

My point is this; once you expand the legal definition of marriage, where does it stop? We have always placed limitations on who can legally marry. For example, the law prevents a pair of siblings from entering into marriage. The law also prevents a person from marrying someone who is already married to someone else. If you want to say that anyone should be free to marry any body, that’s fine, as long as your fine with the unintended consequences.

BTW, I’m not concerned about the effect that a man married to a horse would have on my marriage. What does concern me, is that if the man dies before the horse, the horse will collect survivor benefits from the government.

HarryBackside on January 31, 2012 at 1:13 PM

I think we’ve found the Republican equivalent of Obama. Punt all the hard issues to someone else, blame others for you own failure to lead, live by ethereal principles- but give the impression you support everyman, survive based on hype and one actual accomplishment, talk a good line, smack talk when you don’t agree with someone.

The act is getting old. If I wanted this type of tripe in a governor I would have elected Don Rickles.

And who wants this guy as VP? He couldn’t shine Marco Rubios shoes.

Marcus Traianus on January 31, 2012 at 1:43 PM

I’ll bet even Glenn Beck might have to eat a little crow when his ratings go down after calling Gingrich a Marxist and Communist.
Newt Gingrich is not a conservative.
Sorry to break the news to you.
Good Lt on January 31, 2012 at 11:58 AM

No doubt Good Lt, and fair point. However, he’s also not a Marxist or a Communist. But we all know Beck’s hyperbolic schtick and we see it parroted everyday in comments sections when anyone who’s not exactly like Sarah Palin is PERCIEVED(She’s got some questionable acts in her history too, they’re just brushed off and ignored, epistemology and all.), Sheriff Joe Arpaio, or Rush Limbaugh is also automatically a commie pinko socialist Marxist. Problem is its just not true either.

Gingrich, no conservative, but only a complete idiot would posit that he is a Marxist or communist.

Boomer_Sooner on January 31, 2012 at 1:47 PM

It wasn’t that long ago that Governor Christie was lauded as the “wrecking ball”. He’s stood firm against high taxes and labor unions, yet one deviation from the social-conservative marching orders and he’s all of a sudden a squishy CINO.

I think he’s got a solid position there. Against redefining the term “marriage” but otherwise willing to give equal marriage rights to same-sex couples. Let’s not wreck the “wrecking ball” over this one issue.

TMOverbeck on January 31, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Interesting side note, If marriage for gays passes in NJ you’ll be seeing me tie the know on the capitol steps!

Zekecorlain on January 31, 2012 at 2:09 PM

We are watching the downward spiral of our moral beliefs forced upon us by by a group of people that are completely out of sink with normal sexual orientation.
The motivation behind this may be that they, in their innermost thoughts, consider themselves out of sink sexually. And that by forcing us to accept and treat their sexual orientation as normal, they can feel vindicated.
It is not any ones business what someone else does behind closed doors as long as they keep their business to themselves. And do not attempt to change my religion to suit your own selfish, purposes.

rightoption

I do not see how gays getting married is “forced” on you, unless you are being forced into a gay marriage. Gays being able to marry has no effect on your marriage, unless you get so upset knowing that because gays are marrying, you let it affect your lives.

Maybe those gays will find their “sink” someday…

I just do not get for all the moralizing about gays being deviants who want to destroy the family and marriage, all the while heterosexual divorce gets no marriage at all

firepilot on January 31, 2012 at 2:33 PM

all the while heterosexual divorce gets no marriage at all

firepilot

I mean no mention at all. I just do not get allowing the small number of gays to get married, is somehow much more of a threat to the family than divorce is.

firepilot on January 31, 2012 at 2:34 PM

@rightoption I’m not trying to change your religion, I’m trying to stop you from foisting your religious beliefs on me and then claiming that my open existence is somehow a threat to your beliefs. If your beliefs or religions can’t withstand the simple existence of gays being happy then I think the problem is on your side of the fence.

Zekecorlain on January 31, 2012 at 2:48 PM

If you want to say that anyone should be free to marry any body, that’s fine, as long as your fine with the unintended consequences.

HarryBackside on January 31, 2012 at 1:13 PM

That’s it? So, your test for the validity of my viewpoint is whether I’m fine with the unintended consequences? That’s the rhetorical insight you offer to lay waste to my claim?

WEAK!

your fun, HarryB.

beselfish on January 31, 2012 at 3:05 PM

But gay-marriage supporters have been perfectly comfortable using democratic means to advance their own position, most famously last year when the New York legislature passed gay marriage.

