A Gentleman’s view.

Wisconsin Assembly Officially Ends Employment Discrimination Remedies

By Segway Jeremy Ryan

All across the nation we have seen a GOP assault on pretty much everyone who is not a rich white christian, male.  Today this took on a whole new level as the State Assembly passed Senate Bill 202.  This bill was introduced by Senator Glenn Grothman.  According to Representative Christine Sinicki, Grothman said a woman’s place is at home cooking, cleaning, and making babies.  For this reason he authored a bill making it so that people who are discriminated against by employers cannot sue for punitive or compensatory damages.  This bill passed the Senate on partisan lines.  Today, February 21, 2012, the bill was in front of the Assembly.  The Democrats gave speech after speech on how bad this bill was, focusing on the current income gap between males and females.  And after all of that, just one Republican stood up to defend the bill.  The one who spoke was Representative Michelle Litjens who pulled out a defense seen time and time again.  She simply said the Democrats were lying and that this bill doesn’t reverse any rights someone who has been discriminated against has.  To call her bullshit we need look no further than the title of the bill.

Senate Bill 202: An Act to repeal 111.39 (5) (d), 111.397 and 893.995; and to amend 111.39 (4) (d) and 814.04 (intro.) of the statutes; relating to: elimination of compensatory and punitive damages for acts of employment discrimination or unfair honesty or genetic testing. (FE)

I don’t know what kind of education Michelle got in school, but to me that is pretty clear.  And what I quoted above was written by the non-partisan Legislative Reference Bureau.  I do not see any way a bill that says “elimination of compensatory and punitive damages for…” would do anything less than eliminate the ability to receive such damages.  Do the Republicans really think we are that stupid?  The bill passed with every Republican Woman voting for it.  But what is really stunning is not that it passed, it is the realization that the women in the Republican party will not even stand up for their own gender.  They vote for legislation that discriminates against their own sex.  Do they truly agree with Grothman that a woman’s place is in the home?  Do they believe they do not deserve the jobs they have?  I am not sure what they believe, but they voted in agreement.  I find it sad that these women have no pride in the rights that they have earned.

We need to start calling the truth out.  This is an attack on women.  There is a reason the GOP loves people like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman.  It is because the GOP likes the image they project.  These people paint women as dumb and obedient.  They will vote against and support things against their best interests because men tell them to.  They want people to buy the image of all women being stupid.  So they embrace women like Palin and Bachmann.  Senate Bill 202 was nothing more than a move to “put women in their place”.  It sickens me that these bills pass.  But what sickens me more is how the women of the GOP just sit back and feed into an image that no woman would want.  Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Michelle Litjens represent a class of woman with very low intelligence.  These are people who are too stupid to hold any other job.  They represent a very small group of women, a group that sticks to pre-suffrage ideas that equate women to no greater than a slave.  This view may have flown decades ago.  But in this day and age such discriminatory laws are not socially acceptable.  I am also willing to bet the majority of women, minority, and disabled voters will not take to kindly to this assault either.  And fortunately for us, every single member of the Wisconsin State Assembly will be up for re-election this year.  Therefore, this assault is not likely to last much longer.

Jeremy Ryan

Executive Director

Defending Wisconsin PAC

jryan@defendingwisconsin.org

[Editor's Note: Donations made through this post go to the author, not the website]

Note: Segway Jeremy Ryan has become a full-time member of the protests at the Wisconsin State Capitol. Formerly a businessman, he gave up his business to join the fight for the middle class in the State of Wisconsin. Through videos and writings he has informed hundreds of thousands of people about what was going on at the Wisconsin State Capitol once the mainstream media had mostly abandoned the protests. His full-time activism is completely funded by the people.

Newt Gingrich Says Beating President Obama Is A Matter Of National Security

By Stephen D. Foster Jr.

Newt Gingrich is obsessed with the Middle East. He’s also obsessed with painting President Obama as some kind of Islamic fundamentalist sympathizer who seeks to destroy America. During a speech in front of a crowd of Oral Roberts University students, Gingrich continued that line of attack, and said that defeating President Obama this November is a matter of national security.

