News this week that for purposes of the national head count, the United States Census will allow same sex couples to self-identify as married reminds me of one of the Think Equal ads that Blue Jersey produced 4 years ago. This was shortly after the NJ Supreme Court's decision in Lewis v. Harris, allowing the legislature to pass civil union legislation, which they did December 2006.
Civil unions were confusing, complicated and somehow not the same. Take filling out forms, which this 2006 Think Equal took on:
The Census forms - they hit the mail next week - don't recognize civil unions as such. Instead the documents offer a choice between 2 boxes: "husband" or "wife", or "unmarried partners". Your call. That new policy took effect in 2009 when the Commerce Department released a legal opinion that argued the federal government could tabulate and release same-sex marriage data under the Defense of Marriage Act. Ironic that something decent could emerge because of DOMA, eh?
In the 2000 count, officials re-coded same-sex husband or wife answers to "unmarried partners," since no state in the country recognized same-sex marriage at the time. Now, Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and those hell-raisers in cow country Iowa allow gays to legally married. And Washington, D.C. where the first gay couple ties the knot today.
Dennis makes the case why same-sex couples should check the "married" box. And here's to a day when we get rid of the "other" box once and for all.
First, he is dumbfounded (which I can understand if you only count the first syllable in that word) by the fact that Garden State Equality - a large organization whose purpose is to push for EQUAL treatment of same sex couples when it comes to civil (not religious) marriages - is refusing to give the hard earned and raised money of its members to those legislators who do not agree with their core principles (note, this basic misunderstanding is also shared by very prominent New Jersey Democrats, so Deo is far from alone in his "bewilderment").
Then, he talks about how marriage equality "proponents" - those who are so radical as to demand equal rights for civil (not religious) marriages between same sex couples - "fail to grasp" the will of the people, citing the New Jersey Constitution in stating "All political power is inherent in the people."
"Fail to grasp".
What Deo and his fellow bigots and homophobes fail to grasp is that marriage equality is neither a political matter that his supposed example applies to, nor is something subject to the "will of the people". Marriage equality is just that - equality. A basic human and civil right that shouldn't be voted away by a majority comprised of self-loathing bigoted homophobic fools who demonize entire groups to soothe their own fears.
This isn't something that should be put on a ballot. This isn't something that should be polled to see if it is a good idea "politically". This falls under one of the most basic tenets that this country was founded on - and later expanded upon as future generations came to see that past and precedent failed to satisfy that tenet:
Equality.
From "all men are created equal" to expanding the right to vote to those who were previously and unfairly denied this right to basic civil rights.
And now this.
There should be no "will of the people" - except if it is referring to the will of the people to look at themselves for what they are - either tolerant and in favor of equal rights or bigoted and homophobic - and in favor of oppression, unequal treatment, discrimination and "separate but equal".
Politickernj has a story that Shirley Turner is expecting to be primaried this cycle, with the drive for that challenge coming from the marriage equality movement. There are some quotes about what a wonderful democracy we have, that such a thing could happen. Okay. Glad Sen. Turner is feeling informed, and glad of the good, civil remarks from her. But that's the backdrop for something else I want to point out.
At the tail end of Matt Friedman's piece is a quote from Mercer Dem County Chair Rich McClellan, who believes she'll be challenged, then has this to say. McClellan:
But it's a concern to me as the county chair that an important part of our constituency is unhappy with one of our star candidates.
Compare that now, with what the Party leader up the food chain - NJDSC Chair John Wisniewski - said when news broke that Garden State Equality voted to stop contributions to political party committees. Wisniewski:
To hurl a broadside against the one party that stood up for this and say the effort wasn't good enough is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Memo to State Dem Chair John Wisniewski from me:
It is better, as Chairman McClellan does, to acknowledge that constituencies in the Party you lead are not only disaffected but may actually have the power to make change. Much better than saying something accusatory. Much better than giving the impression of presumptuousness, implying GSE - or anybody - somehow owes something to the Party, and is out of line withholding it. You don't get anywhere disparaging a loyal constituency already feeling beaten up.
