A little over two years ago, gender neutral marriage legislation went down in the state legislature, and I was extremely upset. Of course, this was when I was a fresh face in LGBTIQ activism and when I looked upon the marriage fight with somewhat more starry eyes. Now, while I was unequivocable in my opposition to New York State's marriage equality bill, I believe that by having LGBTIQ non-discrimination a reality and having passed the Anti-Bullying Bill Of Rights (which unfortunately, was recently struck down by some unelected shadowy commission with ill-defined purposes, but they are coming back), New Jersey has eaten enough of its ravioli to merit a scoop of matrimonial ice cream.

Now, New Jersey's marriage equality bill is back and there is now enough support to pass it through both houses and its too bad that it is a little too late; when the first bill came up, lame duck governor Jon Corzine, who in November of 2009 was unseated for sucky views and performance on everything else besides LGBTIQ rights, was still sitting with a few days left; now, we have Chris Christie, an arrogant Republican stick in the mud who has made his steadfast opposition to marriage equality known, and has stated that he would veto the bill, even though social issues played NO role in his election.

Meanwhile, Christie and Republican state senator Kip Bateman have come up with an idea:

Senator Christopher "Kip" Bateman (R-Somerset) announced Thursday that he has introduced a resolution that would, if approved by the Legislature and voters would amend the state Constitution to permit same-sex marriage in New Jersey.

The resolution (SCR-88) is supported by Gov. Chris Christie but opposed by the Democrats who control the Legislature. Senate President Steve Sweeney (D-Gloucester) has declared the type of legislation proposed by Bateman will not be considered.

Instead, the Democrats are preparing to approve legislation next week that would legalize same-sex marriage in the state. Christie has stated he will not approve the measure.

Now, usually when issues of marriage come up for state referendums, it is nothing more than an attempt to upgrade a statutory ban (which can be undone at any time through legislative action) to a constitutional ban (which cannot be undone without going through hefty steps), and in all marriage issues, the "NO" vote was the pro-LGBTIQ position.

But this time, it would be the "YES" vote:

"This amendment is unique in that, unlike in the other states that have put the issue before voters, it would permit same-sex marriage rather than prohibit it," Bateman said. "This is not a so-called 'Defense of Marriage Amendment. I am not sure why putting this to voters is acceptable to advocates in Maine, but not in New Jersey."

Bateman also said that, if approved, a constitutional amendment would be a more permanent resolution to the question. "A constitutional amendment really should be the preferred option for proponents of same sex marriage, as it could not be easily undone by a simple majority of the Legislature,“ the senator said. “Furthermore, it is the only option available to those who want to see same sex marriage legalized in the near term, as Governor Christie has promised to veto S-1. Supporters have a choice to make: is the process, or the outcome, more important?"

It is interesting that Bateman would want to "risk" enshrining marriage in the state constitution.

At any rate, since its likely that the current legislation would lead to Christie bringing out the veto hammer, I would recommend that if his veto cannot be overriden, that Bateman's proposal be allowed to be on the ballot in November 2012. Under this proposal, if there is a YES vote, marriage equality becomes reality, if there is a NO vote, then nothing changes, and the issue can still be revisited at another time. Although the prevailing consensus among the LGBTIQ community is against putting civil rights to a vote, this is not Prop 8 and we've got nothing to lose and only something to potentially gain. Not to mention that Christie would be willing to accept the will of the people, even if marriage equality is legalized at the ballot box.

New Jersey is a fairly progressive state, and a potential vote on whether or not to legalize gender neutral marriage could swing either way. I am a person who likes to study regional demographics, and if the measure fails, then it could be a good opportunity to study which regions were supportive, which were opposition, which were marginal, why people voted the way they did, and what demographics can pro-marriage equality groups do outreach to in order to change hearts and minds bring us closer to consensus.

In conclusion, I would encourage New Jersey legislators to move this bill forward, but I would also, in the likely event of the veto hammer coming down, urge Kip Bateman to keep the door open for a ballot referendum (AS LONG AS THE WORST CASE SCENARIO IS THAT NOTHING CHANGES), and see what happens, for it is not likely sending a bill to Christie will yield any luck, and we've got nothing to lose by going in this direction (and if the "YES" vote carries in Bateman's proposition, it may be a good talking point for legalizing marriage equality), and worst case scenario, groups like Garden State Equality could have some demographic targets for outreach work and the issue can be revisited some other time.

Sometimes, you just have to fall backwards and attempt a two point conversion instead of a free kick in order to get victory in the end (could not resist shoving a Giants reference in there).

-Jordan Gwendolyn Davis