New Jersey Gay Marriage Vetoed: Celebrities, State Voters Sound Off On Chris Christie's Decision

Celebrities like Ryan Adams and Andy Cohen are joining voters and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights advocates in decrying New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's veto of his state's marriage equality bill.

Singer-songwriter Adams took to his Twitter, noting, "Dear Chris Christie, the world is moving on without you. Laterz gangsta." Echoing those sentiments, Cohen was considerably more blunt, tweeting: "Chris Christie: you blew it."

Meanwhile, the New Jersey Assembly Democrats released a video response criticizing the veto, which was posted on Towleroad and other websites.

Christie's veto came a day after the state Assembly passed the bill, and four days after the state Senate had passed it. Christie, a Republican who opposes same-sex marriage, had vowed "very swift action" once the measure reached his desk, according to the Associated Press.

Check out some Twitter responses to Christie's action below:

Comments

[unimatrix0]

09:56 PM on 02/23/2012

When South Africa got rid of Apartide whites there were scared the blacks were going to pass laws that discriminated against them. They fled the country in large numbers before the vote, and many got duel citizenship for the UK just in case. There was also a need to pass a law that one could not take more than $10K out of the country at a time because people were draining their bank accounts and moving their money to England. It was so bad that whites would hire students to fly to England to deposit $10K into their accounts and fly back (wash, rinse, repeat).

Now that there are more women in the US than men, should we put the right for men to vote up to a popular vote? Gays should not have to be afraid of what the people would do at the ballot box because civil rights don't belong at the polls. Do you think a high school student body would vote to allow nerds to eat in the cafe, or for ugly girls to be allowed to school dances? The purpose of government is to protect people from enemies (foreign and domestic) and almost always the majority is the bullies to minorities.

[Pablito Garcia]

12:01 AM on 02/24/2012

You confuse afraid with reject.

I'm gay. And I reject the idea that you have the RIGHT to vote on my rights. And I would also reject the idea that your votes should be voted upon.

Finally, if you were surrounded by 90 to 97% of people who are different from you and wish to exercise power over you... ...especially with a history of animus and scapegoating?

and you wonder why I'm not keen?

[jockmama]

12:35 AM on 02/22/2012

This business of "putting it to a public referendum" is nothing but a smokescreen, where civil rights are concerned. What do you think the Civil Rights Act would've been like if voters in Mississippi and Alabama had been given THEIR say on the legislation...? Sometimes you need to do what's RIGHT - not just what's popular. If, indeed, it even IS popular. As a New Jerseyan born and raised, I have a little more faith in the general populace. And NO faith whatsoever in this hippo of a governor who THINKS he's got giant cojones - even though he hasn't seen them in thirty years, and can't reach them to feel 'em. The people (in their infinite foolishness) voted for you for GOVERNOR, Mr. Christie; not DICTATOR.

[Hrover]

02:37 PM on 02/21/2012

The guy wants to be VP. So what else can he do.

[Tribalenvy]

03:18 PM on 02/21/2012

I've thought about this and I agree with you. If he wants to be V.P., he had to veto it.

If he wants to run for President in 2016, I believe his best course of action would have been to sign it in to law.

He would have been seen as a Republican who is willing to buck his party if he believes it is the right thing to do, and could have expressed as much. Democrats would see him as a somewhat progressive Republican, and Republicans for the most part expect Marriage Equality to pass (eventually), and wouldn't have cared nearly so much.

He could then come off as a more centric Republican with the ability to garner votes from Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.

I think of McCain and how people respected him as he spoke his mind, even when he went against party lines. He almost felt as though he 'sold out' a bit when running against Obama. It was as if he had been told to toe the line, Stop running against Bush, and when Bush was done, he'd have his shot. I remember several Democrats talk about how they respected McCain when he was running against Bush.

But what am I going on about? The guy wants to be Vice President. Nevermind.

[Coloradem]

03:38 PM on 02/21/2012

Put the desires and aspirations of others above his own? Isn't that what "public service" is supposed to be?

[FaithIsIgnorance]

02:07 PM on 02/21/2012

Well there's a grave I can't wait to spit on. All 6 acres of it.