And then there's this: I cannot emphasize enough that breaking gay hearts engages the justice instincts of many, many people who are straight. I would say to both Chairs, the rest of the Chairs, and some of the legislators we expected better of:
You just lost a state election big-time to a guy who couldn't even get re-elected Freeholder in Morris County. You're not in a great position to alienate whole chunks of your Party. And don't assume you only have to deal with the gays on this. It's a progressive thing now.
Gov. Christopher Christie has tapped State Sen. Bill Baroni (R-Hamilton) as the new Deputy Executive Director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, setting up a November 2010 special election for the politically competitive 14th district Senate seat.
Baroni, who distinguished himself this year as marriage equality's standout stalwart in the GOP Senate caucus, will be missed. And the 14th District just got very interesting.
The atmosphere at last night's Garden State Equality rally in Montclair was so much friendlier than the recent GSE foray into Secaucus where the mayor, councilmen and residents were often hostile. Here in Bnai Keshet Synagogue in the land of Senator Nia Gill and Assenblywoman Sheila Oliver it was more like preaching to the choir. Preachers included Assembly Speaker Oliver, Senator Teresa Ruiz of Newark, GSE President Steve Goldstein, and friends of GSE. The choir included a group of some 200 marriage equality enthusiasts, including a large contingent of kids and some teenagers wise beyond their age.
Speaker Oliver talked about the need for resilience on the part of GSE members saying it's just a matter of time for this human rights, civil rights, equality issue. In terms of why the marriage equality bill did not pass the legislature, she spoke of how the matter became framed in the context of religion and how it can be difficult for politicians to vote their gut. She spoke of other concerns she wants to address: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, ENDA, and school bullying. Perhaps alluding to looming battles, she said it is important for Democrats "to define ourselves and not allow others to define us."
Senator Ruiz gave a moving, emotional speech of support drawing on personal experience with a relative. Celebrity stars of GSE commercials spoke passionately as did members of the audience.
After the speeches we took to the streets bearing candles and headed to the GSE office for the traditional pizza - a nice ending for a nice day.
The rallies continue tonight (Friday) in Asbury Park and Monday in Trenton where there are two more opportunities to remind the public that New Jersey's separate, unequal and failed civil union law should should be repealed and a new law enacted that provides true marriage equality. It is important to keep this message in people's minds and hearts as even the courts, which will have to respond to GSE's planned litigation, have been known to listen to the public's pulse.
Last week I joined my colleague Senator Shirley Turner and introduced the Assembly version of SR36 / AR 55, which urges Congress to repeal the federal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," (DADT) policy against allowing gays and lesbians to serve in our nation's armed forces. I did this because I believe as an American, DADT discourages capable young men and women from otherwise serving their country. And, this is a matter that affects our national security since we are eliminating a group of persons who are otherwise willing to serve and protect us here and abroad. The policy does not make sense. Moreover, the NJ State legislature has from time to time, passed Resolutions of equal worth urging Congress to take action on one national bill or another. In this regard, we have a unique opportunity to express our views on this issue which impacts New Jerseyans serving in all branches of the military, including our New Jersey Army and Air National Guard units.
I understand however, that Progressives genuinely and understandably were hurt by being left at the altar with the defeat of the marriage initiative. This is especially so when promises were made to the community and there was a claimed 24 votes to be had in the Senate (and only 14 materialized). However, the Resolution to repeal DADT, not only gives us another opportunity to 1) support a worthwhile progressive cause; 2) continue a state dialogue on gay and lesbian issues; but also and more importantly, 3) engage that dialogue with members of the legislature who were not with us on the Marriage Equality vote. Although Senator Turner, did not support the marriage bill, she voted for the Domestic Partnership legislation and the Civil Unions bill. Her desire to be apart of the continued dialogue with the progressive community should be encouraged, not shouted down.
Here's the website for Dump Sean Kean, who embarrassed himself and embarrassed his District and seems not even to know it. Facebook page is here.-- Promoted by Rosi
On January 7th, 2010, Senator Sean Kean gave one of the most insulting speeches ever heard on the Senate floor. After doing so, he voted against the Freedom of Religion and Equality in Civil Marriage Act (S-1967), denying thousands of constituents from the GLBT community their basic civil rights.
