In place of any attempt to justify his opposition, Christie simply restates it over and over. Christie argues, in order, that there's a civil union law, that gay marriage failed before, that civil unions will continue, that he's "not a fan," that it's not something he supports, that he believes in one man-one-woman, that it's his view, and that he won't sign a gay marriage bill.
What's revealing is that these are ways to avoid the issue at hand, rather than engage it. To say simply "I believe civil marriage is between a man and a woman" is not an argument. It's also irrelevant in six states and the nation's capital. You can believe what you want, but my marriage license is identical to any straight person's in both my residences. What you have to do is explain why you believe two gay people cannot and should not be married in terms beyond mere sectarian dogma. We live in a republic, not a church. And those arguments, when tested, have failed logical inspection. A reader muses:
The real question of leadership is what is preferred: Christie's loud, sometimes over-the-top performances, or Cuomo's understated, press-on-till-it's done – but done quietly – style? Who knows, it could be C vs. C in 2016. For my money, considering what he's achieved versus his neighbor, I'm gonna go with Cuomo.
(Photo: A young boy waves a flag during the 2011 NYC LGBT Pride March on the streets of Manhattan on June 26, 2011 in New York City. Thousands of revelers had reason to celebrate since New York state legislators approved a bill legalizing same-sex marriage which Governor Cuomo signed in to law on Friday June 24. By Jemal Countess/Getty Images)