Bonnie Watson Coleman favors marriage-equality legislation

this is huge (0.00 / 0)

In addition to having a ton of clout with the rest of the Assembly, she and Reed should be able to get their State Senator, Shirley Turner on board, which should help crack Dick Codey's viselike grip on his delegation.

I do not think that Joe Roberts will block a vote on the Gusciora bill if there are 41 votes for it.  I believe that he might be willing to wrangle some of the votes once the numbers get into the 20s and 30s, but he probably won't use much muscle or political capital unless he is certain that Codey is ready to back off and let his Senators vote their conscience on this issue.

---

by: rachael'sdad @ Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 21:39:42 PM CST

Thanks for posting, Jeff - indeed Asw. Coleman told this to two Garden State Equality members (4.00 / 1)

in the past several days, confirmed again today.  Here's the situation now, and I'm interested to hear the views of Blue Jersey members.  On the one hand, the leadership of the legislature (ie Speaker Roberts, Senate President Codey and their top staff) say they won't post marriage-equality legislation to committee because there's not the votes.  On the other hand, rank-and-file members say they'd vote for marriage equality legislation if only the leadership would post it to committee.  Whom do you believe?  What would YOU do?  Garden State Equality members lobbying the legislature, myself included - I'm doing it everyday - see a small but perceptible shift of support TOWARD marriage equality legislation.  We can't tell you that most members still don't support discriminatory civil unions - they do.  But we've picked up a handful of votes in the past week.  If we had the full 180 days, we'd have a shot to win this thing now versus over the next two years, when we have a very, very strong shot.  So again, your thoughts?  Who's closer to the truth - the leadership or the rank-and-file?

---

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair @ Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 21:47:05 PM CST

what's the best approach, Steven? vinegar or honey? (0.00 / 0)

Can we get the rank-and-file to demand a vote if we let them know that anyone who does not publicly support an up-or-down vote on the Gusciora bill on the floor of both the Senate and the Assembly at the very least will face a primary challenge in 2007?

Or is there a better, more polite and subtle way to get our friends in Trenton to help us get this issue into committee at the very least?  Let them put their money where their mouths are.  It's easy for them to hide behind Codey's intransigence, but it should be even easier for them to publicly advocate for a vote.

Is there is a history or tradition of only posting legislation to committees that are guaranteed of passing?  How Socratic is that?  What is the point of even having committees to screen legislation if the only legislation that is posted there are those that are guaranteed to pass?

Even if the votes for the Gusciora bill do not exist, Codey should not be able to use that as justification for blocking a vote on the issue so that our electeds in Trenton can avoid taking a public position on it once and for all.

---

by: rachael'sdad @ Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 22:54:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Good questions (0.00 / 0)

Unlike most, but not all, other state legislatures in America, in Trenton the leadership picks one bill among many competing ones.  And once the leadership agrees to post that one bill to committee, you already know the bill stands a good chance of passing both the committee and the full chamber before either votes. 

So the intrigue lay almost entirely in getting your bill posted to committee - rarely does a committee that's hearing a bill ever vote it down.  It's been preordained by leadership.  The committee's chair and the Democratic majority do what the leadership wants.

Thus it's not as if both a civil unions bill and a marriage equality bill would come up for a committee vote.  Right now, only a civil unions bill would.

---

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair @ Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 23:12:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

best approach (0.00 / 0)

Think Equal. Oh yeah.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 23:24:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The Reality is 21 and 41 (0.00 / 0)

I would sincerely doubt that Reed's bill will get a committee vote in the Assembly without Speaker Roberts knowing that there are 21 votes in the Senate.  The acid test for support of Reed's bill is to get people to co-sponsor it.  Even if you took out people from more marginal districts, if 35 Assembly Democrats co-sponsored it, then you have something to talk about.  As of the taping of "On The Record", only Mims Hackett was on as a co-sponsor.  This would mean that even the reputed third co-sponsor, Brian Stack, isn't actually on board yet. 

Additionally, is there a Senate bill?  If no one is even willing to sponsor a Senate bill, then the conversation is really moot.  Not because a Senate bill is also required, but the fact that all of the Senators know that there aren't 21 votes would be a telling sign.  I have seen no sign that (at least) Sweeney, Madden, James and Rice have changed from "no" votes on gay marriage (I am not even sure that they are votes for civil unions).  Are there GSE House Parties tomorrow in the 3rd, 4th, 28th and 29th LDs?  Is even Sen. Martin supporting gay marriage on the GOP side?  We already know that Senate Minority Leader Lance is completely opposed.

But, the way out of the hot potato problem is to have people co-sponsor Reed's bill and to have a bill introduced in the Senate.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 11:42:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

not to be cynical... (0.00 / 0)

is it possible this is a bit of politics.  she doesnt think the committee will put up the vote,but by coming out in support she gains support from people like us?
i would like to be wrong, and your posts would argue against my opinion, but just putting this out there as a possibility.

this is also just a general point against all politicians and what they do.

---

by: jeremythensaid @ Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 23:36:08 PM CST

Cynical? (0.00 / 0)

How could you say such a thing? :-)

Just because Reed is also in her district? 

Has she signed on as a co-sponsor???

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 11:28:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Shirley Turner is NOT on board with 100% marriage equality ... (0.00 / 0)

... unless someting dramatic has happened between her ears since domestic partnerships.

She appears to be deeply beholden to Shiloh Baptist Chucrch in Trenton, and though the congregation couldn't carry a note to the corner in a bucket without the able assistance of their gay choir members (and what's more, they know it), Shiloh is 100% anti-marriage equality.

Can't make it to the GSE shin-dig in your district tomorrow night?

Go HERE: http://www.njleg.sta...

Click on your district, look up the numbers, then call your assemblypersons and senatrae and tell them you want them to support A.3685, "The Civil Marriage and Religious Protection Act."

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 07:17:58 AM CST

you are probably right, but... (0.00 / 0)

...with Bonnie on board with Reed's bill, I'd like to believe that they have some pull with her, but maybe not.

---

by: rachael'sdad @ Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 08:06:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Assembly Meeting Dates (4.00 / 1)

The Assembly is in session today, Thursday as well as next Monday and Thursday.  Co-sponsors can only be recorded on session days.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 11:48:10 AM CST

Shirley Turner and the Shilo church (0.00 / 0)

I am wondering if Garden State Equality Religious Caucus can help with this.  This could be a great example of coalition building.  As far as I know, the gay community supports many of the same politicians and issues as other minority communities do.  I'm thinking the Shilo church doesn't realize this.

---

by: deme38 @ Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 15:01:01 PM CST