Personally, this is a great thing to see, as the Democratic Party (both on the local, state and national levels) have taken progressives for granted - using us as an ATM (or in this instance as coined by someone who I will certainly credit when I remember, a gAyTM) to elect their candidates because "the other party is worse" but then offering little in the way of real change.
"Better than the alternative" has gotten real old real quick - we have had large majorities as well as the Governorship here in NJ for quite some time now - and a good number of progressive issues and causes have gotten little traction. On the Federal level, this is the same story - first it was "we need a majority", then it was "we need a bigger House majority and 60 Senate seats", and even then it took a shitstorm to even get the repeal of DADT on the agenda.
The Democratic Party (again, here in NJ as well as on a national level) should see this as yet another sign of a wake up call. No longer are progressives happy to work and donate to the party structure only to get pushed aside. The rise of the national netroots has given progressives the ability to donate and promote individual candidates based on views, support of issues or to reward for "going to bat" for progressive causes.
Amazingly, equality is one that has to be pushed for over and over and over again - and is one that is pushed aside or given half-hearted "separate but equal" actions.
National and State Democratic Party leaders should sit up and take notice - the progressive netroots and grassroots has been kicked around for long enough, and has been able to organize in one of the few ways that elected officials react to - money and donations. The tired excuses and lack of support by those who made promises in order to gain support and election will most certainly come back and bite them over time.
It may not be this November, but you can bet this is more of a blueprint for future netroots and grassroots campaigns and less of an aberration. The state and national Democratic Parties can ignore this or write it off, but they do so at their own peril.
There's a discussion in this news roundup following an item I linked about how 124 Catholic parishes in the Diocese of Camden will be whittled down to just 70 by year's end. Here's the newspaper story.
The question I asked, given all that whittling down, was why then do politicians bow so low to Catholic concerns? I got some answers which are worth reading. But none of them satisfy me.
During the last few months I was part of a large lobbying team that talked with legislators about marriage equality. It was fun, and they asked great questions. In two meetings - one of them with Steve Sweeney - organized pressure from the Catholic church and of course its local members was a factor for them.
I get it. I understand and respect a religiously observant person's view of things, and understand why that would lead to, example, personal choices that would exclude say, same-sex marriage, or abortion. This extends far less to elected persons, since they're in office for reasons other than furthering their own religion's viewpoint.
What I do not understand is why religiously observant people would say to themselves that because they don't believe in something, they should determine what somebody else is entitled to do with their life. The chutzpah of that boggles my mind.
I practice no religion. I'm atheist on my mother's side and on my father's side Albanian Orthodox, but that was because all the Albanians gathered in the church and my Dad wanted me to know them - good call. And I find that as much as religious people expect the rest of us to respect and give considerable room to their traditions and beliefs, that largesse is never returned.
So yes, it matters to me that the Diocese is shrinking. As it matters, as Thurman says, that so many people counted as Catholic adhere less than the Church would want. The broad support from clergy in many faiths, including Catholic, for marriage equality, also matters.
When the Catholic Church's reach is deeper into the legislature than it is into the community, there's something wrong.
By around 8pm tonight I'm going to need a new signature line here at Blue Jersey - it's been a link to a post I wrote - An Open Letter to the Next Democratic State Chair - with a few suggestions for Party reform to bump up Outreach, Transparency and Platform. I'm not the only one thinking reform.
The marriage equality fight was a moment of growing up, and new muscle, for the progressive forces in NJ. Losing says more about you folks in the Legislature - especially some of you Democrats - than it says about us. The new muscle - don't mistake it - grows around the way the leadership & membership of so many formerly-separate progressive groups stood together.
On Party leadership, I've said it's more about what's done than who's elected. Yeah. I've changed my mind. It's also about process. I wasn't thrilled with a press release from Asm John Wisniewski, saying he nabbed endorsement from all 21 County Chairs. The Chairs don't vote - the 113 State Committee members do (bylaws), and the release - while obviously a show of strength for a Chairmanship long ago worked out in a room somewhere - seemed an unfortunate admission that political orthodoxy, deals, and the Way Things Have Always Been Done are what rules.
I would be delighted with a floor fight tonight as the State Committee chooses Party leadership. But given how undemocratic this vote seems like it will be - with candidates stepping back in favor of their seniors, and politico dealmaking long before the vote - I don't think I'll see one (I'll probably get a lot of nasty looks tonight though, c'est la vie).
