Jonathan Capehart and Gov. Chris Christie clash on Morning Joe

Morning Joe facilitated a lively exchange this morning between Gov. Chris Christie and openly gay Washington Post editorial writer, Jonathan Capehart. Christie recently vetoed a gay marriage bill and said the gay marriage issue should be decided by the voters not the legislature. However, he did say he supports civil unions. Capehart challenged him and said that he views gay rights as civil rights. Even when Joe Scarborough brought up imagery of the deep south with the water hoses, Bull Connor, church bombings Capehart stood by his contention that gay rights was akin to civil rights. Christie said that he has the same position as President Obama, but he is criticized, but the president is celebrated. Capehart countered by saying the president’s position is “evolving”. Is this a word game or does Christie have a point? Read the link and watch the clip, and tell me what you think.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/23/washington-post-jonathan-capehart-chris-christie-gay-marriage_n_1296321.html

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

Comments

  • elogam  On February 24, 2012 at 1:02 am

    I contend that “gay rights” are not the same as “civil rights”. Civil rights include the right to live without being attacked for who you are, the right to live where you want to live,freely associate with others, the right to compete for a job you are qualified to do, the right to pass on the fruits of your hard labor and success to your progeny. All of those rights are already available to the gay community, and if they are not that can be fixed with the stroke of a pen or a tweak of an existing law. The only “right” that the gay community wants that is not encompassed by “human rights” is the right to re-define marriage to “anything goes”. Firstly, marriage is not a “right”. I do not have the right to marry just anybody, otherwise I could walk up to an attractive woman and insist she come home with me. Marriage is a limited privilege, one limited to ONE man and ONE woman. I can live with civil unions done through the state– I can even live with GROUP civil unions like we have corporations. But re-defining marriage is not necessary.

    As far as the president’s position on re-defining marriage ‘evolving’–well, it’ll evolve pretty quickly if he’s down in the polls in October. Otherwise, look for a complete “evolution” just after the mid-term elections of his second term.

%d bloggers like this: