NJ Lawmaker Introduces Bill Calling for Voter Referendum on Same-Sex Marriage

New Jersey State Sen. Christopher “Kip” Bateman (R-Somerset) has introduced a bill that would let voters decide if same-sex marriage should be legal in the state, the Star-Ledger reports:

BatemanThe measure (SCR-88) reflects what Gov. Chris Christie called for after promising to veto a bill the Legislature will consider next week that would grant same-sex couples the right to marry, rather than form civil unions. It would put a question on the ballot in November to amend the state Constitution to allow same-sex couples to get married.

"Let's stop the political games and let the people of New Jersey decide," said Bateman (R-Somerset) in a press release. "Marriage equality advocates and opponents would both have the ability to register their opinion at the ballot box. Nobody would be disenfranchised on either side of the issue."

Votes have been scheduled for next week in the NJ Senate and Assembly on the pending marriage equality bill.


  1. says

    Why is it that people don’t seem to understand that civil rights are not subject to voter referenda, those questions belong in front of a court and hopefully they will be ruled on without personal prejudice.

  2. says

    Basic civil rights of minority Americans are not to be put up for a vote by the population.

    They know this – it’s constitution 101. The fact that they are doing it around the country is a slap in the face to the already marginalized LGBT population of this country.

  3. Chris says

    You are all thinking too small people. We need to vote. On EVERYTHING. Every individual marriage as to whether or not those two people should be together. Every couple as to whether or not they should get to have kids. We should be embracing the vote and DEMANDING the right to vote on every piece of minutia there is in everybody’s life.

  4. Jay says

    So Senator Bateman is concerned about people not being disenfrancised. Good for him. He has read the dictionary…and he saw the 1st meaning of the word and is trying to be all – “Look at me!”

    Well, Senator Bateman…there is a 2nd meaning. Disenfranchised doesn’t mean just depriving people of the right to vote… but also it means to deprive individuals of power, to marginalize or deprive of a legal right.

    “Senator Batemen: Enfranchising the entire population of the State of New Jersey to disenfranchise a small group of the people of New Jersey.”

    I wonder if he can use that on his official web page as a sub-header!

  5. paul says

    yes we the people should get to decide on which straight people get married and whether they are suitable to raise kids. If GOP keep banging on about marriage being solely for procreation then we need to put a stop to straights getting married if they arent going to have kids.
    No one ever mentions the fact that gay couples never ‘accidentally’ end up with children. Gays who have kids REALLY want those kids.

  6. David says

    How disingenuous – the constitution was created to moderate the extreme views of bigots like this from allowing ‘mob-rule’ to control minority rights. When Bateman was sworn in he agreed to uphold the constitution – lets throw this jack-ass out of office for being UN-American.

  7. anon says

    I’m sure Bateman doesn’t care one way or the other about the issue, but being a loyal member of the NJ Rep. machine, put this up as a favor to Christie. NJ Republicans are literally country club Republicans, with almost no right wing evangelicals to speak of. However, any of them with national ambitions is going to throw bones to the far right. However, if Corzine hadn’t screwed up this would have passed years ago.

  8. Robert in NYC says

    So in Bateman’s in fact Christie’s views, the legislature should not be involved when it comes to issues of equality affecting only gay peope? I find it amazing that these people are allowed to usurp the legislature and target one specific group of people and get away with it. This is more about religion rearing its ugly head and directly meddling in the political process. About time the law governing tax-exemption for religious cults interfering in politics through their political representatives were called into question. Those found to be violating the process should have their exemption revoked, permanently. Nobody should be above the law, least of all religious cults.

  9. says

    Many of the people who’s job it is to know rightly tell us that the idea of putting a quetion of human rights for any minority group up for a general vote is wrong. I’m strongly inclined to agree. But I have also heard about the recent polls suggesting we have a chance in a vote. Is it really possible we could win, Or would big religion rush in with it’s money and drown us out as was done out west?

Leave A Reply