E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSGov. Chris Christie, R-NJ., joins Morning Joe to discuss Wednesday night's GOP debate in Arizona, why he thinks Rick Santorum had an "awful night" at the debate, and why he vetoed a bill allowing same-sex marriage in New Jersey.
Following his veto of a bill allowing gay marriage in his state, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie accused Democrats of playing politics with the issue and said his stance is no different than President Obama's.
"I have the exact same position as the president … The Democrats in my state are criticizing me, saying my feet are firmly planted on the wrong side of justice. I said yesterday, 'Yeah, my feet are firmly planted right next to President Obama." And they don’t criticize him," Christie said on MSNBC’s "Morning Joe."
Christie defended his view that voters should be the ones who decide what defines marriage in his state.
"Even though it’s against my belief on this, I’m willing to be governed on it [by the voters]," Christie said.
Last Friday, Christie vetoed a bill that would have allowed gay marriage in the state. The Republican governor accompanied his veto with a call for lawmakers to appoint an advocate for same-sex couples under the state's existing civil union law.
Obama, on the other hand, has been coy on the subject of gay marriage, Christie insisted. Obama has supported strengthening civil unions, just as he has, but hasn’t gone further than that, Christie said.
"The president has hidden on this issue," Christie told MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski. "The president opposes same-sex marriage."
Harold Ford, Jr., a former Democratic congressman, also on the show, pointed out that Obama applauded New York’s decision to approve gay marriage.
"So he applauds other people’s courage, but doesn’t have any of his own," Christie shot back.
Christie reiterated that he would respect the people’s will if the measure passed in a statewide referendum.
"You need three-fifths of the state Legislature to get it on the ballot, and I’ve called on every Republican to vote yes, to put it on the ballot," he said.
"Morning Joe" contributor Jonathan Capehart, an openly gay Washington Post columnist, confronted Christie.
"I heard you say that you have your feet firmly planted next to President Obama on this issue, but the key difference between you and the president is that while you support putting the civil rights of that minority up for a public referendum, the president is not in favor of that," Capehart said.
"Has he said that, Jonathan? … Have you heard him say it?" asked Christie. "He’s silent on this issue like he is on every issue that is difficult for him."
This article includes reporting by msnbc.com's Elizabeth Chuck and Reuters.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News
Leave a Comment:
Another example of the moral decay of our country.
Our constitution and laws were written based on religious beliefs. Slowly the laws and constitution are being distorted and torn apart by the left wing nut liberals.
If Obama had is way the church would be done away with, those that need health care that would improve qualityof life would not receive it. The ones that are critically ill or injured would have their fate decide by a deathpanel. Abortions would be available at store front clinics
The leaders of our Churches would be charged with hate crimes for preaching against homosexuality and abortion.
Leviticus 20 10-18 is a basis for many of our laws regarding sexual conduct. This is old Mosaic law but many of them still apply today.
False, the largest influences were by deist and secular principles. Lockean philosophy was a major contributor.
I'd respond to the rest of your drivile, but it's clear you live in a very distorted reality.
NO THEY WEREN'T.
Get a freaking history book or take a US Civics class and stop embarrassing yourself. I'm so sick of you religious zealots wrongly insisting this is a Christian country or claiming that our laws were based on the Bible or any of this made-up NONSENSE. You are dead wrong.
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Constitution#Historical_influences
Start with this. The Bible did not remotely influence the US Constitution AT ALL. Nowhere in the entire thing is "God" or anything from or related to the Bible even hinted at.
What part of the Constitution and laws were written based on religious law? The Constitution isn't a long document, you can read it and won't any Biblical law....NONE!!!!
GMatlock-
I would like to know where it is you are getting your mis-information because someone or some source is doing you a great injustice.
Our Constitution was written, on purpose, without religious laws. And it was written to forbid religious laws. Where are you getting your information from?
Splitting hairs, Chris; the public elected the legislators who voted FOR gay marriage, so by standing in their way, who is abiding by the will of the voters?
And, BTW, the whole idea that Leaders Lead and the Peoople Follow? I guess he isn't a believer in that!
