CHRISTIE: They’re gonna be nowhere near the votes to override in either chamber. And so hopefully we can move on from this issue. If they pass it on Thursday and send it to my desk, believe me I will take very swift action on the bill and then we can move on to the things the people of New Jersey say are most important to them, which is creating jobs, lowering taxes and continuing the New Jersey comeback and not the last month that we spent, which really is an act of theater on their part because they know it’s not going to happen.

Watch it:

The Senate voted 24-16 to advance the bill, three votes short of the 27 necessary to override such a veto. New Jersey already offers same-sex civil unions, but a commission found in 2008 that “the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children.” Christie, who has previously said that he would like state residents to vote on the marriage rights of gay and lesbian couples, has claimed that he is offering LGBT equality advocates the “bargain of your life.”

Christie has claimed that his plan is aimed at providing “across the board” tax relief. But as a new analysis of the proposal points out, those who will benefit most from the Governor’s plan would be the Garden State’s wealthiest residents, as its not income taxes, but property taxes that make up the bulk of the tax bill for Jersey’s middle-class:

A family earning $50,000 a year would save $80.50, and those making $100,000 would save $275, according to David Rosen, budget and finance officer with [the Office of Legislative Services]. Families who make $1 million would save $7,265, Rosen said.

The OLS analysis also examined a tax snapshot of 2004, the last time the Treasury Department married property and income tax payments by address. The data show that families in 2004 who made below $200,000 paid a greater share of their income toward property taxes than toward income taxes. For example, a family that makes $80,000 paid about 6 percent of its gross income for property taxes and about 1.6 for income taxes.

The opposite is true for the state’s wealthy, who pay a much higher income tax rate under the state’s progressive tax structure. A family that earned $500,000 in 2004 paid about 1.8 percent of its gross income for property taxes and 5 percent for income taxes.

The Newark Star-Ledger noted in an editorial that Christie’s plan “will primarily benefit New Jersey’s wealthiest class while doing little to ease the property tax burden on the middle class.” Already, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEC), New Jerseyans in the bottom 20 percent of earners — those making $12,400 on average — pay 10.7 percent of their overall income in taxes. Meanwhile, those in the top 1 percent — with an average income of $2,258,300 — pay 7.2 percent.

As Times of Trenton columnist George Amick noted, “it’s not the income tax that’s oppressing average New Jerseyans.” According to the ITEP data, property taxes in New Jersey are particularly regressive, while income tax rates are more progressive. Democrats have called for Christie to cut property taxes instead.

Christie’s plan is projected to cost the state $1.3 billion dollars by the time all of the cuts are phased in. In order to make up for that shortfall, some budget changes will have to be made, and if one of those changes is increasing property taxes, Christie’s plan could turn out to be even more regressive than it appears.

– Zachary Bernstein

But Glenda Russell, a psychologist at the University of Colorado at Boulder, has published significant research on the negative impacts of LGBT-related ballot initiatives through the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies (which merged to become part of the Williams Institute). In an unpublished letter to the editor obtained by ThinkProgress, she highlights how problematic Christie’s “bargain” is:

New Jersey’s Governor Christie offers a referendum on same-sex marriage as a way to simultaneously appear reasonable and avoid alienating conservative voters in a possible future national election. “Reasonable,” perhaps—until one considers the impact of such referenda. Decades of research have shown that these elections take a significant psychological toll on people whose lives and loves are objectified, dissected, and subjected to all manner of myths and lies. They divide families and communities and introduce vitriol into conversations among neighbors. Further, Christie is horribly wrong in his assertion that African-Americans “would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights …” Research demonstrates that when any group’s rights have been submitted to popular vote, they have usually lost those rights. Such outcomes have served as tragic reminders of de Tocqueville’s warning to beware the tyranny of the majority.

