In Brief

Staff Reports

NJ Governor Chris Christie on Same-Sex Marriage Issue: “I won’t compromise"

NJ Governor Chris Christie

NEW YORK, NEW YORK -- In an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan- due to air Tuesday evening- New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie tells Morgan; “I won’t compromise my principles for politics," regarding the issue of the same-sex marriage bill passed by the New Jersey legislature which he vetoed last Friday. Christie has publicly stated that he regards marriage as an institution which is between a man and a woman and he says that his position is guided by his strong religious beliefs.

CNN has released a partial transcript of Tuesday's interview:

[...] “And so what I’ve suggested to the legislature is, in a way, the only way we have to amend our constitution in New Jersey - which is by referendum - let’s put it on the ballot, let’s let people decide.”
“And if the people in New Jersey, as some of the same sex marriage advocates suggest the polls indicate are in favor of it, then my position would not be the winning position, but I’m willing to take that risk because I trust the people of the state,” he said.
When asked if he would ever change his mind on this issue as public opinion swings to supporting same-sex marriage — Washington state recently became the seventh in the nation, along with the District of Columbia, to allow gay marriage — Christie said he would not.
“I won’t compromise my principles for politics,” he said.
“You would never change your mind about this?” Morgan asked.
“I would not compromise my principles for politics. You’re saying, will it become politically unpopular to have the position I’m having? If it does, so be it. I don’t compromise my principles for politics,” Christie said.
Christie admitted he has gotten some flak from gay friends for his stance, but said it is guided by his Catholic faith. The governor added that his position is “absolutely not” bigoted and slammed the suggestion that anyone might say otherwise.
“It’s my belief, it’s my core belief,” he said. “And I tell people that. And my friends, whether they be homosexual or not, they know me and they know I’m not bigoted.”

The New Jersey legislature has until January 2014 to muster enough votes for an override of the governor's veto.

Prop 8 Supporters Ask For Appellate Review By Entire U. S. 9th Circuit Court

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA -- The legal team for the proponents of California's ban on same-sex marriage are petitioning a review by the entire 9th Circuit Court after a three-judge panel of the court ruled the marriage ban as unconstitutional. Charles Cooper, lead attorney for the defendants- Protect Marriage & Yes On 8- Charles Cooper, announced Tuesday that the request for an en banc review by the circuit court had been made. It usually takes months for the en banc reconsideration to be completed. 

If a party asks for en banc review, the request is sent to all of the 20-something active judges on the court. Memos are often exchanged between the judges before a vote takes place on whether to take the case en banc. If they take it, names are drawn for the panel and a whole new series of briefs are usually filed, which takes a few more months. Then they hold oral argument and issue a decision. It is really almost like starting the whole appeal all over again.

The proponents' decision today means that the road to a final decision on Prop 8 just got much longer. Nonetheless, the plaintiffs' attorneys have made it clear that they will seek to have the stay lifted, now that Prop 8 has been struck down by two separate courts. In the Ninth Circuit's own guidelines, the court says that an en banc rehearing should only be heard if 

1) there is a need for "uniformity" in the court's decision, 

2) the matter is a "question of exceptional importance," or 

3) the ruling "directly conflicts with an existing opinion by another court of appeals or the Supreme Court." The proponents are likely to argue that the Prop 8 case is a matter of "exceptional importance," but they may face an uphill battle convincing a majority of the Ninth Circuit that the appeals panel's decision needs to be reconsidered, especially given how narrow the ruling was. ~ Statement by Chris Stoll of the National Center for Lesbian Rights