[Pablito Garcia]

12:06 AM on 02/24/2012

I'm not sure how either of these comments were approved. :( digusting.

Sharkcrazy, I'm gay. do you really have some wish to see me dead?

[Provit2me]

01:56 PM on 02/21/2012

So, the people I voted into office in NJ FINALLY represented me and my wife’s views on same-sex marriage (we have a son, niece and brother who are GAY in NJ) and it took one person – who I did NOT vote for - to block my intentions – that really bites the BIG ONE.

[Provit2me]

01:51 PM on 02/21/2012

Marriage is not about procreating. Ask my sister and her husband - he can not procreate and they are a loving married couple sectioned by the church. So, am I going to tell them that they are NOT married because some people think procreating is the only basis for marriage or are YOU?

[sikidk]

01:38 PM on 02/21/2012

This is really sad, but there truly was no hope whatsoever that this guy would ever let this legislation past him. His own personal opinions and career trump EVERYTHING--that's always been how he operates, on every issue and matter. He's a bully, why would he act any differently on this issue than he always has?

Now looking forward to 2013, when we can kick him out of office. Can't wait for all the Dem ads pointing out this veto. He'll be sorry, politically, that he did this. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but in time he'll be sorry when his career crumbles.

[Ed Baker]

11:59 AM on 02/21/2012

He will soon understand what black crow committees are about - and he will be taught this lesson every single day of his life.

[Provit2me]

02:05 PM on 02/21/2012

Sorry, I tried looking up 'black crow committee' - what does it mean?..not being snarky - just, would like to know. Anybody?

[Ed Baker]

03:08 PM on 02/21/2012

Black crows, aka opposition research, aka legal hit committees.

Most of the gay black crow organizations are private concerns and known only to those who fund and operate them.

We hire private investigators, recruit gay people in certain professions and positions who have access to sensitive information about people..... We investigate the lives of our enemies and see what we can use against them. We sue them for anything we possibly can - it helps to fund the organizations. We embarrass them publicly. We set them up to get busted by the police or press..... Expose their extra-marital affairs, ruin their businesses... we do every possible legal evil to them.

Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed gay marriage twice. The world now knows that he didn't take his own marriage vows so seriously and fathered a child with his maid.

Ted Haggard championed laws against gay people and preached hate of gay people every Sunday. It's not an accident that he was caught snorting meth with a gay prostitute.

That's the kind of work the black crows do.

[bytebroker]

06:09 AM on 02/21/2012

I'm a voter, in fact I'm a NJ voter. Christie appropriately represented me and likely the majority of his constituency by not allowing back-door legislation to sneak this statute in. Call the union by a term other than "marriage" and you will get a much easier road to hoe, insisting on the misuse of the terminology is your biggest obstacle. I have no problem with the concept of same sex partnering but until you can come up with a means by which same sex partners can biologically conceive naturally and without assistance or modification as a default, it's not a marriage to me. Changing the term is easier than natural same sex conception. You choose which road you like, but this is FYI and I'm not here to debate this basic simple fact. That's why this will never pass on referendum as I'm very sure all are aware.

[bellaratta]

07:20 AM on 02/21/2012

Just because it is not a marriage to YOU does not mean it is not a marriage to those loving couples that want to be together.
Just as you have your right to your opinion, so do others. I know many childless couples who are heterosexual, so apparently it is not always about procreation.

[knight7se7en]

11:05 AM on 02/21/2012

The concept of marriage is not relegated to procreation.

[roscoewpa]

11:28 PM on 02/20/2012

I could almost gurantee if this bill had an attachment for stock in dunkin donuts Chris Christie would have signed it in a heartbeat because it would have benefited him.

[Pho3n1xSun]

09:41 PM on 02/20/2012

wow Gov. Christie. you just blew it. wow

[rhdsma]

05:29 PM on 02/20/2012

OK, so passing legislation the old fashion way, by the legislature, doesn't seem to work for gay marriage. Unless the legislature votes it down. The excuse that the citizens must vote on this subject doesn't hold water, especially since we're dealing with civil rights. Why don't we put more legislation up for a vote. Raise taxes on the rich, birth control. Really? Since we live in a representational democracy, we elect our representatives to vote on laws and issues. Doing so in this manner is a "checks and balances" way of doing things, and that is the constitutional way. We would never have voted for mixed race marriages, we would never have voted for mixed races in the schools,or voted for women's right to vote. One day we will look back on this time and wonder what was all the fuss about? Gov. Christie will be remembered for being wrong.