Allahpundit on Jan 30, 2012 10:10 PM

The founding fathers created a constitutional republic, not a democracy, to govern citizens. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Constitution warned, “A simple democracy is one of the greatest of evils.” For the record I’m very uncomfortable with majority opinion aka RULE OF MOB. Chris Christie wants to take a poll. Who cares what the poll says. What does God say! And we’ve gotten away from, “Thus saith the Lord,” and we’ve gone to, “What saith the majority.” We’ve got leaders like Christie running around saying, “Let’s see… which way is the wind blowing? (lifts up his finger to feel wind) OK, you lead and I’ll follow!” (I am laughing) This is horrible, allahpundit. Remember, the most infamous vote in the history of mankind was when the people yelled, “Crucify Him.” We have got to get back to a standard. When we lost the standard of “Thus saith the Lord,” this is what happens to America. Thank you.

apocalypse on January 31, 2012 at 3:06 PM

The most infamous vote in history was when the people yelled, “Crucify Him!”

apocalypse on January 31, 2012 at 3:09 PM

apocalypse on January 31, 2012 at 3:06 PM

You fail to recall that being a constitutional republic does not cancel out the fact that we are also a representative democracy.

MadisonConservative on January 31, 2012 at 3:21 PM

When we lost the standard of “Thus saith the Lord,” this is what happens to America. Thank you.

apocalypse on January 31, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Sorry, apocalypse, but what you quote is an edict NOT a standard. Standards follow from reality not from some mystic’s arbitrary whim.

But, to your overall point, I do agree standards have been largely thrown by the wayside. We do have to get back to the proper standard for the politics of freedom- Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, of course.

beselfish on January 31, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Who cares what the poll says. What does God say!

Which god? Whose god?

Good Lt on January 31, 2012 at 3:31 PM

apocalypse on January 31, 2012 at 3:06 PM

You fail to recall that being a constitutional republic does not cancel out the fact that we are also a representative democracy.

MadisonConservative on January 31, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Correct… but the founders never intended a democracy like we have today. In forming the republic they created a system where its citizens elect representatives who then enforce the laws (given by the Creator) and that’s how they intended us to be governed. They knew God is the lawgiver… that’s why the Bible is the basis for American legal system. The framers understood this very well following the pattern of Isaiah 33:22, “God is our King, God is our lawgiver, God is our Judge.” A simple democracy aka the rule of mob is very dangerous and can easily lead to dictatorship where man decides right and wrong and is called the “lawmaker.” Peace

apocalypse on January 31, 2012 at 4:01 PM

When we lost the standard of “Thus saith the Lord,” this is what happens to America. Thank you.

apocalypse on January 31, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Sorry, apocalypse, but what you quote is an edict NOT a standard. Standards follow from reality not from some mystic’s arbitrary whim.

beselfish on January 31, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Not sure what you mean when you say that standards follow from reality. If there is no absolute morality explain to me how do you tell right from wrong? Does Mahmoud Ahmadinejad decide right from wrong? Maybe Congress should decide right from wrong? How about you decide right and wrong for you… and I will decide it for me? In which case, what happens if I decide it is OK to steal from you? If you every figure this out let me know, OK. I would really like to know how do you tell right from wrong. Actually, like I said earlier it’s real SIMPLE. It’s real easy to tell right from wrong. “Thus saith the Lord…” (412 times in the Bible). There’s your absolute. That’s how you do it. Thanks.

But, to your overall point, I do agree standards have been largely thrown by the wayside. We do have to get back to the proper standard for the politics of freedom – Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, of course.

Much respect to you on this point

apocalypse on January 31, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Who cares what the poll says. What does God say!

apocalypse on January 31, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Which god? Whose god?

Good Lt on January 31, 2012 at 3:31 PM

YOUR Creator, and He doesn’t want you to perish on the day of Judgment

apocalypse on January 31, 2012 at 4:27 PM

@apocalypse I’m assuming that you mean Chronos King of the Titans! Luckily he was overthrown by his son Zeus so we got like a total reprieve from his dark god ways. Any who I’m off to the temple to sacrifice don’t forget the Holy Days!

Zekecorlain on January 31, 2012 at 4:38 PM

It has started already. Oklahoma tried to ban Sharia and the courts overturned it.
Oklahoma City and Tulsa now look just like Mecca.
CorporatePiggy on January 31, 2012 at 9:35 AM

I live in Oklahoma City and moved from Tulsa after 8 years. This statement is a ridiculous flight of fancy and absolutely imagined.

Boomer_Sooner on January 31, 2012 at 4:38 PM

I live in Oklahoma city too, I can assure you it’s all white bread as far as the eye can see. I know of three mosque in the metro, and one of them is run by a friend who I can assure you as an ex-navy man has no time for foolish muslim’s trying to raise a stink. He works closely with the FBI to root out corrupt charities that come to his congregation for money.

Zekecorlain on January 31, 2012 at 4:56 PM

I have to go back and read the comments on this thread but I bet nobody noticed that Christie is fat. All this focus and sleazy interest in the b*tt sects crowd is a distraction.

Plus he appointed his boyfriend to the Supreme Court. Nepotism.

platypus on January 31, 2012 at 6:19 PM

The founding fathers created a constitutional republic, not a democracy, to govern citizens. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Constitution warned, “A simple democracy is one of the greatest of evils.” For the record I’m very uncomfortable with majority opinion aka RULE OF MOB. Chris Christie wants to take a poll. Who cares what the poll says. What does God say! And we’ve gotten away from, “Thus saith the Lord,” and we’ve gone to, “What saith the majority.” We’ve got leaders like Christie running around saying, “Let’s see… which way is the wind blowing? (lifts up his finger to feel wind) OK, you lead and I’ll follow!” (I am laughing) This is horrible, allahpundit. Remember, the most infamous vote in the history of mankind was when the people yelled, “Crucify Him.” We have got to get back to a standard. When we lost the standard of “Thus saith the Lord,” this is what happens to America. Thank you.

apocalypse

So, if it is Mob Rule if the people vote to allow gay marriage, was it also “Mob Rule” when they voted voted against gay marriage?

