New Jersey Gov. presidential hopeful tries to defend NJ civil union law

[Jingthing]

This article should prove interesting to sports fans following the inevitable demise of civil unions in the USA (now only four states. down from nine as five already upgraded to marriage). New Jersey is an important and large state and it's remarkably corpulent governor is a serious contender for president in 2016, on the anti-gay republican side.

Now he is trying to defend NJ state civil union law against strong challenges to convert to marriage.

Gay civil rights issues yet again getting mixed up quite heavily with American presidential politics:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/08/chris_christie_s_legal_brief_on_gay_marriage_pure_nonsense.html

The idea seems to be to further New Jersey’s bizarre argument that it’s the feds who are depriving gays of equality rather than the state. Because the Civil Union Act intended to treat gay and straight couples equally, the brief argues, now that DOMA is dead, the federal government should give civil union partners full benefits “because they are spouses.”

The trouble is, New Jersey did not intend to treat gay couples equally. If it did, it would have actually made them spouses, granting them access to marriage—to the word itself. This is the precise meaning of the Supreme Court’s 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that separate is “inherently unequal.” Awarding equivalent material benefits does not erase the stigma of separating a class of people from the core institutions of American life.

Note the linkage to the American black civil rights movement, the model followed quite closely by the American gay civil rights movement. Even more so when discussing law around when interracial marriages were illegal in some states -- nobody was seriously suggesting a SEPARATE institution only for mixed race marriages.

I believe Christie is on the wrong side of history, and its telling that the only vocal voices trying to keep civil unions alive are notorious political ENEMIES of gay equality in America. The actual gay people in state civil unions (now only four states) are working hard to CONVERT their states to the first class equality of marriage. No new U.S. states are expected to enact NEW civil union laws as they are now totally passe in light of the recent supreme court rulings.

How many years until civil unions are completely gone from the U.S scene? Nobody knows but I predict three or four years MAX.

From Christie's POV, even when he LOSES this effort to hang on to civil unions in New Jersey, at least he will be able to go to the anti-gay right wing republican BASE and say he fought the supposedly good fight against gay marriage equality.

This is all pretty cynical of them really because it's obvious within the next 10 or 20 years due to the massive support of young Americans for gay marriage equality, even the republicans will be FORCED to change their tune on this issue. But not yet.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Jingthing

[sustento]

Gosh another thread about America. What a novelty!!!

[Jingthing]

Gosh another thread about America. What a novelty!!!

Yes, I thought a thread specifically focused on the process of the demise of civil unions in the USA (now only four states) made sense because a number of other threads had morphed off topic to be mostly about this one aspect. This thread could potentially be a place for the topic of developments about ALL the four states and the processes they take to move forward from the obsolete (in the USA) civil union alternative. If there is no interest in this (that would be surprising considering the other threads though) ... no biggie!

Edited August 7, 2013 by Jingthing

[ToddWeston]

Gosh another thread about America. What a novelty!!!

One down 49 to go......

That is one jolly chap, I'd never heard of him before and a little research he's very popular amongst voters.

[Jingthing]

Gosh another thread about America. What a novelty!!!

One down 49 to go......

That is one jolly chap, I'd never heard of him before and a little research he's very popular amongst voters.

He's what we call a straight talker.

So natural he'd be pushing anti-gay policies.

He's not nearly the worse example of what the republicans have to offer. He's more moderate than the majority of that party. Moderate by American standards anyway.

Being fat helps. Makes him more human. Americans after all are 1/3 overweight, and 1/3 OBESE.

Obama being an ectomorph means many Americans can't relate to him that way. He's installed a stomach band so he'll lose some of the fat by election time as before that he was considered TOO fat to be seriously considered.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Gosh another thread about America. What a novelty!!!

Yes, I thought a thread specifically focused on the process of the demise of civil unions in the USA (now only four states) made sense because a number of other threads had morphed off topic to be mostly about this one aspect. This thread could potentially be a place for the topic of developments about ALL the four states and the processes they take to move forward from the obsolete (in the USA) civil union alternative. If there is no interest in this (that would be surprising considering the other threads though) ... no biggie!

Great idea ... but presumably IF other States go the civil union route (and I see nothing that indicates this will or won't happen, except one person's unsupported view) then they can be included.