“This is not smearing everybody, this is not Islamaphobia. If we can’t have an honest conversation about radical Islamists, and if we can’t figure out — there’s a very specific group of people across the planet. Across the planet today, the forces of religious repression are on the march and this administration has intellectually disarmed, it has morally disarmed, it is incapable of describing what threatens us. The president wants to unilaterally weaken the United States. He wants to cut the aid to Israel for its anti-ballistic missile defense. He refuses to take Iran seriously. We are in a world that is very dangerous. And I say this to those of you who represent the next generation because you’re going to bear the consequences. We are really at risk someday in your lifetime of losing an American city. So, defeating Barack Obama becomes, in fact, a duty of national security because the fact is that he is incapable of defending the United States.”

Here’s the video:

It never ceases to amaze me how Republicans can accuse President Obama of making America less safe when his foreign policy achievements include the killings of multiple terrorist leaders using a strategy of small teams of America’s elite military forces. Here’s a short list of them just to remind everyone of just how seriously President Obama takes the national security of the United States.

1. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) leader Anwar al-Awlaki: KILLED

2. Al-Qaeda’s chief of Pakistan operations, Abu Hafs al-Shahri: KILLED

3. Al-Qaeda deputy leader ‘Atiyah ‘Abd al-Rahman: KILLED

4. Al-Quaeda commander Ilyas Kashmiri: KILLED

5. AQAP senior operative Ammar al-Wa’ili: KILLED

6. AQAP senior operative Abu Ali al-Harithi: KILLED

7. AQAP senior operative Ali Saleh Farhan: KILLED

8. Al-Qa’ida in East Africa (AQEA) senior leader Harun Fazul: KILLED

9. Tehrik e-Taliban Pakistan leader Baitullah Mahsud: KILLED

10. Jemayah Islamiya operational planner Noordin Muhammad Top: KILLED

11. AQEA planner Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan: KILLED

12. Al-Qaeda operational commander Saleh al-Somali: KILLED

13. Al-Qaeda operational commander ‘Abdallah Sa’id: KILLED

14. Taliban deputy and military commander Abdul Ghani Beradar: CAPTURED

15. Haqqani network commander Muhammad Haqqani: KILLED

16. Lashkar-e Jhangvi leader Qari Zafar: KILLED

17. Al-Qaeda commander Hamza al-Jawfi: KILLED

18. Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Ayyub al-Masri: KILLED

19. Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Omar al-Baghdadi: KILLED

20. Al-Qaeda’s number three commander, Sheik Saeed al-Masri: KILLED

21. Al-Qaeda senior external operations planner Abdullah Khorsani: KILLED

22. Al-Qaeda Mastermind Osama bin Laden: KILLED

And that’s just a short list. Let’s add multiple Somali pirates and multiple Somali hostage takers killed or captured as well. President Obama takes Islamic terrorists seriously. He just doesn’t want to declare war on the entire Arab world like Newt Gingrich does. But if you’re still confused about which man would keep America safer, I think the following quote will make it clear.

“This is one of the great tragedies of the Bush administration. The more successful they’ve been at intercepting and stopping bad guys, the less proof there is that we’re in danger … It’s almost like they should every once in a while have allowed an attack to get through just to remind us.” ~Newt Gingrich, at a book talk in Huntington, NY, April 2008, saying that Republicans should allow terrorist attacks on American soil to remind us of the dangers in the world.

The above quote should seal Gingrich’s fate with the American electorate. Do we want to vote for President Obama, who has an iron clad record of killing terrorists and preventing attacks on American soil? Or do we want Gingrich, a man who has stated that the government should allow terrorist attacks to get through from time to time just to keep people afraid? The answer should be simple.

For the WOMEN.
Ladies READ this carefully!!!!
Fellas pay attention this applies to use as well but meant for the women!

If a man wants you, nothing can keep him away. If he doesn’t want you, nothing can make him stay.

Stop making excuses for a man and his behavior.

Allow your intuition (or spirit) to save you from heartache.

Stop trying to change yourself for a relationship that’s not meant to be.

Slower is better.

Never live your life for a man before you find what makes you truly happy.

If a relationship ends because the man was not treating you as you deserve then heck no, you can’t “be friends”. A friend wouldn’t mistreat a friend.

Don’t settle.

