Thrice-married Newt Gingrich, who has previously described same-sex marriage as “a temporary aberration that will dissipate,” told a right-wing radio show this afternoon that gay and lesbian unions are akin to “pagan” behaviors:

GINGRICH: It’s pretty simple: marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a historic doctrine driven deep into the Bible, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, and it’s a perfect example of what I mean by the rise of paganism. The effort to create alternatives to marriage between a man and a woman are perfectly natural pagan behaviors, but they are a fundamental violation of our civilization.

Listen:

The former speaker is apparently unaware that many in the Christian faith support same-sex marriage, or at least unions, including: Evangelical Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians (U.S.A), adherents of the United Church of Christ, and Unitarian Universalists. Polls also show that a majority of Catholics and non-evangelical white Protestants back marriage rights for gay couples. (HT: Right Wing Watch)

Newark Mayor Cory Booker called into WNYC’s The Brian Lehrer show this morning to condemn New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) for suggesting that voters should decide whether gay and lesbian people should be allowed to marry in the state. Christie expanded on his comments yesterday, claiming “people would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights rather than fighting and dying in the streets in the South.”

“Frankly, I wouldn’t be where I am today,” if states had voted on equal rights legislation for African Americans during the 1960s, Booker told Lehrer. “This is not about a choice, it’s about a fundamental right and the 14th Amendment is very clear. It says, ‘equal protections under the law’ and right now in America we have second-class citizenship set-up where certain Americans can have privileges that certain Americans do not enjoy and that is just wrong.” Listen:

Booker has registered his outrage with Christie’s comments in a formal statement, during a press conference, and through his Twitter account. “This isn’t a right/left issue. There are many Republicans that are in favor of marriage equality, I’m just hoping that our legislature acts,” he said on the radio and predicted that putting the issue on the November ballot could help the GOP turn out conservative voters.

He added, “there are somethings I don’t mind putting on the ballot — we’re thinking about here in Newark putting on the ballot a question of do we want to pay a 1 percent more in property taxes to fund our police department — those kinds of things I think are good, but when it comes to fundamental rights that I believe are explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution… I do not think they should be subject to popular whim.”

Booker has long supported marriage equality and refuses to “perform marriages at Newark city hall until all couples have the right” to marry.

Mitt Romney accused President Obama of waging “the assault on religion” during a conference call with Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition last night and said that the administration is “fighting to eliminate conscience clause” protections for health care works and “pave the path to same-sex marriage”:

ROMNEY: Then of course there’s the assault on religion….now he’s gone forward and said that religious institutions, universities, hospitals and so forth, religious institutions have to provide free contraceptives to all their employees, even if that religious institution is opposed to the use of contraception, as in the case of the Catholic Church. Even in that regard, fighting to eliminate the conscience clause for health care workers who wish not to provide abortion services or contraceptives in their workplace, in their hospital for instance. It’s an assault on religion unlike anything we have seen.

There’s been an assault on marriage. I think he is very aggressively trying to pave the path to same-sex marriage. I would unlike this president defend the Defense of Marriage Act. I would also propose and promote once again an amendment to the constitution to define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.

Listen:

In reality, health care workers can still follow their consciences and avoid prescribing contraception or assisting in abortion services. Federal regulations contain clear provisions in three separate laws shielding federally-funded health care providers’ right of conscience. For instance, the 1976 Church Amendment “prevents the government (as a condition of a federal grant) from requiring health care providers or institutions to perform or assist in abortion or sterilization procedures against their moral or religious convictions,” the Coats Amendment of 1996 prohibits the government from “discriminating” against medical residency programs or other entities that lose accreditation because they fail to provide or require training in abortion services” and the Hyde/Weldon Conscience Protection Amendment of 2004 “forbids federal, state and local governments from requiring any individual or institutional provider or payer to perform, provide, refer for, or pay for an abortion.”

Even the new Affordable Care Act regulations, which require institutions to offer reproductive health care services without additional co-pays, include a narrow religious exemption. Houses of worship and other religious nonprofits that primarily employ and serve people of the same faith will be exempt from the provision, while religiously-affiliated employers who do not qualify for the exemption and are not currently offering contraceptive coverage may apply for transitional relief for a one-year period to give them time to determine how to comply with the rule. Twenty-eight states already require employers, including most religiously affiliated institutions, to cover contraception in their health plans. The only change is that now they must cover the full cost.

In fact, marriage equality laws that allow gay and lesbian couples to enter into civil marriages provide similar conscience protections for religious institutions, exempting houses of worship and their leaders from recognizing same-sex relationships.