Here are some of the severe psychological consequences Russell and other researches have identified:

• LGBT people are stressed by being the focus and target of a “culture war,” having the way they their lives analyzed and debated, enduring the reinforcement of homophobic and heterosexist ideas and stereotypes, and resisting anti-gay rhetoric and pseudo-research.
• The children of same-sex couples also experiences these stresses, which can be compounded by stigma and bullying they may face in school.
• LGBT people face extra psychological risk if they actively engage in the hostile political campaign.
• Communities are divided as individuals “take sides” in the debate.
• Family members can become estranged if they intend to vote differently on these issues.
• The measures also increase stress for the family members of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals who might be impacted by them.

In addition, ballot initiatives are huge financial drains for the community. For example, Minnesota’s marriage fight has already led to over $2 million in fundraising between both proponents and opponents of the discriminatory amendment and the vote is not for another nine months. This is money that could be spent supporting the social welfare rather than fueling a divisive and harmful debate.

To treat ballot initiatives like they have no consequences is foolish. They drain time, money, and morale from the LGBT community, using a plea for “democracy” as an excuse to delay the advance of civil rights.

CHRISTIE: If the majority of the people want [same-sex marriage] prove it. Put it on the ballot, let it be voted on….I’ve told every Republican in the state legislator to vote to put it on the ballot. They need three-fifths to put it on the ballot. The Republicans have two-fifths in the legislature. So that means the Democrats only need to come up with one-fifth of the legislature…this is the bargain of your life. I’m giving you two-fifths! And the polls they show me say that if it goes on the ballot, it will lose. How much more magnanimous can I be? What else do you want me to do? Go campaign for it too? Look, I’m doing the best I can here!

Watch it:

Earlier this week, Christie apologized for comparing a referendum for same-sex marriage to the Civil Rights movement and suggesting that African Americans would have been better off if the public could have voted to end segregation and discrimination. Christie’s remarks triggered a strong backlash from African-American leaders, such as Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), who suggested Christie “has not read his recent history books” and pointed out that “most of the governors…were outright segregationists.” Newark Mayor Cory Booker responded simply: “Frankly, I wouldn’t be where I am today” if states had voted on civil rights.

Yesterday, the Judiciary Committee of the New Jersey General Assembly voted 5-2 to advance marriage equality legislation and a full Senate vote is scheduled for Tuesday, February 13. State Senate President Steve Sweeney also reiterated his opposition to extending fundamental rights through popular vote. “It’s time for everyone, from the governor to the chattering observers, to stop talking about a marriage equality referendum in terms of ‘if,’” Sweeney said “There will be no referendum on marriage equality in New Jersey, period.”

Well this morning, 15-year-old Madison Galluccio, who is being raised by same-sex parents, effectively countered Crank’s claim as she testified before New Jersey’s House Judiciary Committee in favor of marriage equality. “New Jersey has made me feel discriminated, like I’m some sort of outcast,” she told the committee. “But guess what New Jersey, I’m no outcast. I’m Madison Galluccio and I’m part of the Galluccio family. My parents will be married. And I’ll make sure that this happens ’til the day that I die.” She added:

So please, will you help me? Help me feel equal. We’re no different. I’m no different. And I shouldn’t have to be forced to feel I’m different. This is my family. And I want us to be able to have the same rights as you. So New Jersey, please give me my freedom. Thank you.

Listen (via Jeremy Hooper):

The New Jersey legislature is considering legislation extending marriage rights to gays and lesbians, which Gov. Chris Christie (R) has pledged to veto. (HT: OnTopMagazine)

“Political members of the state legislature comparing me to Lester Maddox and George Wallace shows how desperate the Democrats are,” Christie said…. “The question was raised to me by the mayor of Asbury Park,” Christie recalled. “I think afterwards they all understood and affirmed to me that I was not being critical of the Civil Rights movement. They knew exactly what I meant, which is that the political climate didn’t give them a chance for a referendum.” [...]