I can't help wondering if the NJ Gov has been reading ThaiVisa ... maybe he's a fan:

"Civil Unions may not be the "activists" ' aim, but the activists aren't the ones who make policy or pass legislation - the politicians are and just because you "don't get why anyone would be interested in civil unions in the USA anymore" doesn't mean that others don't "get" it and aren't "interested". ....

I said that ..."OTHERS" may look at civil unions, NOT "the movement" who are ignoring it (at their peril, in my view)."

[Jingthing]

There will be no NEW U.S. state civil union laws and you can take that to the bank.

I figured you would like Christie.

Makes sense as debating with you is pretty much exactly like debating with an American republican.

At our peril, huh?

I find that hilarious.

Punt and give up just as you are winning massive victories and set up to win the entire game (yes, even though it WILL take time)?

That's not an American way of thinking.

It does not compute.

The American gay people that care about gay civil rights are NOT thinking that way. Thankfully!

Edited August 7, 2013 by Jingthing

[ToddWeston]

Gosh another thread about America. What a novelty!!!

Yes, I thought a thread specifically focused on the process of the demise of civil unions in the USA (now only four states) made sense because a number of other threads had morphed off topic to be mostly about this one aspect. This thread could potentially be a place for the topic of developments about ALL the four states and the processes they take to move forward from the obsolete (in the USA) civil union alternative. If there is no interest in this (that would be surprising considering the other threads though) ... no biggie!

Great idea ... but presumably IF other States go the civil union route (and I see nothing that indicates this will or won't happen, except one person's unsupported view) then they can be included.

I can't help wondering if the NJ Gov has been reading ThaiVisa ... maybe he's a fan:

"Civil Unions may not be the "activists" ' aim, but the activists aren't the ones who make policy or pass legislation - the politicians are and just because you "don't get why anyone would be interested in civil unions in the USA anymore" doesn't mean that others don't "get" it and aren't "interested". ....

I said that ..."OTHERS" may look at civil unions, NOT "the movement" who are ignoring it (at their peril, in my view)."

LC I think he does read Thai Visa (thai and western food forums) seriously though the man is very popular and has a really good chance of becoming the next President. I'm a Tory and never liked the left right thing - lawmakers do what's right for the people.

[Jingthing]

Yes he is popular. So are the Kardashians ...

Sent from my GT-S5360B using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile appq

[Jingthing]

LC I think he does read Thai Visa (thai and western food forums) seriously though the man is very popular and has a really good chance of becoming the next President. I'm a Tory and never liked the left right thing - lawmakers do what's right for the people.

So trying to oppress the gay people of his state and work so hard deny them this little favor of upgrading from almost worthless civil unions to first class state marriages, recognized at the federal level, all to pander to the anti-gay base of the party he has to get nominated from if he ever to be president, is doing what's right for the people? I think not. It's clearly what's right to for the big man though, the wannabe president. Also, Tory does not equal republican. American republicans have taken a far out trip to RIGHT field. I'm not saying this political game he's playing is much worse than any other politician. I'm just saying he's another politician. What he's doing in Jersey with civil unions is a cynical political ploy, nothing to do with principles.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

.....

I figured you would like Christie.

.....

Punt and give up just as you are winning massive victories and set up to win the entire game (yes, even though it WILL take time)?

That's not an American way of thinking.

It does not compute.

The American gay people that care about gay civil rights are NOT thinking that way. Thankfully!

"I figured you would like Christie."

Well, not too surprisingly, you figured wrong - I don't "like Christie". I don't dislike Christie. I don't know the first thing about him and I don't have any interest whatsoever in knowing anything about him.

"Punt and give up" ...

Where do you get some of these ideas from?

Nobody said "give up" - just to keep your eye on the ball and not "obsess" about there only being one way to score a goal.

[Jingthing]

You failed to take my meaning about punting. Could be a translation issue.

Bottom line, gay Americans in Jersey are FIGHTING Christie and these very MAINSTREAM gay Americans are FIGHTING for MARRIAGE equality against his efforts to keep them in the second rate "other" box. That's where American gays are at and that is a fact.

If gay foreigners want to give comfort and support to the ENEMIES of gay civil rights in America like Christie, and that includes both the advocates for no relationship legalization and ALSO the advocates for second rate civil unions, that's their right of free speech. But believe me it goes over like a big smelly fart in an elevator.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

LC I think he does read Thai Visa (thai and western food forums) seriously though the man is very popular and has a really good chance of becoming the next President. I'm a Tory and never liked the left right thing - lawmakers do what's right for the people.