If you feel like he is stringing you along, then he probably is.

Don’t stay because you think “it will get better.” You’ll be mad at yourself a year later for staying when things are not better.

The only person you can control in a relationship is you.

Avoid men who’ve got a bunch of children by a bunch of different women. He didn’t marry them when he got them pregnant, why would he treat you any differently?

Always have your own set of friends separate from his.

Maintain boundaries in how a guy treats you.

If something bothers you, speak up.

Never let a man know everything. He will use it against you later.

You cannot change a man’s behavior. Change comes from within.

Don’t EVER make him feel he is more important than you are… even if he has more education or in a better job. Do not make him into a quasi-god. He is a man, nothing more nothing less.

Never let a man define who you are.

Never borrow someone else’s man. If he cheated with you, he’ll cheat on you.

A man will only treat you the way you ALLOW him to treat you.

All men are NOT dogs.

You should not be the one doing all the bending… compromise is two way street.

You need time to heal between relationships… there is nothing cute about baggage… Deal with your issues before pursuing a new relationship.

You should never look for someone to COMPLETE you… a relationship consists of two WHOLE
individuals… look for someone complimentary… not supplementary.

Dating is fun… even if he doesn’t turn out to be Mr. Right.

Make him miss you sometimes… when a man always know where you are, and you’re always readily available to him – he takes it for granted.

Don’t fully commit to a man who doesn’t give you everything that you need. Keep him in your radar but get to know others.

Share this with other women and men (just so they know)… You’ll make someone smile, another rethink her/his choices, and another woman prepare, and a man aware that you’re someone to be loved and appreciated or just left alone!

Remember: You can do bad by yourself!

Liberals vs. conservatives

We are not the same. I equate Republicans’ political views with thoughtlessness, intolerance and narcissism. They’re neither kind nor empathetic. By Diana Wagman

I recently played poker with a bunch of Republicans. My husband and I, both bleeding-heart liberals, are part owners of a cabin in the Sierra outside Fresno, a very conservative area. The Camp Sierra Assn. president has an annual poker game, and this year we, the newcomers, were invited.

No one mentioned politics. We talked instead about our kids and Las Vegas and the odd warm weather. There was a lot of laughter and a lot of very good Scotch. I had fun even though I lost $4.

When the game was over, we walked home with our across-the-road neighbors and invited them in for a final nightcap.

Conservatives vs. liberals

They are the best neighbors in the world. Always ready with a tool, an ingredient or a jump-start for the car. Whatever you need, if they have it, they will give it. They are a lovely family: husband, wife and four smart, funny, polite children. I was sure they were Democrats.

As the husband sat down in our living room with his drink, he announced, “The tea party is not racist.” We just looked at him. “The tea party is not racist,” he continued, “because I am a member of the tea party.”

I laughed. I thought he was joking, but he quickly made it clear he was not. He is white and his wife is African American. And they belong to the tea party. They don’t care who becomes our next president as long as it isn’t Barack Obama. The conversation devolved from there until he was shouting, I was shouting, his wife was trying to calm him down, my husband was trying to calm me down, and our other friends — Democrats — were trying to keep everybody from breaking the furniture.

Conservative vs. Liberal: Gay marriage

We argued about healthcare and welfare, President Obama’s nationality and religion, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We did not agree on anything. But honestly, the issues were not important. What matters is how personal it quickly became, how vitriolic, how filled with hate. He said I was sucking the country dry with my support of food stamps and public education. He said I needed to get off my butt and take care of myself. I suggested he sign his kids up to die in Iran, the next place he thinks we should attack. He called me a spoiled idiot and worse. I called him selfish, shortsighted and worse. It was awful, and it went on until after 3 a.m.

The next morning, they knocked on our door and we apologized to each other and laughed sheepishly. All in good fun, the wife said. It was the Scotch talking, my husband replied. But my feelings about them are changed. I cannot respect them as I did before. And as they headed back across the street, I saw the look they gave each other: They don’t like us anymore either.

My mother had Republican friends. She was a lifelong Democrat, worked with the Adlai Stevenson for president campaign and was a precinct chairman for Hubert Humphrey. She was ashamed of Richard Nixon and thought Ronald Reagan was misguided. Still, she didn’t hate Republicans. She disagreed with their politics and they with hers, but she believed people, no matter how they vote, are basically all the same.