[Jason N]

02:17 PM on 02/20/2012

How is Christie's pandering to evangelicals who oppose gay marriage different than Obama's pandering to the black community who oppose gay marriage? I don't find Christie to be anymore anti-gay than Obama in reality, they're just both taking positions that are politically advantageous for them at the time. And don't say Obama hasn't stood in the way of gay rights, he ordered his DOJ to appeal the court ordered repeal of DADT. So... what's the difference?

[chrisv7772]

02:02 PM on 02/20/2012

This and many other things should be left up the voters to decide, since the powers that be are no longer a "voice of the people", but a voice of lobbyists and constituents. If you want to know how a politician is going to vote, just follow the money that put him into office. I for one am sick and tired of wealthy politicians telling me what's good for me and for Americans. Time for everyone to vote 3rd party.....they certainly couldn't do any worse.....then again even if we all did we'd all be told that we voted wrong and they're going to put whomever they choose into office anyway.

[Jason N]

02:26 PM on 02/20/2012

"This and many other things should be left up the voters to decide"

Question... do you think interracial marriage would have EVER been made legal in Mississippi if the Supreme Court hadn't ordered it?

[chrisv7772]

11:34 AM on 02/22/2012

My statement was made simply because those in power no longer represent the needs or wants of the many (no I am not a Tea Partyer nor was I part of the Occupy movement....I think those would have had more of an impact marching on Washington) and that decision making is solely based on how it impacts big business and lobby money. I cannot speculate on your question though as it was a different period in time when judge's and politicians actually did positive things for our nation. My statement was more a negative declaration regarding Christie's Veto of the bill. I'm for gay marriage and think the same rights should apply to all. Unfortunately politicans are above the law so therein lies the greatest problem. Until they're held to the same accountability as you or I the problem will continue to grow exponentially.

[Tribalenvy]

02:48 PM on 02/20/2012

You want to put Civil Rights up to a vote because we can no longer trust our representation? What about the courts. Aren't they the best versed in law and the Constitution? I would hate to think that anyone's Civil Rights are subject to the whims and fancy of personal public opinion at any given moment. What about next year when public sentiment changes? Another vote?

I believe putting Civil Rights issues to a popular vote is the most catastrophic thing one could do. There are lobbyists who sway public opinion easily with half-truths and slick commercials.

I understand that representatives of the public can become partisan, corrupt, slimy ...we need new representation then. The people keep voting them in after all. If our politicians cannot be trusted, can we trust the peoples' voice when they vote on a given issue?

[chrisv7772]

11:47 AM on 02/22/2012

Not necessarily. My statement was against Christie vetoing the passed bill. His constituents who are versed in Constitutional law voted it through, but due to his own personal beliefs he vetoed it.
You really shouldn't bring the constitution into any political discussions at this point since our own government violates it on a daily basis with the constant addition of unconstitutional laws......Terrorism laws violate the right to privacy, tax laws are a joke since everyone's dollar is taxed multiple times (unconsitutional) even post death, gun bans within certain cities are a violation of the right to bear arms and the biggest from my perspective is taxation without representation (I don't know anyone that feels that those in power represent the needs of the many, only the needs of the few).
The judicial system is equally corrupt as I've witnessed first hand in a business situation. It's no longer about the facts, it's about who has the deepest pockets. I won a case only for it to be overturned in the appellate court once my oppostion had "their judge" behind the bench who throughout the initial ruling completely.
We need a complete and total "changing of the guards" to get the nation back on track. The "dog and pony" show that's been running the country for the last 30 or so years is what has put us in the position that we're currently in with no end or solution in site.

[CJ1]

11:55 AM on 02/20/2012

But he just can't say no to that third donut every morning, clearly.