Marriage equality activists in Maine have announced that they will proceed with a ballot initiative to strike down the 2009 referendum that overturned same-sex marriage in the state. The coalition, led by EqualityMaine and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, has gathered more than 105,000 signatures from Mainers who want to bring marriage to the ballot in 2012, far more than the roughly 57,000 signatures needed to qualify for the ballot. The signatures will be submitted to the Secretary of State on January 26, 2012.

The group also released a new poll, which found that “a majority (54 percent) favor allowing same-sex couples to legally marry in Maine” and echoes the growing support for equality nationwide:

“Marriage is going to be decided at the ballot box,” Betsy Smith, Executive Director of Equality Maine, said on a call with bloggers. “We feel very comfortable about winning, it’s the reason we made a decision to go.” Smith said the campaign has invested in a “paid persuasion canvas program,” knocked on 110,000 doors and engaged in 40,000 conversations with Mainers and persuaded 22 percent of opponents to be more supportive of marriage. Advocates also stressed that same-sex marriage has already been approved by the legislative process and signed into law by the governor, describing the campaign as an effort to bring that law back. The wording of the initiative has not yet been finalized, but the measure will be titled, ‘An Act to Allow Marriage Licenses For Same-Sex Couples and Protect Religious Freedoms.’

Smith added that there is a small chance that opponents will try to dilute the marriage equality question by proposing a competing measure to legalize civil unions or domestic partnerships. “It is highly unlikely that will happen,” she said, explaining that “it is a complicated process and high hurdle to jump…it would also be very difficult for them to find support for a competing measure…[and] it’s very difficult for them to find a majority of support to pass civil unions.”

In 2009, the referendum to overturn marriage equality passed by a vote of 53 percent to 47 percent.

The New York Times’ Kate Zernike lauds New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) for asking voters to decide if gay and lesbian people should be allowed to marry and praises the GOP’s “rising” star for his “considerable political skills” in out-maneuvering Democrats on the issue. Zernike characterizes Christie’s push for a vote on gay people’s civil rights as a win-win “to a public suspicious of government” and the national Republican party, without ever mentioning the consequences of the decision for gay and lesbian families who are seeking legal recognition and protection from the state or the injustice of calling on the majority to vote on the rights of a minority:

The governor announced that he believed same-sex marriage should be put before voters in November. Republicans whom Democrats had been counting on quickly backed him.

To a public suspicious of government, Mr. Christie might come across as reasonable — why let 121 people in the Legislature decide? — rather than retrograde. And by affirming that he opposed same-sex marriage and would veto the Democrats’ legislation, he avoided alienating the conservative voters who are the key to the hopes of any Republican with national ambition. Putting the issue on the ballot could even help burnish Mr. Christie’s image among national Republicans; same-sex marriage ballot initiatives have tended to bring out a swell of conservative voters to defeat them, which could help a Republican presidential nominee even in a blue state like New Jersey.

In Zernike’s narrative, it’s the Democrats who are ideologically obtuse and demanding. Christie is the brilliant political player whose charming reputation “as the big, blunt-talking guy” is quickly winning over New Jersey voters and national Republican leaders. The governor has cajoled Democrats to support “a property tax cap, limits on collective bargaining and changes to state employees’ health and pension benefits” and, Zernike writes, again managed to dance very carefully “to get what he wants” on the marriage issue, “disarming his critics or leaving them sputtering as they try to figure out his next move.”

New Jersey Democrats were, indeed, surprised to hear that Christie — who had initially left the door open to marriage equality — had told a town hall meeting that he would veto the measure on the very day that the Senate Judiciary Committee was considering a bill extending marriage rights to gays and lesbians. The comments provided instant cover for Republicans on the Committee to vote against the legislation and dismayed the same-sex couples who had delivered emotional testimony detailing how the states’ existing civil unions law allows hospitals to discriminate against their relationships and relegates them to second-class status.

But Christie’s “critics” were in no way “disarmed,” either. During the Committee’s closing comments — as lawmakers cast their votes on the marriage bill — Democrats chided Christie for his political cowardice. Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D) directly addressed Christie’s call for a referendum, saying, “The last time to my knowledge we put a civil right issue on referendum in the state of New Jersey was in 1915 and it was woman’s suffrage issue and the vote went down,” she said. “Women were not allowed to vote. This is our responsibility in this legislature.” Senate President Steve Sweeney (D) reminded the governor, “We vote on issues here, we don’t put civil rights on the ballot” and Newark Mayor Cory Booker also weighed in, comparing marriage equality to the struggle for Civil Rights. “I shudder to think what would have happened if the civil rights gains, heroically established by courageous lawmakers in the 1960s, were instead conveniently left up to popular votes in our 50 states,” Booker said in a statement. “Equal protection under the law – for race, religion, gender or sexual orientation – should not be subject to the most popular sentiments of the day….I hope our leaders in Trenton will affirm and defend it.” Or, at the very least, reporters take the time to report it.