Christie, you're a fool and an even more foolish politician. Don't you realize that all you are doing is setting up a tyranny of the majority over your constituency? The Founding Fathers, from both sides of the aisle, constructed the Constitution specifically to avoid this pitfall.
we need more people like Christie. at least he has the balls to take a stand or say what he thinks. most oters just skirt around questions and speak in political garbage. christie is the best thing that has happened to jersey in a long time.
And what about the state reps that stood up for what they believed in? What are they - Shetland ponies? Seems like they did just what you are calling for. Or might it just be that since you agree with Christie you are blinded?
What a fat, disingenuous man. He's trying so hard to deflect, it's not even amusing late-night comedy fodder anymore. It's embarrassing. Trying to say he's aligned with Obama... what a farce. This President has done more for gay rights than any President in US history and he certainly hasn't vetoed any bills that would confer basic rights to gays and lesbians, so Christie is desperately misguided if he thinks he and Obama are marching in lockstep on this issue. Obama would do well to publicly disavow any ideological affiliation with this nasty man.
The representatives in Christie's state -- that is, representatives who were duly elected by the people -- passed a bill allowing same-sex marriage. Recent polls show that the people there favor SSM by a 52-42% margin. So we've got the people AND the people's elected representatives on one side, and on the other we have Gov. Christie who, owing to his personal ideology or career ambitions or whatever, decides to overrule the people on two sides.
Yet, the Republicans, who piss and moan every time a so-called "activist judge" overrules "the will of the people," are startlingly silent about this "activist governor" doing the exact same thing. Actually, NOT even the same thing, because the judicial branch overturns this stuff because it's unconstitutional. Every court -- EVERY court -- that has looked at the issue has rendered the same decision. Christie is just playing to his zealot base, probably in the ill-advised hopes of a 2016 presidential run.
Dear Gov. Christie,
I applaud your position on wanting to let the people vote on whether same sex marriage should be legal. Too often individuals or small minorities push their agendas through and the rest of us have to live with it. I also hope that you will allow the citizens of New Jersey to vote on whether women should be allowed to vote; on whether schools should be segregated; on whether or not we should bring back slavery; on whether children should be allowed to work in mills and factories, and on whether or not America should give up independence and ask England to take us back. God bless you in your righteous efforts.
I was getting ready to write a nasty reply to this until I realized there is a 99% chance you are being satirical. If that is the case, well done.
I was being satirical. Thank you! I did half expect someone to take my comment seriously though...:)
It's very hard to get that point across in type. I had to read well into the 3rd or 4th sentence before I got it.
I guess I don't understand the whole issue and why he would veto a law that was approved by the legislature. Is Governor Christie suggesting that the legislature does not represent the interests of the people of New Jersey? If this is the case, then why would Governor Christie sign ANY legislation that is not put forward directly by the people. This is a Republic, we have people that we vote for to represent our interests. They voted. Not sure why he thinks the people would do anything different.
The GOP is really confused. They complain about gov't so much that they don't know how they want gov't to work.
They are against "activist judges" which you'd think they mean, they just want constitutionalist but then they want SCOTUS to decide cases based on Biblical law.
They didn't like Perry using Executive authority on HPV because it should've gone through the legislature. But then when this bill went through the legislature, Christie vetoes it which is using executive authority.
Then they want things put to popular vote right up until they decide that we're a republic and these things should be decided by the legislature.
"They need a VP that appeals to the base?!!??" Your base, or the GOP's base? ROFLMAO!!! I love him and I don't think he should accept a VP postion. He can run in 2016 and have Hillary as his VP. Wow! That would be grand. Two who speak their mind and are more honest than most!
The last time I looked at the Constitution, Amercia was a democracy where the majority vote rules. "For the People, By the People" It should be put to a vote and then left to stand as the people have asserted their Constitutional rights. Unless of course you are in California, where you vote for an issue and then a gay judge overrules it and delcares it invalid. So much for democracy in the state of fruits and nuts, apparently the U. S. Constitution isn't valid there anymore.
We don't vote on civil rights in this country. It's the gov'ts job to keep citizens from being discriminated against. See, those who are oppressed or discriminated against are usually the minority. You can't ask the majority to vote on whether or not they want to keep discriminating.