Dana Redd brought shame on her Party during marriage equality consideration, not only - as Asm Reed Gusciora points out - because she snubbed Julian Bond when he came to testify, but also because she made a point of avoiding the New Jersey citizens and Democratic Party rank-and-file who wanted to talk to her about it. I hope she gets last-minute competition tonight.
The vote tonight - 7pm at Forsgate Country Club - belongs to NJSDC State Committee, not the Chairs, not the dealmakers, not outgoing party structure. I think Asm Gusciora is right in calling on them to consider Redd's recent choices, and I hope tonight's vote is anything but boring.
Gusciora says that Redd's opposition to ME should keep her from being reelected as Democratic state party vice-chair. He has a great phrase: during the marriage equality debate, "she held herself out as the vice-chair of the party of intolerance." Go Reed, go!!
This is so typical. And it reminds me of another exchange 2 years ago, reported by Juan Melli as Anti-gay crusader admits the sky won't fall (Blue Jersey Feb. 2008). It's an exchange between Garden State Equality's Steven Goldstein and John Tomicki, head of the New Jersey Coalition to Preserve and Protect Traditional Marriage, and a good example of how these folks are so busy huffing and puffing about how equality will wreck traditional life that they have no room in their heads to explain the math on how. - - promoted by Rosi
This week's New Yorker has a long article on the legal strategy of overturning Prop. 8 in California. The end of the article has a great analysis of how the gay-marriage opponents are lying in their claims. Here's the passage:
"For example, one of the arguments that the anti-gay-marriage side has increasingly turned to outside the courtroom is that allowing same-sex marriage would hurt heterosexual marriage. At the pretrial hearing, Judge Walker kept asking Charles Cooper, the lawyer defending Proposition 8, how exactly it did so. "I'm asking you to tell me," he said at last, "how it would harm opposite-sex marriage."
"All right," Cooper said.
"All right," Walker said. "Let's play on the same playing field for once."
There was a pause -- it seemed like a long one to people in the courtroom, though it was probably only a few seconds. And Cooper said, "Your Honor, my answer is: I don't know. I don't know."
A D.C. Superior Court judge ruled Thursday that same-sex marriage opponents do not have a right to call for a referendum to determine whether such unions should be legal in the District.
The decision, a major victory for gay rights activists, makes it more likely that the District will begin allowing same-sex couples to marry in March.
It's interesting to note why the court ruled the way it did, as a constant argument from opponents of Marriage Equality is that it should go to a referendum before the voters:
In the 23-page ruling, Judge Judith N. Macaluso affirmed a D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics decision that city law disallows the ballot proposal because it would promote discrimination against gay men and lesbians. Macaluso also concluded that previous court decisions outlawing same-sex marriage in the District are no longer valid.
Of course opponents plan to file an appeal of the decision, but the clock is ticking:
Despite opponents' plans to appeal, they are running out of time to block same-sex marriages in the District. Congress has begun the required 30-legislative-day review of the same-sex marriage law.
City leaders said that, barring intervention by Congress, marriage licenses will be available to same-sex couples around the first week of March.
Garrett may wait to try and take the power from the judges again until they rule on an appeal holding out hope, but no doubt he'll be back to stopping those activist judges as soon as they don't rule his way the last time.
Thirty-nine congressional Republicans, including House Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.), have filed an amicus brief in D.C. Superior Court calling for a voter referendum on whether to legalize same-sex marriage in the District.
Just leave it to Republicans to think a public vote to strip away the rights of citizens is a good idea. Funny, in a hypocritical way, how Republicans are always bashing lawyers and lawsuits, but run to the courts when they can thwart equality.
A quicker and more effective solution was published here a few issues back by Congressman John Hostettler. It would use Congress' Article I, Section 8 and Article III, Sections 1 and 2 powers to limit the jurisdiction of inferior federal courts and to set exceptions to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. His bill, H.R. 3313 (co-sponsored by congressmen Mike Pence, Nick Smith, Scott Garrett, Virgil Goode, Todd Aikin, Gil Gutknecht, Dave Weldon, Walter Jones, Roscoe Bartlett, Michael Forbes and Ron Paul), would remove federal court jurisdiction over the issue of marriage. This goes directly to the root problem and sends a shot across the bow of judicial activism everywhere. Massachusetts legislators could follow the same path if inspired by national leaders and solve their problem now, whereas even a state constitutional amendment would come too late to stop the courts from legalizing same sex marriages. And the bill only needs a majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate to go into effect.
