On Gay Marriage, NJ State Senate President Sweeney Vows Override of Christie's Veto

Monday, February 20, 2012

New Jersey state Senate President Steve Sweeney promised to override Governor Chris Christie's veto of a same-sex marriage bill by January 2014.

The Democrat said the issue does not belong on a referendum ballot, as advocated by the governor, because it's a matter of civil rights.

"How can it not be when I have a certain right and I'm allowed to do something and you're not?" Sweeney said on CNN Sunday. "That's what we fought over and that's what this country's been founded on is fairness."

Sweeney appeared opposite Republican Assembly Minority Leader Jon Bramnick who agrees with the governor.

"It's not a civil rights issue, and you can see that by Democrats and Republicans both having the same view at least some of them on the same side of this issue," Bramnick said.

He framed a referendum as a compromise by the Republican governor. Sweeney argued that when a majority is asked to vote for civil rights for a minority, the results are always unfair.

Christie followed through on his promise to veto the same sex marriage bill last Friday, a day after the state Assembly passed it. The Senate approved it last Monday.


Comments [11]

Ant from Kunghur

I’m a male person, a man, and I never want to have sex with a man - anal sex, oral sex, mutual masturbation, kissing on the mouth – nothing; not even with Matt Damon.
And I don’t want people thinking maybe I would. I want it to be clear that I’m not gay. So if my status is shown as married, or divorced from a marriage, I don’t want it to be regarded as possibly married to or divorced from a gay man, or a succession of gaymen. That’s how bad I don’t want to have sex with a man. Even Matt Damon.

Let men who are in committed domestic relationships with other men, committed homosexual relationships, be listed as, I don’t know, “como’d” perhaps. As enjoying the institute of “comoage”. A proposal of comoage might sound like “Will you como me?”.
Maybe someone else has a better name, whatever. I've got nothing against gays, I'm sure they're just like straights, some nice, some not so nice. It's just I don't want to have sex with them - have I mentioned that?

We already own "marriage". Sorry, that's just a fact. You'd be welcome to share it except it serves an important purpose for us. We've given you "gay" and you’ve made excellent use of it. There’s no hard feelings over that, we were underutilising it anyway. Can’t you be grateful for that and leave us “marriage”?

One of the important purposes this word serves is it confirms that I never want to have sex with a man. I expect a gay psychologist would find that preference strange, or indicative of something contradictory in my psyche. I don't know, they may be right. All I know is I sincerely, definitely, do not want to do it with a man. I could be wrong but I think other straights feel the same way. Not wanting to have sex with men is the main thing that keeps me from breaking the law. It's not the only thing, I hear prison food is pretty bad as well.

While we’re at it, let’s not have any ambiguity about the title wife either. When I talk about my three ex-s I don’t want anyone wondering whether one or more of them might be blokes – sorry, men. I’m Australian, we often call guys blokes. (Bloke is another word I’d like to keep too btw if that’s OK.)
Let’s call a gay bride, say, a bife. Or, in the case of female comoage, perhaps a dyfe. Or a wyke.

Feb. 21 2012 08:27 PM
Jos. A. Mustich from Washington, CT USA

Jersey, Jersey, Jersey....just to the right thing morally and economically.
It's time for full civil and marriage equality rights now.
Cheers, Joe Mustich, CT USA
Marriage Officiator & Justice of the Peace

And Obama stop war mongering on Iran...

Feb. 21 2012 11:07 AM

The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.

From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.

America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.

Feb. 20 2012 05:47 PM

This is the perfect example of how anti-gay people change the bible's words for their anti-gay agenda.

Corinthians 6:9-11
Let us examine that very closely.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

First of all, before we address this line, let us consider one thing. Supposedly taken from a 2000+ year old book, understand that the word "homosexual" was not coined until 1869 by Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny. So how it happens to be included in a true reading of the particular biblical passage should make you ponder how accurate the interpretation actually is. So man changing the words of the Bible to conveniently spread their anti-gay agenda?


Feb. 20 2012 05:31 PM

Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

(Change *** to www)
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

Feb. 20 2012 05:16 PM

We need to get the word out to religious communities that anti-gay people are twisting God's words to condone their anti-gay agenda.

Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.

(Change *** to www)

Feb. 20 2012 05:13 PM
Inis Magrath

Republican Assembly Minority Leader Jon Bramnick: "It's not a civil rights issue ..."


The U. S. Supreme Court has held that marriage is a fundamental civil right. In fact, the Supreme Court has said marriage is a right in over a dozen cases dating back to the 1880s. It is long-settled law in this country that marriage is a civil right, no matter what Bramnick says.

Let's be very clear: What Bramnick and those on his side of this issue are doing is trying to deprive LGBT Americans of their civil rights. It is despicable.

Feb. 20 2012 05:05 PM
Michael Springer from New York State

Make it happen! OVERRIDE that veto IMMEDIATELY! Send Tubby a wake up call, reality check and SOON! Way OVERDUE!

Feb. 20 2012 04:45 PM

I notice a lot of republican presidential candidates preach "It's the states right". well the congress wins majority vote in favor of same sex, and the governors still don't get the hint… WTF?

Feb. 20 2012 03:23 PM
David in Houston

"It's not a civil rights issue, and you can see that by Democrats and Republicans both having the same view at least some of them on the same side of this issue," Bramnick said.
So, 60 years ago, when the Democrats and Republicans both had the same view that bans on interracial marriages weren't a civil rights issue, they were right about that? Is that how our legal system works? As long as both parties agree on the issue it makes it the right (Constitutional) thing to do? Give me a break.

Feb. 20 2012 02:48 PM

Archbishop Desmond Tutu has written strong words on this issue, from his latest book -
"This is a matter of ordinary justice... I could not have fought against the discrimination of apartheid and not also fight against the discrimination that homosexuals endure, even in our churches and faith groups." (page 54)
and -
"Equally, I cannot keep quiet while people are being penalized for something about which they can do nothing - their sexuality. To discriminate against our sisters and brothers who are lesbian or gay on grounds of their sexual orientation for me is as totally unacceptable and unjust as apartheid ever was." (page 55)

Feb. 20 2012 01:18 PM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.