New jersey State Senator Christopher "Kip" Bateman (R- Somerset/Hunterdon/Mercer/Middlesex) has submitted a Senate resolution (SCR-88) that would, if passed by the legislature and approved by voters, amend the State Constitution to permit same sex marriage in New Jersey.
"Let's stop the political games and let the people of New Jersey decide," said Bateman. "Marriage equality advocates and opponents would both have the ability to register their opinion at the ballot box. Nobody would be disenfranchised on either side of the issue."
Bateman noted that the proposal is modeled after efforts by marriage equality advocates in Maine, who have succeeded in collecting enough signature to place a measure permitting same sex marriage on the ballot this year. Bateman's Amendment would approve, rather than prohibit, same sex marriage if garnering a majority of votes on Election Day.
"This amendment is unique in that, unlike in the other states that have put the issue before voters, it would permit same sex marriage rather than prohibit it," he said. "This is not a so-called 'Defense of Marriage Amendment'. I am not sure why putting this to voters is acceptable to advocates in Maine, but not in New Jersey."
Bateman also said that, if approved, a constitutional amendment would be a more permanent resolution to the question. "A constitutional amendment really should be the preferred option for proponents of same sex marriage, as it could not be easily undone by a simple majority of the Legislature. Furthermore, it is the only option available to those who want to see same sex marriage legalized in the near term, as Governor Christie has promised to veto S-1. Supporters have a choice to make: is the process, or the outcome, more important?"
4 comments:
What he said.
You are following a long standing strategy of propaganda: Taking something that someone said (in this case, Bateman) and reducing it to the absurd. BTW: If I were you I'd take more care before putting issues on the same plain as the struggle for civil rights.
The last civil rights issue that went to voters in NJ was in 1915 about giving women the right to vote. It failed. Why? Because women couldn't vote for it. These issues are the legislature's domain, not the voters.
It's taking nothing to the absurd, it's simply following the line of "logic" to its natural end point. Now where have I heard things like that before...oh, right, from the anti-equality crowd that says allowing a consenual relationship between consenting adults would lead to things like people marrying dogs.
Of course, lobbing a claim that something is absurd--as is the notion of putting basic civil rights protections for a minority to a popular vote--ignores the underlying issue.
Post a Comment