If I'm following along correctly, Garrett wants to go to court to ask them to do something he wants to take away their power to do? So the moral of the story for Republicans like Scott Garrett is that activist judges are bad, bad, bad, unless they're being active for things you believe in.
Joey Novick put this status up on his facebook page comparing the MTV show Jersey Shore to the NJ State Senate and he comes up with this:
Ouch! Thurman Hart reminded us in the comments that thankfully we don't have to watch the Senators shake their money makers. When Babs questioned why Joey was demeaning neanderthals, he offered this clarification:
1-The only members of the State Senate who were actually referenced in the joke above were the 20 who voted to oppose ---6 Ds and 14 Rs. They were the only Neanderthals.
2- I apologize to any Neanderthals who felt demeaned by the comparison to members of the State Senate. I regret any harm done, which was unintended.
For someone who claims to be in favor of marriage equality and someone who is poised to be the next Senate President, Senator Sweeney had an opportunity to demonstrate true leadership on an issue of basic equal rights. And he bravely punted on an issue that should be a signature issue of his party - equal rights under the law.
It's also clear that the next Democratic Senate president, Stephen Sweeney, wants nothing to do with it. Sweeney, soon to be the second most powerful person in Trenton, abstained on the grounds that the measure was doomed for defeat. Instead of declaring where he stood on a gut-check, civil rights issue, Sweeney made a strategic decision to play it safe.
This comment was backed up by Sweeney's own words:
"They [same sex marriage advocates] made a very strong case, and I would have been very happy to pass it," Sweeney said. "It wasn't close, unfortunately."
So, no whipping other Senators to vote in favor of a bill he personally believes in. In fact, his comments a few weeks ago indicated that he would rather focus on the economy during the lame duck session (good thing they saved the economy, by the way) instead of pushing for something he believes in. And quite frankly, admitting that he made a mistake so close to the vote shows that he either had no courage or no foresight as to just how big of an issue this really is. Apologies are nice, but that does little when it comes to what he could have done as, you know, a leader.
While it is nice to call a supposed leader out on this lack of leadership, there are other things that can be done. On the "low impact" side, there is a Facebook group calling Senator Sweeney out for his lack of conviction. However, a state that is as progressive as New Jersey deserves a progressive leader in the Democratic Party. And it is important to note that there only need to be three Democratic Senators to abstain or vote against Sweeney for Senate President in order to throw a wrench into Sweeney's hostile takeover of the Senate Presidency.
That being said, can we identify three Senators (Sens. Weinberg and Codey come to mind) and see what can be done?
This is about Democratic leadership on Democratic issues in a Democratic State. And Senator Sweeney has already failed that test on all levels.
To Blue Jersey, yes I posted a diary going all Keith Olbermann on Sean Kean before , but this letter is a little more polite because it is also the one I plan on sending to his office. I encourage all in the 11th district that care about equality to do the same. I also encourage anyone on Facebook who wants to see Kean lose his seat in 2011 to become a fan of the following page, Unseat Sean Kean (and Jennifer Beck).
Dear Senator Kean,
I've written, called, and emailed you several times over the duration of the marriage equality campaign as it's an issue that matters to me, even as a single straight woman. During this campaign, I put aside my own partisanship as a Democrat and was willing to open my mind and vote for you in 2011, thus voting for a Republican for the first time in my life. I was even willing to send you a campaign contribution. This is not true anymore.