Christie said “numnuts like (Assemblyman) Reed Gusciora should be ashamed of themselves” for comparing him to Maddox and Wallace.

Now, New Jerseyans and the tri-state media are pushing back against the proposed referendum, claiming that an issue of equal rights should not be decided at the ballot box:

– NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL: To turn what is a matter of civil rights over to voters would be an abdication of lawmakers’ duty. It would also be a sharp break with New Jersey tradition. The last time the state held a referendum on civil rights was 1915, when a majority voted “no” on granting women the right to vote.

– STAR-LEDGER EDITORIAL: Take race relations. If Southern states could have held a referendum on free speech rights for Martin Luther King Jr., can anyone doubt how it would have turned out? How long would it have taken for voters in Mississippi to integrate its public schools? Gallup has traced attitudes toward interracial marriage for decades. Note that when the Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s ban in 1967, fewer than 1 in 5 Americans supported the court’s position. If Christie’s philosophy had carried the day, the ban would have remained in place until the late 1990s. The point is that minority rights should not be subjected to majority vote. That misses the gist of constitutional rights.

– MYCENTRALJERSEY.COM EDITORIAL: There is, however, a reason we elect representatives, to conduct the business that cannot be done by the masses at every turn. And sometimes, that means transcending public opinion to do what’s right, to overcome prejudice and ignorance that can die hard.

– BERGEN RECORD COLUMNIST ALFRED DOBLIN: Civil rights should not be determined by popular vote. Our nation has failed at that task almost every time. The public is swayed by emotion. Today it is manipulated by slick, expensive advertising campaigns. California’s Proposition 8 that banned same-sex marriage was all about politics and money. I marvel how the governor kept a straight – pun intended – face when he said putting marriage equality on the ballot in a presidential election year would make the issue non-political.

– PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER COLUMNIST KEVIN RIORDAN: In calling for an American Idol-style yea-nay about the private lives of thousands of New Jerseyans, Christie seems to have forgotten something. “We are debating about the lives of real people,” the bill cosponsor, Sen. Loretta Weinberg, told the hearing. Marriage equality, the Bergen County Democrat added, is about “people we all know, love and respect.”

-Zachary Bernstein

“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.

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.

A recent Quinnipiac poll found that a majority of New Jersey voters — 52 percent — support marriage equality while only 42 percent oppose it. Likewise, 65 percent believe same-sex marriage is not a threat to traditional marriage, 53 percent agree that denying same-sex marriage is a form of discrimination, and 66 percent adoption rights for same-sex couples.

The state has a long history of battling for LGBT equality. In 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in Lewis v. Harris that “every statutory right and benefit conferred to heterosexual couples through civil marriage must be made available to committed same-sex couples.” The New Jersey legislature responded to the decision by legalizing civil unions, but a 2008 review commission found that “the separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children.” A marriage equality group is suing the state to establish same-sex marriage and is moving forward with the lawsuit despite the legislative effort.

I’ve been very clear on my view on this since I ran for office that I’m not a supporter of same-sex marriage. But on the other hand, the fact is that this is a huge societal change that they’re talking about here and I think that we need to do this in a very deliberate and thoughtful way and get the most input from the public we can before we overturn hundreds of years of societal legal and religious tradition.

Listen to it:

This “we’ll see what happens” approach is quite a change from his 2009 comments that he would return a same-sex marriage bill to the legislature “with a big red veto across it.” The National Organization for Marriage has been writing feverishly that Christie should honor that years-old promise.

But Christie is right to heed more input from the public, given a new Quinnipiac poll shows a majority of New Jersey voters — 52 percent — support marriage equality while only 42 percent oppose it. Likewise, 65 percent believe same-sex marriage is not a threat to traditional marriage, 53 percent agree that denying same-sex marriage is a form of discrimination, and 66 percent adoption rights for same-sex couples. Perhaps Christie senses that a veto of marriage equality would be not only offensive and discriminatory, but politically unpopular as well.