Conservative vs. Liberal: Healthcare

I don’t agree. I don’t want to be friends with someone who is a member of the tea party or is a Newt Gingrich Republican. We are not the same. I equate their political views with thoughtlessness, intolerance and narcissism. I think they are not kind or empathetic. And my neighbor made it clear that he does not respect my opinions or me.

“You’re what’s wrong with this country!” he shouted. “No, you are!” was my intelligent retort. In only one area could we agree: We each would prefer the other just didn’t exist. If only they would all go live in Gingrich’s moon colony. If only we would all move to Canada with the other socialists. My mother would have been horrified, but times have changed.

My neighbors want good jobs, nice houses and security for their four children. They want to be able to retire before they get too old so they can spend more time at their cabin. They love the Sierra Nevada and want it to remain pristine. I want those things too. I want it for their children as well as mine, and for all children everywhere. Of course I do. And that’s what I find so frustrating.

My views on all these things — gay marriage, abortion, the war in Iraq, healthcare, education, food stamps, even NPR and PBS funding — seem so logical to me. Of course we need to take care of those less fortunate; of course we want everybody to have the joy and legal benefits of a life partner; of course we want every baby to be wanted and every person to be safe, healthy, informed and looking forward to a better future.

These things are no-brainers to me, and it kills me that my neighbor disagrees. I wonder what would happen if he woke up one morning to find that his son had been killed in Iraq or that his 15-year-old daughter was pregnant or that his favorite sister was gay. What if he suddenly lost his job, his wife got cancer, there was no insurance and not much food? I’m not saying I want life to knock him around. But would he still feel that the government shouldn’t be helping anybody out?

Next time I drive to our cabin, I’m going to make sure I take everything I could possibly need. I don’t want to ask my neighbors for help. I hope it’s their weekend to stay home.

Diana Wagman is the author of the novels “Skin Deep,” “Spontaneous” and “Bump.”

Crazy Conservative Contradictions  By Justin “Filthy Liberal Scum” Rosario

There’s a reason liberals look at conservatives like they might be insane. Often, a conservative will say one thing and then, almost immediately, contradict it. Pointing out the contradiction often angers the conservative who then accuses you of either being “stupid” or “twisting their words.” But, because it’s funny to look at crazy people, let’s take a look at conservative contradictions:

1. There is no need to regulate corporations! The free market dictates that all corporations will act in the best interest of the consumer or be put out of business by the “Invisible Hand.”

The Contradiction: Corporations only exist to make money. You cannot expect them to do anything that will interfere with the bottom line. They cannot concern themselves with environmental issues or customer safety if it is more profitable to ignore them. You, as the consumer, need to be more careful!

—

2. Corporations should have all the rights of a person. They should be free to exercise their First Amendment rights and buy influence elections just like any other citizen of the United States.

The Contradiction: Corporations are not people so they cannot be treated like any other citizen of the United States. You can’t arrest them for manslaughter or negligent homicide even if they DID add known carcinogens to that baby food on purpose.

Ultimate Contradiction: Unions (basically, a group of people pooling their resources) should not be allowed to influence elections. It corrupts the democratic process.

—

3. You should never try to organize labor. That’s selfish. Unions extort money from corporations, inflate the salaries of workers and give them unearned benefits, like maternity leave and pensions. Union workers are greedy and do not care about the companies they work for. The fact that they are paid so well is a sure sign that they are wrong.

The Contradiction: How dare you try to limit CEO pay and severance packages?! Those people work hard and earn every penny they get, even if they drove the company right into bankruptcy! So what if they took billions of tax payers’ money to stay afloat, they still deserve those bonuses!

—

4. All liberal celebrities should shut the hell up. They don’t know what they’re talking about and should leave politics to politicians. Liberal celebrities aren’t real Americans anyway because they’re from Hollywood!

The Contradiction: Here to explain to you how liberal policies are unpatriotic and probably illegal are Victoria Jackson, Kelsey Grammer and Jon Voight.

