Sweeney Stops Speculation," NO REFERENDUM!"

Good News But ... (0.00 / 0)

This is a misuse of the Star Ledger's article.  You can link to them, but not copy the whole article to the post.

It's best if you do a sentence introduction at least with a link, then quote a paragraph or two inside a blockquote.

I don't want to edit your piece without permission, but will if you like.  However, this overuse of their material leaves us open to complaints.

---

by: huntsu @ Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 01:00:29 AM UTC

please fix (0.00 / 0)

do what is best for the site

---

by: firstamend07 @ Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 01:57:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Done (0.00 / 0)

Courtesy huntsu. Thanks, huntsu.

It's not a particularly snappy signature, but here's what I think we need in the next NJ Democratic State Chair.  

---

by: Rosi Efthim @ Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 03:18:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

BRAVO! n/t (0.00 / 0)

activist for hire.

---

by: Jay Lassiter @ Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 13:35:50 PM UTC

Am I right in assuming... (0.00 / 0)

...that if there were a referendum and marriage equality advocates lost, it would pre-empt any further efforts to win marriage equality in the courts, because the constitutional amendent would have the power to either affirm the conservative position that marriage is only between a man and a woman or the progressive position that marriage is between any two consenting adults, regardless of their gender?

If this is a correct assumption, I think that this is the strongest argument against a referendum, because while it is true that nobody should have to have their civil rights affirmed by a popular vote, the only correct purpose for a constitutional amendment is to expand our rights, not reduce them, which also makes me wonder if there isn't a better way for our state constitution to be amended than by popular vote.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 01:19:34 AM UTC

Nothing to lose (0.00 / 0)

If a constitutional amendment expanding marital rights to include same sex couples were defeated, it would not preclude a court challenge. In fact, the courts have already ruled in favor of equity, the only issue is whether civil unions provide the same protections and benefits as traditional marriage which evidence clearly shows they do not.

There is nothing to lose by having a referendum as far as court challenges are concerned. If the referendum passes, then a court ruling becomes moot. However, if the referendum fails, the court can still issue a ruling based on its previous decisions.

http://christiegonewild.blogsp...

---

by: ken bank @ Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 01:34:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure that is correct. (0.00 / 0)

That is why I am asking the question.  Would the referendum only ask voters to decide if the constitution should be amended to establish marriage equality or would it give them the choice between establishing marriage equality or declaring marriage to be between a man and a woman?

If Christie is going to continue to use a referendum as a talking point, I think that he should be asked to clarify what kind of referendum he is actually asking for.  I have read nothing to date that makes me think that what Christie is proposing is anything other than a constitutional amendment to ban or establish same-sex marriage.

I am right about this, not only could the prior State Supreme Court decision be nullified but any future legal action would be DOA.  In my opinion, this is an even more compelling argument than the standard one.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 03:12:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

All Good Points, but... (0.00 / 0)

These are " inside baseball" arguments that the average citizen unfortunately just does not care about.

This is a POLITICAL  problem and I believe Mr. Goldstein is playing this perfectly.

Get the Bills passed at all costs.

Wait for the court decision this spring which will make an override either impossible or plausible. There is no rush for an override vote. Should the Court rule in favor then it will become easier to muster the override votes.

Christie will not fight this forever. I think that if the Court is on the side of ME then Chrisite will look the other way when the override vote occurs and his veto will be overturned.

In this way Chrisite gets t osay he vetoed the Bill.

The GOP legislators get to vote forthe Bill.

..and Mr. Goldstein can marry whomever he wants right on the State House steps!      

---

by: firstamend07 @ Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 13:50:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]