Jan 30, 2012

Fat bastard's weaseling

New Jersey's Democrat lawmakers want to do something right. Grant civil rights to homosexuals currently available only to heterosexuals. Yes, I am talking about gay marriage.

Sounds reasonable, heck, New York legalized gay marriage recently as well.

So what does Fat Bastard do?  He vows to veto it.  His rationale?  It is a social issue, and the legislature should instead concentrate on creating jobs. Never mind the sleight of hand that changes a civil rights issue into a social issue, here is a Republican governor tacitly admitting that the government can create jobs!

Back to the bigotry of denying homosexuals rights. Why would a seemingly moderate Republican vow to veto this? The answer is obvious, he plans to seek the nomination in the 2016, and as far batshit the GOP has gone with the tea baggers, he is positively spooked by how wingnutty you really have to be to gain the favor of the fundagelical hypocrites. But the country is leaning in favor of gay marriage as a whole, so he does not want to alienate the independent and moderate vote either, given that the slight incline could be a steep hill in another four years.

So he proposes a referendum. Let the Jerseyites decide this just like Prop 8 did not in California. That way, if it passes, he could shrug his shoulders (or shake his belly) and say it was the will of the people, and he gets credit for "doing it the right way". If it fails, it was not meant to be, since the people would have spoken.

Leave aside the absurdity of deciding the rights of a minority by a majority vote for now. Just look at his absurd rationalization:
The fact of the matter is, I think people would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights rather than fighting and dying in the streets in the South, the political climate in the South didn't give them the option to have a referendum back then,they wished they would have had the option, but the political climate did not permit it, meaning they would not win.
What Fat Bastard conveniently forgets is that had the South been given that referendum, it'd have failed. This was evident in the historic Congressional vote.

Imagine, if to avoid the Civil War, the Confederates were given a referendum to decide if slavery should be abolished.  We would still have slavery, heck, the Southern fundagelicals want to go back to that golden era, today.

This is another example of why I cannot vote for Republicans today. The moderate ones are as wingnutty as the others.


Bretta said...

Chris Christie wants his to come in a donut.

rappoccio said...

This is the problem that's currently in front of us as a country. We have to realize that this is actually NOT a legislative issue. It's a judicial issue. No matter how many people want to deny rights to group X, unless we rewrite the US Constitution to repeal the Bill of Rights, then no one can vote to deny those rights. This is what the Supreme Court decided in terms of anti-discrimination laws in every other area, so it has to be a Supreme Court decision at the current time also. Even a proposed amendment to the Bill of Rights, even if it succeeds, cannot veto human rights that are in contradiction of OTHER amendments unless those are repealed.