So trying to oppress the gay people of his state and work so hard deny them this little favor of upgrading from almost worthless civil unions to first class state marriages, recognized at the federal level, all to pander to the anti-gay base of the party he has to get nominated from if he ever to be president, is doing what's right for the people? I think not. It's clearly what's right to for the big man though, the wannabe president. Also, Tory does not equal republican. American republicans have taken a far out trip to RIGHT field. I'm not saying this political game he's playing is much worse than any other politician. I'm just saying he's another politician. What he's doing in Jersey with civil unions is a cynical political ploy, nothing to do with principles.

"So trying to oppress the gay people of his state (etc) .... is doing what's right for the people?"

Well, if that's what the majority of "the people" want and he's being elected to represent their view, then I'm sorry to say its a "yes".

That's not saying he's "right", just that that's what he's elected to do as a politician.

... and I agree with you 100% - he's just another politician playing a political game, with no principles involved. "Principles" have little do with politics, and even less to do with any current US presidential hopefuls on any side of the widening political divide.

[LeCharivari]

You failed to take my meaning about punting. Could be a translation issue.

Maybe you could explain it, as we often seem to misunderstand each other.

I presumed you meant "punt" as in "kick the ball downfield", which has a similar meaning in American Rules, Canadian Rules, Aussie Rules and Rugby, hence my "keep your eye on the ball" reference.

Its usually used by a team that's winning as a delaying tactic, towards the end of the game - its actually a very popular play by winning teams in American Football.

"Could be" that this is a knowledge issue.

We also have "punts" as in boats, some poled from the front (Oxford style) some from the back (Cambridge style).

To stop anyone making a "punt" of themselves, maybe you could explain ...

[sustento]

We also have "punts" as in boats, some poled from the front (Oxford style) some from the back (Cambridge style).

You learn something new every day. Isn't the internet a wonderful place!

[Jingthing]

...

Its usually used by a team that's winning as a delaying tactic, towards the end of the game - its actually a very popular play by winning teams in American Football.

...

Nope. That is most certainly not the primary tactical use of punting in American football. Nice spin though.

No worries, though. I won't even pretend to explain to you about cricket. A minute watching that is a minute too long but I ADMIT I know NOTHING about it.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

LC I think he does read Thai Visa (thai and western food forums) seriously though the man is very popular and has a really good chance of becoming the next President. I'm a Tory and never liked the left right thing - lawmakers do what's right for the people.

So trying to oppress the gay people of his state and work so hard deny them this little favor of upgrading from almost worthless civil unions to first class state marriages, recognized at the federal level, all to pander to the anti-gay base of the party he has to get nominated from if he ever to be president, is doing what's right for the people? I think not. It's clearly what's right to for the big man though, the wannabe president. Also, Tory does not equal republican. American republicans have taken a far out trip to RIGHT field. I'm not saying this political game he's playing is much worse than any other politician. I'm just saying he's another politician. What he's doing in Jersey with civil unions is a cynical political ploy, nothing to do with principles.

"So trying to oppress the gay people of his state (etc) .... is doing what's right for the people?"

Well, if that's what the majority of "the people" want and he's being elected to represent their view, then I'm sorry to say its a "yes".

That's not saying he's "right", just that that's what he's elected to do as a politician.

... and I agree with you 100% - he's just another politician playing a political game, with no principles involved. "Principles" have little do with politics, and even less to do with any current US presidential hopefuls on any side of the widening political divide.

I don't really know much about your system, mate, but I don't pretend to ...

But in the AMERICAN system when you're talking about civil rights struggles for minorities, it's most certainly NOT all about what the majority wants. Again, look at the BLACK civil rights movement to learn more about this concept. It's a REALLY important concept for all Americans concerned with all kinds of civil rights issues for minority groups. Perhaps reading that snippet I posted from FRANKLIN KAMENY on the gay heroes thread might be another window into an understanding of this.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

The majority do the electing.

If the majority want gay rights for a minority (as they do in some areas) the elected government take that line.

If the majority don't, the elected government take that line.

Its ALL about what the majority want, as those who are only supported by a minority don't get elected (unless they've got a flawed system, indirect elections, and a brother who can fiddle the results).

The ONLY time a minority get more than their elected voice is when there is a coalition - something that isn't likely in current US politics, but gives minorities a voice in other systems.