You spoke on the Senate floor about how the LGBT community increased property values, and drives tourism to your district. Your no vote on Thursday actually decreased tourism to your district. By allowing the LGBT community to get married, your district would have benefited from the many same-sex beach weddings that people from New Jersey and New York (a state which rejected marriage equality yet recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states). Many people spend more on a wedding these days than they do on a vehicle. Think of all the small businesses in your district, such as caterers, banquet halls, florists, bakeries, hotels, bed and breakfasts, tuxedo rental shops, wedding dress shops, salons, limousine companies, etc. that could use the revenue especially on these economic times. Think of it as an economic stimulus without the government spending a dime. All you had to do was to vote yes and allow same-sex couples to get married civilly (the bill provided for religions to refuse same-sex couples the right to get married in that house of worship, just as they already do for heterosexual couples.) Yet you did not, you put your personal beliefs ahead of what was best for your constituents and the communities that you represent.
You're Catholic. I know the Catholic Church's stance on marriage equality (they oppose it). You also have a law degree, and any constitutional law class (such as the one I just finished) will discuss the separation of church and state. Civil marriage is a very different institution than religious marriage. The Catholic Church would not be harmed by allowing homosexual couples to marry civilly, as they would have the right not to perform that marriage. As a legislator, you are elected to represent your constituents (think of Asbury Park and Ocean Grove), not the Catholic Church.
You also call yourself a Republican. Your party is traditionally conservative. Lately all one has to do is turn on a cable news channel and within five minutes will hear a Republican saying that he or she wants "big government out of our lives." Voting against this bill just inserted big government into the lives of many of your constituents. Do you really want big government telling them how they can live their lives? Your no vote on Thursday told your constituents that you do.
I really hope that if this issue ever comes to a vote again that you would reconsider your vote, and talk to members of your own party (including the Governor-Elect) about how this issue affects many of your constituents. One thing that I can tell you is that you will face an uphill battle for re-election come November 2011 as you did not represent us.
I regret it. This is a civil rights issue, and they made a good case. Sometimes, you just make mistakes.
What, Senator? Trying to curry a little favor now? Keep the activists off your back? Well, as a friend of mine said yesterday: Real leaders don't screw up easy ones like this.
We're going to give time and space to people who want to write about what happened to this phase of the marriage equality fight. That's only right - people are still upset, and deserve to be, and the fallout is still all over the newspaper pages, the airwaves and the interwebs. - - Promoted by Rosi
Hi, everyone. One of the most interesting articles this weekend about marriage equality is Mary Fuchs' piece today for the Star-Ledger.
Mary provides an inside look at what both sides thought and did. What surprises me about the article: Before the election, our opponents, including legislators and the grassroots opposition leaders, thought our side was running away with victory in a "a slam dunk."
Until this article, I confess I thought the opposition was in la-la land - that they had no idea of how badly they were losing. Before the election, our own vote counting was 100 percent correct. We WERE running away with this and it's in large part because of the Blue Jersey community.
But then one thing happened: Chris Christie won, and as this article reports, that changed EVERYTHING. It was always my fear, my darkest fear, even before the election when we had votes in both houses to spare. It was the one external factor we could not control, though we tried to do what we could, by pouring so much of our organization's time and volunteers into the campaign.
I point this out as consolation - truly important - so you realize, all of you at Blue Jersey who were our equal partners in the legislative phase and will continue to be, no doubt, that you DID wage a winning campaign.
[By the way, as a footnote, this article refers to the protests post-election in front of legislators' houses and all that, which some did on their own. Yes, we advised folks not to do that, both myself for GSE and Rosi in her progressive leadership roles, and we have the advance emails to show for it. But truth be told, we didn't lose a vote there.]
I write to you today as a member of the Democratic Party, as a proud resident of the state of New Jersey, and as someone who is deeply ashamed of your complete lack of leadership as shown by your failure to cast a vote on senate bill 1967. As you must surely know, that bill would have extended civil marriage rights to same-sex couples in New Jersey. The citizens of New Jersey expect their elected representatives to be men and women of action. That you could sit by and take no action at all on what may very well be one of the most important pieces of legislation to come to the floor of the state senate in a long time, a piece of legislation having a direct practical impact on the lives of scores of same-sex couples in our state, says a great deal about your lack of leadership. By your unwillingness to cast a vote, you have shown yourself utterly unworthy of the post - that of incoming president of the Senate - to which you have aspired. I would hope, out of a sense of shame and regret at so seriously defaulting on your responsibilities to the people of New Jersey and to your new position as senate president, that you would do the right thing: resign your leadership position. After all, you are a leader in name only.