Sorry, but no where in the Constitution does it say that the wishes of the majority "rule". Every good change that we've had as Americans came about because of individuals and small groups of people who often went AGAINST what the majority thought was right. Women didn't get the vote, slavery didn't end, child labor didn't end, segregation didn't end, and the American Revolution didn't happen because the majority WANTED it or even VOTED on these things. The "majority" would have snored through the Sermon on the Mount.
Tom, you should read the rest of the Constitution. It is filled with all sorts of rights that do not depend on majority approval because they are that fundamental to a free society. Specifically, focus on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment which states that "no state...shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." A majority vote should not be able to take this away from anyone no matter how much you or others don't like or agree with them as people.
Tom, I'd personally wager that the last time you looked at the US Constitution would be "never," because if you had, you'd know that America is not, in fact, a democracy. At all. We are a federal constitutional republic. "Majority vote rules" is not the way this country is governed, nor has it ever been.
Care to try again? Perhaps after educating yourself even a tiny bit? The whole Internet is at your disposal. You may also learn that the "gay judge in California" was only upholding the decision by the California Supreme Court, which was majority Republican-appointed and conservative, in declaring a ban on SSM to be unconstitutional. Curiously, you may also find that every single court in the land that has looked at similar decisions has rendered the same decision: Unconstitutional.
Roughly 30 states have voted on a Constitutional amendment thus far on this issue and all have banned same sex marriage except one, Arizona, which was then reversed in 2008 by another vote. This is how the people vote on this issue.
Yeah, Tom, what's your point? That most people are stupid and don't like people who are different from them? That's your evidence for showing that majority rule is valid on issues like this?
Tom, you have stated exactly why the people should not get a vote on this. The fact that people in 30 states want it is proof of why the Constitution needs to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. Just because a lot of people are in favor of limiting marriage does not make it Constitutional. I don't even know why people care about defining marriage as between one man and one woman; nobody is forcing anybody to live their life any differently than before. Personally, I think people like Ted Haggard are the rule and not the exception.
Civil rights are not subject to referendum voting. IOW, the majority does not have the right to decide what civil rights the minority has the right to. Period.
I am a NJ resident who voted for both Obama and Christie and I can say, without hesitation, that they are not in the same place on this issue. Obama did help to repeal DADT which shows he is on the side of civil rights for gay people. Obama has been silent on gay marriage but only beause the bigoted masses will use it as a tool to vote him out of office if he takes any stance that doesn't involve it being a sin. Unfortunately, you have to play politics sometimes whether we like it or not.
Christie, on the other hand, has taken a stance on the issue and gone against what the NJ legislature has handed to him. This is a civil rights issue and gay Americans should be granted the same rights as any other Americans including the right to marry another consenting adult, regardless of gender. It should not be up to the people because we have a Constutition to protect us from the majority's whims and idiotic beliefs. If this does go to vote, I know I will make sure I am there in November to see it pass.
I agree with you whole heartedly. i would add that the reason people are against same sex marriage is because it goes against the Bible. However in our country we acknowledge religious freedom which should include not believing in the Bible. It is the fundamental need for seperation of church and state. I firmly believe that gay individuals should have the right to go down to their local court house and get married legally in the eyes of the government- however no church should ever be forced to perform same sex marriages and should not do so as it is against their religion... and no one is asking them to.
He is also with Pizza Hut for Pizza.
And Kentucky Fried Chicken for Chicken.
And Wendy's for hamburgers.
But he obviously vetoes Weight Watchers.
Fat Hog.
if NJ already has legal civil unions then why do they need gay marriage law?
Where does Christie stand on morbid obesity?
Christie is nothing but a big FAT ASS LOUD MOUTH. I wonder,,would he be so insulting without that State Police body guard always standing nearby?
????
Did the Elected Representatives of New Jersey pass the Bill legalizing Marriage between same sex couples?
Are these Elected Representatives no longer the voice of People of New Jersey???
Or, are they only the Voice of the People when it is something the Governor agrees with?
Calling for a Referendum shows a high level of disrespect to the very voters you now call on to settle an issue, you as Governor, just settled based on nothing more than your personal views.
You opted to VETO a bill that by all accounts, holds a majority approval of those very voters.
Gov. Chrisite? are you governing or are you dictating????
Stick to your guns Gov. It is the right thing to do.
