• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Do conservatives still want Chris Christie?

WFU71 said:
Christie believes marriage is one man/one woman. He supports civil unions, apparently with full legal protections. He is a Roman Catholic, so perhaps his view on marriage is a result of his religious beliefs.

In the past Christie has said that the voters of NJ should decide if the marriage laws should be changed, not the legislature.
Click to expand...

I get your first two statements, but if he's able to recognize the nuance that maybe gays aren't as terrible as the bible/church says, I just don't think the next leap is so challenging.

Wonder what would happen with a referendum in Jersey, and if they were to pass a gay marriage referendum, if he'd sign it.
 
TownieDeac said:
I get your first two statements, but if he's able to recognize the nuance that maybe gays aren't as terrible as the bible/church says, I just don't think the next leap is so challenging.

Wonder what would happen with a referendum in Jersey, and if they were to pass a gay marriage referendum, if he'd sign it.
Click to expand...

I believe he's said on several occasions that if left up to the voters, he would support whatever decision they made (i.e. he'd sign it).
 
WFU71 said:
Christie believes marriage is one man/one woman. He supports civil unions, apparently with full legal protections. He is a Roman Catholic, so perhaps his view on marriage is a result of his religious beliefs.

In the past Christie has said that the voters of NJ should decide if the marriage laws should be changed, not the legislature.
Click to expand...

But that distinction, quite frankly, boils down to "separate but equal". If marriage, as recognized by the gov't, had a required religious component then maybe he'd have an argument. As is, two people can be "married" by a judge and get a marriage license so there is no religious component necessary. Since such laws would not require churches to perform marriage rights for homosexuals, there is really no point in making homosexuals get civil unions which carry the same protections as legal marriage unless it is a means to simply separate the two groups from one another for religious purposes. Not really a good policy for the government.
 
Refreshing to see a politician serving both parties instead of just one.
 
My vote for McCrory now gives me serious pause to even think about Christie
 
It really is going to be fun around here when Christie wins in 2016.
 
JamesSokolove said:
My vote for McCrory now gives me serious pause to even think about Christie
Click to expand...

The crazy stuff Pubs are doing at the state level should scare everybody. What would they do with the White House, Senate, House, and Supreme Court?
 
Not sure what you mean.
 
How he governs a blue state with a Dem legislature without the IOUs that come with a presidential run.
 
You don't think he had to issue some IOUs to win said union-controlled blue state? And in the off chance he didn't, winning there that way would be easier than winning the presidency, so he shouldn't have to issue any the next time around either.
 
I might vote for Christie if I was confident that at least one house of Congress would be controlled by Democrats during his first term. What has happened in NC over the past 10 years of all Democrat and now all Republican rule, and the passage of Obamacare in Obama's first term, has convinced me that the American political system breaks down when one party is allowed to control everything. Washington gridlock sucks but the last thing I want is either party being able to pass their agenda unopposed.
 
Deacon923 said:
I might vote for Christie if I was confident that at least one house of Congress would be controlled by Democrats during his first term. What has happened in NC over the past 10 years of all Democrat and now all Republican rule, and the passage of Obamacare in Obama's first term, has convinced me that the American political system breaks down when one party is allowed to control everything. Washington gridlock sucks but the last thing I want is either party being able to pass their agenda unopposed.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.

In regards to Christie, I’d just love for my choice on voting day to be a difficult decision, and not because I have to decide between the lesser of two evils.
 
avalon said:
Totally agree.

In regards to Christie, I’d just love for my choice on voting day to be a difficult decision, and not because I have to decide between the lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...

Me, too.Pretty much every presidential election I've voted in (starting in 1972) has been a vote for the guy I disliked less.
 
Yeah Christie would be the first major presidential candidate that I would be happy voting for since Ross Perot.
 
The only time I felt good voting for a candidate was going twice with Clinton. The choices before and especially after have been less than desirable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top