Marriage Equality Decision TOMORROW

marriage is a fundamental right (0.00 / 0)

But if the court rules it is not, the legislature needs to move ahead with it right away. 

Best wishes!

I have to think of a witty signature about Frank LoBiondo

---

by: Hopeful @ Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 15:29:43 PM CDT

About Time (0.00 / 0)

I wish gay marriage well—it's about time. But elections are about time, too, and I'm hoping if this is a big win for gay marriage in NJ that it isn't used to change the subject nationally just in time to cut some other expected big wins. Matt http://www.boycultur... PS Great site, glad I found you.

---

by: mattrett @ Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 16:27:02 PM CDT

the story was on WCBS radio (0.00 / 0)

I heard them interview Steven Goldstein.


I have to think of a witty signature about Frank LoBiondo

---

by: Hopeful @ Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 16:44:24 PM CDT

Nervous (0.00 / 0)

In terms of policy, Steve Goldstein wrote late last month, "[M]arriage is the only currency of commitment the real world understands." It's true -- that's the only way in which our society will grant equality.

Now getting into the politics of it.

If a Democrat in a truly competitive election can't win in this environment, it is because they're boring, stupid or are running a bad campaign.

Thinking about the media explosion after the Massachusetts decision is making me nervous. I think there are many Americans who (wrongly) look at homosexual rights in terms of sex. Just sex. And nothing grabs attention like sex. Think about it: even with all the Republican scandals since Katrina, it was a sex scandal that really set it off -- at least in the mainstream media.

Gay marriage has been an issue in many states this year due to ballot initiatives, but NJ isn't one of them, which is why its re-entry into state politics is going to be big. If the decision is good, it will enter into a hostile environment with ill-informed voters whose firm opposition has been forged by years of scare tactics, leaving candidates only days to change their minds. I disagree with the earlier quote, and argue that even the candidates who are interesting, smart, and running good campaigns will have trouble with this.

I'm given hope by how Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick successfully handled the situation without compromising his principles. Deval continually said he felt the SJC got it right, and that it was time for Massachusetts to move on. He didn't push too hard with the people who disagreed with him, but he remained firm that the state wasn't any worse off because of gay marriage and that his marriage was stronger than ever. It was time to move on to education and healthcare and other pressing issues for Massachusetts families.

Yet, he had two years, and here we have two weeks. Which is why I feel it is more important for candidates to ask voters what their priorities are, rather than whether they oppose or favor gay marriage.

---

by: JRB @ Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 18:31:05 PM CDT

Re: Nervous (4.00 / 1)

If this becomes an issue in NJ, it should hurt the GOP, not Democrats. A clear majority of voters favor marriage equality.

It shouldn't be that hard to talk about this issue. Even Paul Hackett, in one of the most conservative districts in the entire country, almost pulled off a victory by using language like this:

“I don’t want the government in the bedroom any more than I want it in my gun safe or telling me how to worship.”

and this:

With succinct coherence, Hackett said: "I’m pro-choice, I’m pro-gayrights, I’m pro-gun-rights. Call me nuts, but I think they’re all based on the same principle and that is we don’t need government dictating to us how we live our private lives."

Asked to define being pro-gayrights, Hackett said anybody who tries to deny homosexuals the same rights, including marriage, as every other citizen is un-American. Are you saying, he was asked, that the 62 percent of Ohioans who voted in November 2004 to constitutionally deny same-sex marriages are un-American?

"If what they believe is that we’re going to have a scale on judging which Americans have equal rights, yeah, that’s un-American. They’ve got to accept that. It’s absolutely un-American."

---

by: Juan Melli @ Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 19:17:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Two Points (0.00 / 0)

First, should the Supreme Court rule in favor of making state sponsored marriage an option available to all, then the politics is simple: "Look at Massachusetts.  They've had it for two years, the earth still rotates and the sky is still blue."

Second, I am a bit disturbed by Garden State Equity's stance on this: "Should our side win, you'll tell the State Legislature to leave the decision alone.  Should our side lose, you'll tell the State Legislature to give us marriage equality by passing a bill."

That's a bit too much having our cake and eating it too, for my taste.  Either the Supreme Court is the valid institution for deciding this matter or it isn't.  They can't be the right place only if the decision is the right one.

I'm not advocating giving up the fight is the court rules against gay marriage tomorrow, just that Equity's statement smacks of an opportunism and disregard for the rule of law that I normally associate with Republicans.  Not a sentiment that Equity intended, I'm sure, but one they are sure giving off with that statement.

---

by: JeffG @ Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 19:07:19 PM CDT

It's not a question of who decides - but of what's being decided (0.00 / 0)

The Supreme Court is deciding whether the state's constitution requires New Jersey to allow same-sex couples to marry. The Court is the last word on what the constitution says, so if the Court says yes, that's the end of the inquiry.

However, if the Court says no - i.e., that the constitution does not require the state to allow same-sex marriage, then the question rightly becomes whether the state's legislature decides to allow it.

No opportunism - that's simply how the law works.

---

by: Jeff Gardner @ Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 13:18:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Does Not Require != Prohbits (0.00 / 0)

Corzine could issue same sex couples marriage licenses on the grounds that he is not prohibited from doing so, even though he is not required to do so.

It would be an agressive position, one that I think even Eliot Spitzer, who has vowed to push for full marriage equality as Governor of NY, rejected as Atty. General.  Opponents would cry foul and executive overreach, perhaps with a good point.  But it would not be overreaching any more than Mitt Romney was in dusting-off an early 20th century law to prevent same-sex couples from other state from marrying in MA, and it would not be overreaching any more than this president does every time he issues one of his signing statements.  And our governor is the most powerful governor in the nation.