—

5. The Government cannot create any jobs at all and can never reduce unemployment, only the private sector can do that.

The Contradiction: The Government has too many people on its payroll; we have to reduce the number of public sector jobs.
Ultimate Contradiction: See how many public sector jobs we’ve lost under Obama? He made unemployment worse!

—

6. We really invaded Iraq to get rid of a terrible dictator and it had nothing to do with 9/11.

The Contradiction: Why is Obama invading Libya?! To take down a terrible dictator?! How is that our problem?!

—

7. Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 because he gave the order to carry out the attack.

The Contradiction: President Obama can’t take ANY credit for the death of Osama bin Laden because all he did was give the order to carry out the attack.

—

8. Any journalist, politician or private citizen that questions President Bush during a time of war is a traitor.

The Contradiction: During this time of war it is our patriotic duty to question President Obama about every little detail of his agenda.

—

9. Providing billions of tax-payer money to people in dire financial straits is Socialism and will lead to the destruction of the country.

The Contradiction: Providing trillions of tax-payer money to banks in dire financial straits is Capitalism and will lead to the salvation of the country.

—

10. We must protect innocent fetuses by any means necessary. Terrorism and assassination is justifiable because we are protecting children!

The Contradiction: Providing pregnant women with medical care and proper nutrition is a burden on the tax-payers and we can’t afford it. We need that money to fight terrorism!

—

11. Islam is a religion of terrorists! They murder innocents in the name of Allah and that’s just wrong! That’s why we’re better than they are!

The Contradiction: All homosexuals should be put to death! They are the work of Satan! If we cannot pray away their gay then we must do as the Jayzus commands and stone them to death!

—

12. My freedom of religion is absolute! It says so right there in the Constitution! You can’t restrict my right to worship where and how I want!

The Contradiction: Those damn Muslims keep putting up mosques wherever the hell they want! Who do they think they are?! That should be illegal!

—

13. The Constitution is inviolate! Why are liberals always trying to shred the Constitution?!

The Contradiction: We should just ignore the 14th Amendment! It allows anchor and terror babies! We have to protect ourselves from the furrners!

—

14. Damn liberals always trying to select activist judges that will just “interpret” the Constitution however they want to fit their Socialist agenda! The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing and we should also follow their intent, not just make it up as we go along!

The Contradiction: Citizens United? I think the Supreme Court did a fine job of interpreting the Constitution to fit our much more complex times, don’t you?

Edited by Sherri Yarbrough

• Rick Santorum: Obama Agenda Not ‘Based On Bible’

By Samuel P. Jacobs

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Feb 18 (Reuters) – Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum challenged President Barack Obama’s Christian beliefs on Saturday, saying White House policies were motivated by a “different theology.”

A devout Roman Catholic who has risen to the top of Republican polls in recent days, Santorum said the Obama administration had failed to prevent gas prices rising and was using “political science” in the debate about climate change.

Obama’s agenda is “not about you. It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your jobs. It’s about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology,” Santorum told supporters of the conservative Tea Party movement at a Columbus hotel.

When asked about the statement at a news conference later, Santorum said, “If the president says he’s a Christian, he’s a Christian.”

But Santorum did not back down from the assertion that Obama’s values run against those of Christianity.

“He is imposing his values on the Christian church. He can categorize those values anyway he wants. I’m not going to,” Santorum told reporters.

A social conservative, Santorum is increasingly seen as a champion for evangelical Christians in fights with Democrats over contraception and gay marriage.

“This is just the latest low in a Republican primary campaign that has been fueled by distortions, ugliness, and searing pessimism and negativity – a stark contrast with the President who is focused everyday on creating jobs and restoring economic security for the middle class,” said Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt.

The campaign’s response signaled a new respect for Santorum. Until this week, the Obama campaign appeared exclusively focused on Mitt Romney. Republicans are waging a state-by-state contest to pick a candidate to challenge Obama in November’s election.

At a campaign appearance in Florida last month, Santorum declined to correct a voter who called Obama, a Christian, an “avowed Muslim.”

Santorum told CNN after that incident, “I don’t feel it’s my obligation every time someone says something I don’t agree with to contradict them, and the president’s a big boy, he can defend himself.”

