New Jersey reportedly has enough votes to pass a marriage equality bill. Christie, who has promised to veto the bill, declared today that he wants a referendum instead:
"I think this is not an issue that should rest solely in my hands, or the hands of the Senate President or the Speaker or the other 118 members of the Legislature," he said. "Let's let the people of New Jersey decide what is right for the state."
I do not see why in a representative democracy, a legislature should not be able to change the law in this way. For ever, we were told that we shouldn't use the courts and go to the legislatures. We did. We won. Now they move the goalposts again, as in California, to put the issue to a referendum. Why this issue as a referendum and not others? Dan Amira suspects Christie is trying to avoid using his veto pen because a majority of New Jersey voters support equality. I suspect he's protecting his viability as a candidate for the current Republican party (and the nomination of a gay African-American to the state supreme court was a great bit of distraction). But a referendum won't come easy:
Three-fifths of each chamber in the legislature must first approve a constitutional amendment if it's to appear on the ballot this November. That means convincing some anti-gay-marriage legislators to risk the legalization of gay marriage via popular vote, when they know the bill would otherwise die on Christie's desk. This plan may save Christie's hide, but what's in it for them?
The Dish 