The black civil rights movement succeeded in the USA because they got the support of the majority of the electorate - if a minority can't generate that support, they don't get some sort of sympathy vote.

Its nothing to do with different "systems" - its simply reality in any democratic system. Anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't understand much about any system, mate.

[LeCharivari]

...

Its usually used by a team that's winning as a delaying tactic, towards the end of the game - its actually a very popular play by winning teams in American Football.

...

Nope. That is most certainly not the primary tactical use of punting in American football. Nice spin though.

No worries, though. I won't even pretend to explain to you about cricket. A minute watching that is a minute too long but I ADMIT I know NOTHING about it.

The idea that you "punt and give up" comes from an old (70's) joke about American football - "drop 5 and punt" if you haven't got anywhere after 3 offensive plays. Its about buying time, but it was misunderstood by some students who had never played ball but liked to talk a good game as being a sign of giving up - it isn't, as any ball player will tell you.

... and that is a factoid.

[Jingthing]

Hint: the constitution.

Hint: the supreme court.

Hint: Brown vs. the board of education

Hint: supreme court makes banning interracial marriage illegal

Hint: supreme court gay rights victories ... sodomy laws ... and recently; also STATE courts

Hint: now many states gay marriage bans will be challenged in STATE courts and at some point another bigger case will reach the supreme court, the FINAL one

Hint: Winning minority CIVIL rights under the law does NOT require popular support, not by a long shot

Hint: Watch some more football games. Your understanding is clearly very limited of the American game but I'm certain you know more than I know about cricket. No problem. Better to drop the football talk anyway and talk directly about the topic.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Jingthing

[Scott]

Sometimes, change occurs because the majority don't care about the change anymore.

[Jingthing]

There are some U.S. states such as Alabama that might not have majority support for legal gay marriage for 100 years. If you actually think those states will actually have to wait 100 years to have legal gay marriage, I've got a bridge to sell you. All these small ball tactics, the ballot votes, the state court cases, etc. are just a prelude to the final deciding case that will make denying marriage equality to same sex couples unconstitutional in the supreme court. The recent supreme cases set the table for that, make no mistake. The overall nationwide opinion change to MAJORITY support (slimly) certainly HELPS. It makes it easier for the courts to do the right thing without fear. They don't necessarily like to make rulings "too soon" that are going to cause violent resistance such as some of their rulings on black civil rights and abortion did. But we are ALREADY past that risk with marriage equality. A final ruling this year would have created no violent backlash even now. So they took the conservative approach but the general trend and message was conveyed loud and clear. 50 state MARRIAGE equality in the USA is inevitable.

Majority support for minority civil rights is nice. It is desirable. But it is not always even politically possible. Happily, the USA system provides other avenues to seek and get JUSTICE in other ways to PROTECT minority civil rights. Yes it does generally take too long.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Sometimes, change occurs because the majority don't care about the change anymore.

That's without doubt the most perceptive comment I've read here since I joined this Forum.

[Jingthing]

Sometimes, change occurs because the majority don't care about the change anymore.

That's without doubt the most perceptive comment I've read here since I joined this Forum.

Nice thought.

But it isn't ALWAYS true.

In the USA sometimes change is forced upon the public whether they are ready for it or not, such as when the supreme court ruled against the constitutionality of interracial MARRIAGE bans. The majority of the public in those states DID care!

Yes, Scott, I do realize you said SOMETIMES.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Hint: the constitution.

Hint: the supreme court.

Hint: Brown vs. the board of education

Hint: supreme court makes banning interracial marriage illegal

Hint: supreme court gay rights victories ... sodomy laws ... and recently; also STATE courts

Hint: now many states gay marriage bans will be challenged in STATE courts and at some point another bigger case will reach the supreme court, the FINAL one

Hint: Winning minority CIVIL rights under the law does NOT require popular support, not by a long shot

Hint: Watch some more football games. Your understanding is clearly very limited of the American game but I'm certain you know more than I know about cricket. No problem. Better to drop the football talk anyway and talk directly about the topic.

Hint: the US Constitution was approved and can be amended by a MAJORITY of the electorate, and it frequently has been.

Hint: the US Supreme Court represents the views of the MAJORITY of the people through the system of Presidential picks (which I recall being pointed out before). Those views can be rather out of date due to the time that the judges remain, but nevertheless that IS the effect of the Supreme Court system (rather like the House of Lords in the UK, albeit in smaller numbers so individuals have rather more direct effect).