On Saturday, Santorum also took aim at Romney, his main Republican rival, on one of the central accomplishments of his resume, saying the former Massachusetts governor’s rescue of the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics required millions of dollars in handouts from the federal government.

The attack was a response to the Romney camp trying to portray Santorum as a proponent of big government because of his use of earmarks while he served in the U.S. Senate.

“He heroically bailed out the Salt Lake City Olympic Games by heroically going to Congress and asking them for tens of millions of dollars to bail out the Salt Lake Olympic Games – in an earmark,” Santorum said.

“One of his strongest supporters, John McCain called it potentially the worst boondoggle in earmark history. And now Governor Romney is suggesting, ‘Oh, Rick Santorum earmarked,’ as he requested almost half a billion dollars of earmarks as governor of Massachusetts to his federal congressmen and senators. Does the word hypocrisy come to mind?” Santorum said.

Romney often talks of how he turned around the struggling Olympics organization and is appearing in Utah on Saturday to mark the anniversary of the Olympics.

In a statement, the Romney campaign said Santorum was in a weak position to challenge its candidate on big spending.

“Sometimes when you shoot from the hip, you end up shooting yourself in the foot. There is a pretty wide gulf between seeking money for post-9/11 security at the Olympics and seeking earmarks for polar bear exhibits at the Pittsburgh Zoo. Mitt Romney wants to ban earmarks, Senator Santorum wants more ‘Bridges to Nowhere,’” said Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul. (Editing by Peter Cooney)

NJ Gov Christie Follows Through With Pledge, Vetoes Same-Sex Marriage Bill

By Michael Hayne

Professional YouTube screamer and occasional Governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, followed through on his pledge to veto the historic same-sex marriage bill passed by New Jersey’s state Senate and Assembly this week, thus putting New Jersey in ideological juxtaposition to Kansas. Worse yet, it seems New Jersey’s Assembly doesn’t have sufficient votes to override Christie’s veto.

Ironically enough, right as the gargantuan governor of the garden state was proudly sending equality back to Saudi Arabia, Maryland’s Governor, an implacable foe of Christie, was adulating his state’s assembly for voting for human dignity in regards to its passage of a marriage equality bill. Much like the New Jersey law, the same-sex marriage bill in Maryland would not force religious organizations and churches to perform same-sex ceremonies. But it seems Christie thinks New Jersey’s residents are clamoring for more patronage positions at the Port Authority (or is it portly authority?) and lowering a flag for drug overdosed singer over enfranchsing tax-paying, law-abiding citizens with the right to be just as miserable as heterosexual couples.

Christie’s comments following his promised veto, according to an LA Times article: 

“I am adhering to what I’ve said since this bill was first introduced — an issue of this magnitude and importance, which requires a constitutional amendment, should be left to the people of New Jersey to decide,” Christie said in a statement, the Associated Press reported. “I continue to encourage the Legislature to trust the people of New Jersey and seek their input by allowing our citizens to vote on a question that represents a profoundly significant societal change.”

Christie, who has shown himself to be more moderate on other social/cultural issues in the face of an overwhelmingly socially backwards Republican party, was on the receiving end of a major tongue-lashing a few weeks ago after making some controversial comments regarding the Civil Rights movement and same-sex marriage. The tough Joisey guy governor did his best Tony Soprano when he said that blacks in the 1960s would have preferred referendums on desegregation, which is a the direction he has taken regarding promulgating same-sex marriage.

“I think people would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights, rather than fighting and dying in the streets in the South,” Christie said after an event in Central Jersey.

For anyone with an elementary understanding of Jim Crow laws and the monstrously rampant racism and separation of the South during the 1960s, it’s palpably clear that giving veto rights to the heavily racist population of the South during the 1960s would have been like trusting kids to grade their own school papers. Then again, Christie would probably just have shouted at the teachers and blamed them.

Chairman of New Jersey’s LGBT activist group Garden State Equality, Steve Goldstein, has been fighting tirelessly along with countless other gay rights advocates to make same-sex marriage legal. Five years ago, New Jersey’s state Supreme Court declared that gay couples should have identical rights to married heterosexual couples; subsequently, the Legislature created civil unions. But gay rights advocates claim the “civil union” designation is very ambiguous and still treats gay couples much differently from heterosexual couples.