Absolutely! Overriding the votes of elected representatives of the people is exactly the kind of thing that King George III did. Well done!
1). The President certainly has enough on his plate right now without this. He knows that this issue would just further divide the country at a time when we don't need any more divide at the federal level. While I fully support same-sex marriage we do have bigger fish to fry right now.
2). Considering the fact that no federal legislation has been introduced there has been no compelling reason for the President to make any type of statement, especially considering #1 above.
3). The President isn't stupid, he knows as well as we all do that this will eventually be decided by SCOTUS. There is no getting around it.
Considering the hatred toward the President we already see coming from the far right I understand why he may not be ready to take this on right now. The better question would be why should he. This will be fought in the courts, where it should be.
Christie is against gay marriages but he is for twinkies for breakfast, lunch and dinner
The shame of it all
Wow! if people talked about Obama the way you people knock Christie - they'd be called racists! Nasty, nasty. Christie isn't a whole lot bigger than Michelle Obama!
Mikki
Christie is 2 Michelle Obamas plus 1/2 of Rush Oxycontin Lintball
Laughable. You don't know what these two people look like.
People on the right say the most horrible things about Obama day in day out. Are you going to pretend not to know this?
I don't condone anyone criticizing Christie on his size. I actually like Christie as a person, he seems sincere for a Republican.
beard: "sincere for a Republican" is an oxymoron--sort of like saying, "He's nice for an axe murderer."
I still don't get it why gay people even want to marry. I am not gay and will never be gay and therefore do not understand gay minds but I do know marriage to another human being and it is not what it's cracked up to be, for sure it will be even more disastrous with the same gender, at least in my case. Expressing a romantic feeling does not require state involvement as far as I am aware so my guess is the financial / legal benefit of marriage is what they seek. Thus the solution is to abolish the benefit / merit given to regular marriage (probably politically impossible) or to provide the exact same rights / benefits to civil unions. You can claim your gayness as being married to anyone socially but as long as you have the same state-given rights under civil union as under marriage why do you care?
We Americans are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution makes it clear that these rights are INNATE. They come from our Creator. They are not derived from any government. They do not require APPROVAL. So long as our pursuits towards these ends cause harm to none, we are free and PROTECTED in our quest for them, and this protection from government must be equal under the law. There is no such thing as people having "almost the same" rights. Men don't vote and women "sort of vote". Whites don't ride at the front of the bus and blacks "sort of near the front of the bus". That is why so many people CARE.
First off, who cares what this clowns says or thinks, typical politician. Vote him out and get someone new in the office, someone with imagination and someone who actually gives a sh*t about the people in his state and is not working a personal agenda. Wadda blowhard.
I think it's all about spousal death benefits, like social security and government pension benefits. That would have to be a federal mandate and I don't expect that to happen in my lifetime, and I have a long way to go.
I stand with Jon Stewart: How would Christie respond if Fat Marriage were up for a vote? What really sickens me is how the folks at Morning Joe, with one exception, fall at this mans feet and worship him, allowing him to say whatever he wants without rebuttal. They are worse than he is.
So let me get this straight.
It is ok to let someone slide it in the back door vs. having a vote on it?
Oooops, I did it again.
Hmmm. . . do you mean the way we let the Bush tax cuts slide in the back door vs. having a vote on it or do you mean the way we let corporations be deemed as persons with free speech rights slide in the back door without having a vote on it?
Wow,
That one flew right over your head. Which is hard to do with all the air up there.
Just like everything else Obama is getting a pass from the liberal media. Christie is 100% correct on this. I believe obama supports gay marriage but knows many blacks and latinos dont eventhough most will mindlessly vote for him anyway.
Christie is right that obama has a difficult time with his gay position. It was not too long ago that obamas gay Chicago lover, Larry Sinclair, was murdered after he spoke out about his times with obama.
Being gay in todays politics is more for vanity and popularity than it is about rights. Any couple can declare themselves married at any time. Who you are married to is no ones business. A simple adjustment in tax forms is all that's needed. Remove the "spouse name" box on the forms and use only the "married" check box and "ssan" box. Too simple, but libs have to have a national debate so as to infuriate all opposition.
Like me now-- you are a liar. The gay crap is just that. Crap.