Hint: the US Supreme Court has Federal powers so that the views of a local majority in one or more States cannot ultimately override the views of what the MAJORITY of the electorate want nation-wide.

Hint : the precedence of nation-wide views by a MAJORITY over State-wide local views was, according to the Association of American Historians, the "primary cause" of the American Civil War: http://www.hnn.us/articles/137673.html ).

ITS ALL ABOUT WHAT THE MAJORITY WANT - or, as Scott correctly pointed out, what the MAJORITY don't care about but a minority want (and that has ALWAYS been true!).

Edited August 9, 2013 by LeCharivari

[Jingthing]

Yes the constitution can be amended.

But that is very rare and if the suggestion was the gay rights movement should have tried to get a constitutional amendment regarding marriage equality, that could not have begun to happen in the current political environment.

The marriage equality movement in the USA has made INCREDIBLY rapid progress considering the barriers, and YES we now have majority approval for that nationwide. But we don't intend to forget the states where that will be impossible. The answer for that: the supreme court, no doubt about it. Again, the movement has so far succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of most gay Americans ALREADY. If that's not good enough for foreigners, touch cookies. Americans know better about American matters.

The truth is our gay marriage equality movement and successes are one of the SHINING STARS of American achievement in recent history. The odds against the level of success we've had so far, so fast, were really incredible. You see my dearies, this isn't a speed race between different nations, different nations have different playing fields, they are NOT level and never will be. So the success to be fair needs to be seen in RELATIVE terms. Gay Americans are so PROUD now, rightfully so, and pushing on for the goal of 50 state marriage equality, and will NEVER settle for second class anything else.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

One more thing.

About the supreme court, yes the judges are picked by elected presidents and have to be confirmed in the senate, BUT they serve for life. So any particular current court may well be reflecting the politics of 30 years ago. Another real reason why civil rights struggles in the USA which usually do involve supreme court rulings tend to be VERY SLOW.

[LeCharivari]

(edited)....

The truth is our gay marriage equality movement and successes are one of the SHINING STARS of American achievement in recent history.

My sympathy to those who live in such a dark place.

[Jingthing]

(edited)....

The truth is our gay marriage equality movement and successes are one of the SHINING STARS of American achievement in recent history.

My sympathy to those who live in such a dark place.

We have MUCH better Indian food too ...

After that comment, I wonder what the point is of any American taking any of your comments on American politics and civil rights issues at all seriously. They really don't seem to be in any kind of supportive, friendly spirit. That's OK, but then, why bother?

Worth adding the context in this case:

The truth is our gay marriage equality movement and successes are one of the SHINING STARS of American achievement in recent history. The odds against the level of success we've had so far, so fast, were really incredible. You see my dearies, this isn't a speed race between different nations, different nations have different playing fields, they are NOT level and never will be. So the success to be fair needs to be seen in RELATIVE terms. Gay Americans are so PROUD now, rightfully so, and pushing on for the goal of 50 state marriage equality, and will NEVER settle for second class anything else.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Some interesting info and news about the marriage equality vs. civil union thing in the AMERICAN context:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2013/09/03/gay_marriage_and_taxes_once_again_obama_supports_lgbt_rights_by_leaving.html

The ruling also destroys, once and for all, the argument that civil unions or domestic partnerships are “just as good” as marriages. In a weird way, DOMA provided cover to state legislators and governors by rendering irrelevant the question of whether civil unions would be as good as marriages under federal law—neither status counted at all, because DOMA simply declared that no validly married same-sex couple could receive federal benefits. But with the fig leaf removed by DOMA’s demise, civil unions stand naked as second-best.

Last week’s ruling makes that clear. The IRS stated that couples in these “virtual marriages” don’t qualify as married. That’s not surprising, because there’s nothing in the Internal Revenue Code—or anywhere else in federal law—that even mentions such unions. Sure, folks like Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J., can argue that it’s not the civil unions that are inadequate but the federal government’s refusal to recognize them. But don’t expect anyone, or any court, to buy that.

Yes, I realize that some of you here (for reasons I will never really understand) will NEVER get this. I seriously doubt any American person who has been involved in the American gay civil rights movement suffers from that comprehension deficit.

Oh well!

Edited September 3, 2013 by Jingthing