Goldstein, ever the incorrigible optimist but with a soupcon of pragmatism, made the following eloquent and encouraging statement in response to Christie’s veto, from the Miami Herald:

As we await the Governor’s veto of the marriage equality bill, I beg your indulgence if this statement is a bit more personal than usual. Many in Trenton know that Governor Christie and I have a good relationship. This may come as a surprise, and even disappointment, to some of Garden State Equality’s members, but I like the Governor personally even though I agree with him on almost nothing.I came of political age where leaders who disagree passionately on the issues, who even fight with one another like cats and dogs in the political arena, were able put the fights aside and see one another as people. I grew up at a time when the legendary Democratic Speaker of the U.S. House, Tip O’Neill – a hero of mine – and President Reagan did exactly that. And it’s always been my philosophy in dealing with Governor Christie and his Administration.

And having worked for several public officials myself, I know there’s a heck of lot more to them than their public images would suggest. No public figure is the two-dimensional character of the headlines. As Garden State Equality’s leader, I have worked closely with this Governor on issues upon which we agree, notably to counter school bullying.

As I have said before, where we agree with them on the issues, Governor Christie and his Administration have treated us with warmth and responsiveness. Yes is yes, no is no, and we’ll get back to you means they get back to you faster than you thought, usually with invaluable help.

And that’s precisely why Governor Christie’s veto of the marriage equality bill will hurt so badly.We’re not naïve – we’ve always known he would veto the bill, and frankly, I was always a bit puzzled by the silly tea-leaf reading and phantasmagoric hopes that perhaps the Governor would look deep inside his heart and let the bill become law. Ridiculous. I know this Governor, and when he says he’ll do something, take him at his word, for better and here for worse.

It’s why I chose not to waste a breath in pleading with the Governor not to veto – and have put Garden State Equality immediately to work to achieve an override. The great news is, we have until the end of the legislative session, in January 2014, to do it. 

That doesn’t obviate the pain of the Governor’s veto. Because I do know him, I also know he is not some anti-LGBT nut. He is no Rick Santorum. Frankly, I don’t think Chris Christie has an anti-gay bone in his body, however much I cannot say the same about his impending veto. His veto will be a brutally anti-gay act, pure and simple.

The Governor keeps calling for a referendum, which everyone knows will never happen in New Jersey. To borrow the Governor’s words, it’s time for him to stop engaging in political theater. Our lives are not La Cage Aux Folles: LGBT people fall in love, raise families, often children whom the rest of society shuns, and pay taxes in what is still one of the most heavily taxed states in the country.

Our Governor knows our contributions to society. He won’t veto the bill because he’s anti-gay. He’ll veto the bill because the 2016 South Carolina Republican Presidential primary electorate is anti-gay. And if I get flooded with letters now from Charleston, so be it.

And that’s what hurts so badly. I like this Governor and am able to see him beyond the headlines. When you are rejected by someone you want so badly to love you unconditionally – my own parents have taught me what that’s like – the pain is searing. Rick Santorum I can live with. Gerry Cardinale I can live with, too. But Chris Christie’s rejection? That hurts.

Governor, rest assured that even though I came of political age in an era where political adversaries could be friends – and if you’re game, we’ll continue that good relationship – Garden State Equality and I will continue to fight you on marriage equality with every bone in our bodies. You would expect no less.

For us, this is not about politics. This is about our fundamental American right to conduct our lives with a full life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Equality.

And until we achieve it, we will fight with our every last breath. And we will win, so help me God.

Christie, who has endorsed Mitt Romney’s 2o12 presidency and is a surefire 2016 GOP candidate, is treading treacherous political waters, full of present versus future dilemmas. If the inane clown posse of deranged lunatics seeking the Republican ticket is any indication of the rightward shift in the Republican party, Christie must eschew his socially moderate stances that placates a left-of-center (at least socially) state, in order to begin burnishing his far-right bona fides to woo the anti-everything-under-the-sun Republican primary crowd. Irrespective, Christie is clearly on the wrong side of history and this veto of his may come back to bite him in the 80,000 BTU air conditioner he calls a bum.