He says “People would have been happy to have referendum on civil rights rather than fighting and dying in the streets in the South.”
Are you fucking serious? Do you realize one of the things they were fighting and dying in the streets for was the right to vote? When the majority of white southerners were against civil rights, and most blacks couldn’t vote due to Jim Crow laws, how do you think that referendum would have went?
Is he this much of an idiot? Is he ignorant of the Civil Rights movement? Is he just talking out of his ass?
It was fun hearing Cory Booker and a few other black politicians rip Christie a new one over his ignorance and stupidity on this issue. The fact of the matter is that not only Christie wrong about history and wrong in his approach, he’s being chickenshit: he’s already promised he will veto a same-sex marriage bill (which has enough votes to pass the legislature) and is trying to pass this off as a just-as-good alternative while keeping his hands clean. Remember how we heard that this guy wasn’t a bullshitter? This is some hardcore bullshit.
Pitting Chris Christie for being an idiot is like pitting the water for being wet or bears for shitting in the woods. It’s just part of the natural order of things, y’know?
I heard some idiot woman on the radio this morning lauding Christie for his anti-gay stance: “I don’t think God would want gay marriage,” she agreed. You know God wouldn’t want you showing your hair like a filthy *whore *in certain countries? Do you *really *want to live in a theocracy?
Since Christie doesn’t want “the definition of marriage changed,” perhaps he can put it up to a vote in NJ as to whether to abolish interracial marriage, or legalized divorce?
I think Gay Marriage opponents lose about 50 IQ points when they try to justify their stance.
I can accept that he will veto the legislation, I’d rather he take the honorable way out and say “I don’t approve of it, and won’t sign it” rather than suggest it’s “better” to do it by referendum. It’s a cowardly way to avoid responsibility for his political stance.
Between attacking teachers, insulting his opponents with crude sexual references, costing us federal transportation and education funds through sheer incompetence and generally being an loudmouth asshole who manages to embody every ill mannered stereotype people have about garden state residents he isn’t exactly a credit to this state.
He’s a big, blustering tub of guts who inexplicably has gotten a reputation as intelligent and honest, though I have never heard him do much other brag on his own self and try to bully people around. I’d love to stick a pin in him and see him fly to California.
Your “keeping his hands clean” comment reminded me of an analysis I read online somewhere about the proposed referendum. Votes on gay marriage bring out conservative voters in droves. As Stephen Colbert said “That’s why gay marriage is only an issue in even-numbered years.” Christie is: 1) setting up an issue he opposes for failure, 2) keeping his fingerprints off the execution so he can try to appeal to the proponets of that issue in future elections, and 3) setting up the next election to help his party and weaken the other party.
He may be full of crap in his public statements, but he’s got a clever strategy there. I wouldn’t have picked up on the sneakiness of it if some columnist hadn’t pointed it out.
Bleh, I can’t believe I’m defending him in the slightest way, but I think he was trying to say that the Civil Rights activists would have been glad to have had the tool of a popular referendum available. So he’s not trying to speak counterfactually and say that they DID; he’s trying to say the Gay Rights activists are ungrateful in that they DO have that option but aren’t taking it.
So, he’s saying something stupid, but not for the reason that some people are thinking. I think. Of course, if this means I can translate “Idiotic Republican Talking Points” into semi-coherent but still idiotic English, I… well, I feel dirty is all.
Why would Civil Rights activists have wanted to use a referendum? How could they possibly have won? In any state that they might have won, systemic discrimination was not nearly as great.
He’s saying that they would have wanted to have been able to win that way without having to get beaten up and arrested and the like. He’s not saying they could have won that way. He’s saying that they would have been glad to win that way if it had been possible.