Chris Christie does not at all seem to be someone who takes a poll or goes with the wind, since his actions have been politically unpopular on multiple issues.

One would gather by your last sentences, that voting is not good, because its mob rule, and that our country would be better off governed by the church, than by law.

And thus saith the Lord..has been used by people to do bad things many times.

firepilot on January 31, 2012 at 7:20 PM

I believe that as Americans, we have the obligation to protect and defend the right of every individual to live out this human experience as freely and lawfully as possible. That said, I also believe that the union between a man and woman is sacred in that it is not only ordained by God, if you believe, but also ordained by nature. Two men alone or two women alone on an island could not be able to procreate. There is something unique and significant there.

With all that said, I will NEVER let anyone tell me that I am not allowed to call myself a conservative because I support civil unions. And you know what? If I need to pick sides between the candidate who wants to make his/her priority banning gay marriage against a candidate who wants to balance budgets and address our enormous debt, I choose the candidate who addresses the looming fiscal crisis we are in. Period. This RINO crap is getting ridiculous. The Republican purity test is disgusting and I will push back whenever I can.

pjean on January 31, 2012 at 7:55 PM

With all that said, I will NEVER let anyone tell me that I am not allowed to call myself a conservative because I support civil unions. And you know what? If I need to pick sides between the candidate who wants to make his/her priority banning gay marriage against a candidate who wants to balance budgets and address our enormous debt, I choose the candidate who addresses the looming fiscal crisis we are in. Period. This RINO crap is getting ridiculous. The Republican purity test is disgusting and I will push back whenever I can.

pjean

It is ridiculous. Its like many social conservatives want the GOP to turn its back on limited government and individual freedom, in favor of evangelical values based legislation.

And this whole idea of someone not being a real Republican, hence the RINO moniker, if they are not socially conservative enough, is just silly since these same people would have been Democrats a generation or two ago, before that group left the Dems to go to the Republicans.

But hey, social conservatives gave us Jimmy Carter and LBJ, so I guess they should be allowed to decide who are real Republicans after all.

firepilot on January 31, 2012 at 8:43 PM

@apocalypse I’m assuming that you mean Chronos King of the Titans! Luckily he was overthrown by his son Zeus so we got like a total reprieve from his dark god ways. Any who I’m off to the temple to sacrifice don’t forget the Holy Days!

Zekecorlain on January 31, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Zekecorlain, if I want to be an idolater, remember, I start with a fairytale like yours… ;-)

apocalypse on January 31, 2012 at 9:00 PM

The founding fathers created a constitutional republic, not a democracy, to govern citizens. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Constitution warned, “A simple democracy is one of the greatest of evils.” For the record I’m very uncomfortable with majority opinion aka RULE OF MOB. Chris Christie wants to take a poll. Who cares what the poll says. What does God say! And we’ve gotten away from, “Thus saith the Lord,” and we’ve gone to, “What saith the majority.” We’ve got leaders like Christie running around saying, “Let’s see… which way is the wind blowing? (lifts up his finger to feel wind) OK, you lead and I’ll follow!” (I am laughing) This is horrible, allahpundit. Remember, the most infamous vote in the history of mankind was when the people yelled, “Crucify Him.” We have got to get back to a standard. When we lost the standard of “Thus saith the Lord,” this is what happens to America. Thank you.

apocalypse on January 31, 2012 at 3:06 PM

So, if it is Mob Rule if the people vote to allow gay marriage, was it also “Mob Rule” when they voted voted against gay marriage?

firepilot on January 31, 2012 at 7:20 PM

There shouldn’t be a vote either way.

Chris Christie does not at all seem to be someone who takes a poll or goes with the wind, since his actions have been politically unpopular on multiple issues.

Christie wants to let the voters decide the meaning of marriage in our culture…

One would gather by your last sentences, that voting is not good, because its mob rule, and that our country would be better off governed by the church, than by law.

What if the public thought killing Jews was good like Hitler did. What if they put it to a vote and the majority voted it was OK. You think that is good? How about a vote to kill children in the womb? Or voting to change the definition of marriage? You see where I’m going with this. The founders developed a government where the citizens vote and elect representatives who then enforce the laws God has given us so I am not against voting for godly people to be elected at all levels of government. I am saying that man should not decide truth for himself and democracy ends in a dictatorship. Our rights do not come from man. Our rights are conferred by the Creator. God is the lawgiver and our leaders need to govern in the same way God’s law dictated how Israel could run their county.

And thus saith the Lord..has been used by people to do bad things many times.

I agree with you on religion. It number 2 right behind atheistic communism on the historical atrocities list. Thanks.

apocalypse on January 31, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3