— 30/Male

How ironic that my blogging hiatus ends with the same person it began with, Chris Christie.

When I lasted updated this blog on January 9, I noted that the New Jersey legislature had decided to push a same-sex marriage bill even though Gov. Christie (R) had once threatened to veto such a bill. On Tuesday, the governor made it abundantly clear that he would indeed veto such a bill and he took the issue a step further — saying that the issue should be decided by referendum by the voters of New Jersey. Even though polls show that 53% of voters in New Jersey favor same-sex marriage, Christie knows that passage is never assured and he does not want to use his own political capital to do the right thing.

Though Christie is somewhat of a moderate, he has ambitions to one day become president, and conservatives within his party would never nominate a governor who signed same-sex marriage into law. So Christie pitifully punts the issue elsewhere.

Christie’s announcement on marriage came one day after he nominated an openly-gay man to the New Jersey Supreme Court. Bruce Harris would be the first openly-gay man on the state Supreme Court if confirmed.

So, this begs the question, how can Chris Christie be so progressive and open-minded on Monday, yet so closed-minded and foolish on Tuesday? It’s called politics. It seems that Christie has adopted the Obama model, which is to do just enough for the gays to avoid being called bigoted, yet refusing to extend the civil right of marriage. It’s the hallmark of a spineless politician.

As I’ve argued here many times, marriage is a civil right, and those who deny Americans civil rights are being discriminatory. It’s really as simple as that. Unfortunately, Barack Obama and Chris Christie are in the same discriminatory boat.

One final point. Republicans (and even some Democrats) always want marriage equality to be decided by the voters, instead of by legislatures. They argue that if the issue is so important and polarizing, then it should be decided by voters. This argument is nonsense for two reasons.

First, America is a representative democracy. This means that the people elect representatives to make tough decisions for them. Under this system of government, “the people” actually make almost no decisions directly. Keep in mind that in the United States, voters don’t even pick their president, the electors of the Electoral College have that responsibility. Politicians are OK with representatives raising taxes, starting wars and impeaching leaders, but ensuring civil rights is “too important” to leave to legislatures. That’s bullshit.

The second reason Christie’s argument is nonsense is because civil rights are at issue here. Since equality is already ensured in the Constitution, “the people” do not need to weigh in on civil rights matters. It’s already decided law that people should be treated equally. Under this established law, the majority can not discriminate against a minority. In fact, laws are meant to protect minorities from the “tyranny of the majority.”

In the 1960s, when our country was struggling with civil rights for blacks, it was determined that such laws would not be put to a vote in the South. If segregation had been put to a vote, blacks would still be sitting in the back of the bus and drinking from “colored” water fountains. Lawmakers decided unilaterally that blacks were entitled to equal rights, and that voting  on such things was out of the question.

So, what’s changed? Why would we allow voters to decide if gays should have equal rights?

Equality does not come when the electorate decides it’s time. Equality comes about when our leaders, who are empowered by the voters, summon the courage to appeal to our hopes and not our fears. Equality comes about when visionaries see inequality and speak out against it forcefully.

Lyndon Johnson was a visionary; he was a forceful leader for change in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Chris Christie is a contrarian; a political coward unwilling to stake out a position that might be difficult, even when civil rights are at stake. Only when our champion emerges, with the political will to fight for what’s right, will we get full equality.