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 13:42:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

eat your cake and have it too (4.00 / 2)

The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the constitution.  That's correct.  The legislature is allowed to amend the constitution if it doesn't currently provide that gay marriage is a fundamental right (that's what will have essentially happened if the S.C. rules against gay marriage).  Our only resort will be to amend the Constitution, so yes, we will lobby the legislature.  Nothing wrong with that, it's democracy.

---

by: morrisdem @ Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 19:32:42 PM CDT

Actually, no (0.00 / 0)

Amending the constitution would not be the only resort, or even a necessary one. The Supreme Court is not deciding whether the constitution permits marriage equality - it's deciding whether the constitution requires marriage equality. Even if the answer is no, the legislature would be free to pass a marriage equality law without having to go to the extraordinary length of amending the consitution.

---

by: Jeff Gardner @ Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 22:11:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

constitutional protection is necessary (0.00 / 0)

because 1) laws can be easily repealed and 2) marriage has to be recognized as a "fundamental right" for all types of couples because fundamental rights carry with them a whole host of other implications regarding whether the legislature could somewhere down the line,not even repeal the law allowing gay marriage, but even tweak with it or pass other laws that would require same sex couples to jump through hoops to get married that heterosexual couples don't.
  A law recognizing same sex couples righ to marry would be nice, but would offer nowhere near the kind of protection that judicial recognition of it as a fundamental right or legislative designation as a fundamental right, through a constitutional amendment, would.

---

by: morrisdem @ Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 23:03:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It takes much less than that... (0.00 / 0)

If you merely remove gender references from the marriage law, you make the reasoning of the superior court irrelevant.  The whole legislative intent argument against marriage becomes untenable.  Corzine can, in fact must, then allow same-sex couples to marry.

I have a question for you legal minds: If the Supreme Court upholds the decision of the lower court, but Corzine decided that he was going to allow same-sex couples to marry, who--if anyone--would have standing to sue the governor to prevent the marriages?

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 23:25:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

that'sa good question (0.00 / 0)

in federal court, you must demonstrate a reprable harm - i.e you've been wronged and someone can fix it - to have standing (among other things).  Who would be harmed by this?

And isn't that really the crux of the matter - NO ONE IS HARMED BY ANOTHER'S MARRIAGE!

Religious institutions will not be compelled to perform marriage ceremonies.  So no go there.

Perhapss the civil judges who disagree with the ruling?  That's not gonna work either.  At least in federal court, a PARTICULARIZED harm must be demonstrated.  In other words, the judge would have to show how he or she personnally is suffering from the Supreme Court's ruling.  An unlikely avenue of success.

I'm not sure if Jersey's standing jurisprudence is exactly the same as it is in federal court, so take all this with a large grain of salt.  But great question.

---

by: JeffG @ Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 07:42:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

While I agree with Juan in spirit... (0.00 / 0)

...and the polls that Steven has quoted repeatedly should prove that a positive SC decision on marriage equality will not have a negative impact on Election Day, if I had to choose between marriage equality and a Menendez victory on Election Day, my choice is a no-brainer.

I can deal with six years of Junior as our state's junior senator, even if it is the by-product of my daughter being able to marry the love of her life whether he is a man or she is a woman (for the sake of my sanity, I hope that she is a woman).  Of course, I understand that these are false choices and there is no reason that we can't celebrate two victories in the next few weeks and hopefully we will.

My only point is that if marriage equality wins tomorrow and Menendez loses on Election Day, I will be the first person to put some party hack in his place if he/she chooses to blame the loss on a significant percentage of our population finally being afforded equal rights under the law.

As far as I am concerned, the Democratic Party's big tent has become too big if it includes those who would deny anybody from the LGBTI community these rights for the sake of their insignificant political victories.

---

by: taxandspendliberal @ Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 20:25:33 PM CDT

Political/electoral implications (0.00 / 0)

IF the NJSC doesn't disappoint...

The GOP and Kean will get nowhere trying to make political hay out of this decision.  We already know about Kean's position on any state recognition of same-sex parterships from his no vote on domestic partnerships when he was in the legislature.  If he speaks out too loudly against the decision, it will subject his record and stances on social issues in general to greater public scrutiny.  When New Jersey voters consider any rhetoric he spews regarding the decision in light of his abominable voting record on stem cell research, they will find out that Kean is closer to Bret Schundler than Christie Whitman on social issues.  The swing areas of New Jersey are the socially liberal suburbs that are wary of urban machine politics.  Kean has been trying to pander to these voters by portraying Menendez as a corrupt Hudson county politician, but all his efforts will be for naught if those voters begin to see him as Rick Santorum East.  Republicans who want to win in the northeast go out of their way to appear liberal on social issues.  Take for example Nick Spano, a Republican NY state legislator in an extremely (won by 18 votes last election) competitve district who recently declared his support for marriage equality.

Nationally, if there are right-wing evangelicals living in states where there is a marriage ballot question who weren't going to the polls before, then perhaps they will vote now.  I don't think that population is very large.  However, I do think that a pro-equality decision here might hurt efforts to defeat marriage amendments in Virginia, Wisconsin and Colorado.  On the other hand, if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court's decision, it might give Commonwealth Coalition and Fair Wisconsin another talking point to convince fence sitters to vote against the amendments in VA and WI respectively.

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 22:53:03 PM CDT

Whatever the decision... (4.00 / 1)

The next step might be to make the language in the state marriage law gender-neutral (with respect to terms like husband and wife).  If the supreme court reverses the lower court decision, then the changes will be needed for completeness.  If the supreme court upholds the lower court decision, making state marriage laws gender-netural will undermine the court's argument that the legislature's language suggests no intent for same-sex couples to marry.

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 23:12:33 PM CDT