On Friday, February 17, 2012, the Governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, vetoed marriage equality legislation. Christie sent the bill back to the legislature, calling on lawmakers to amend the state's civil union law, to "handle complaints that the [...] civil union law did not provide gay and lesbian couples the same protections that marriage would." In addition, Christie called for the legislature to place a marriage equality referendum on November's ballot. The editorial board of the New York Times criticized Governor Christie for his veto of the marriage equality bill. The following in an excerpt from the New York Times editorial:nbsp;

"Sadly, there was no surprise to Gov. Chris Christie's veto on Friday of the same-sex marriage bill that cleared New Jersey's Assembly and Senate this week. Mr. Christie had said all along that he would block the measure as soon as it reached his desk. That does not change the message of intolerance or lessen the pain for gay residents and their families. Mr. Christie compounded the insult when he dismissed the Legislature's support for the rights of gay people as merely "an exercise in theater." The only one who deserves that accusation is Governor Christie, who is clearly pandering to his own conservative base."

In a public statement, Christie said that he vetoed the bill because, "an issue of this magnitude and importance, which requires a constitutional amendment, should be left to the people of New Jersey to decide." Recent polling [PDF] at Rutgers University's Eagleton Institute of Politics shows that 54 percent of New Jersey residents support marriage equality, including 52 percent of the state's Catholics. A 2009 poll evidenced that support for marriage equality has grown in the state, when polling showed that only 46 percent of residents supported a similar marriage equality bill. Furthermore, national polls show that a majority of Americans favor marriage equality.

Pundits have criticized Christie's decision, speculating that he is positioning himself for a potential 2016 presidential campaign, and vetoed the bill to shore up support among social conservatives. Recent analysis has noted that New Jersey will be a tight race in the 2012 presidential race. For this reason it is not entirely outlandish to hypothesize that a proposed referendum may be a strategy to increase voter turnout amongst conservatives in the state.

Regardless, what we can be sure of is that Christie's veto is an affront to the civil rights of the LGBTQ community. New Jersey Senate President Steve Sweeney (D) put it best: "He had a chance to do the right thing, and failed miserably."