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".
ALIPAC, which has been classified as a hate group by the Anti-Defamation League is already calling the delay of the vote on S1036 a significant victory. According to an email sent to all of its membership they intend to add the defeat of this bill to their list of major accomplishments for 2010.
Being on ALIPAC's list of accomplishments is a distinction our state does not deserve and should not have. Please don't let our legislature side with ALIPAC and other hate groups that seek to dehumanize immigrants. Please call and ask them to vote in favor of S1036.
Currently there is a largely progressive coalition that is fighting for equality for students. They are fighting for parity in tuition for students who are the least likely to be able to afford in-state tuition let alone the out-of state rate.
After nearly eight years the in-state tuition bill which would allow NJ students whose immigration status is undocumented to pay in-state tuition rates is finally on the floor of the state senate for a vote.
(It was scheduled for a vote yesterday, but delayed late in the day until Monday because we are just two votes short.)
There have been many very valid arguments in favor of marriage equality - whether it be economic, equal rights, discrimination or how marriage equality opponents base their arguments on religious beliefs that have no place in determining civil law.
And while I agree with pretty much all of these arguments (some to a greater degree than others), the one that always jumped out at me - and one that my wife has pointed out time and time again - is that of flat out discrimination against an entire class of Americans based on a very random factor to use for the basis of such discrimination. One's sexual orientation is no different from skin color, eye color, hair color, religion, height, physical or mental illness or age when it comes to the arbitrary nature of this type of discrimination.
It's hard to believe that the civil rights movement is only around 50 years old, and women' suffrage is less than a century old (interestingly, New Jersey was the only state to allow women to vote for close to a 20 year period in the late 1700s). But these items do nothing to excuse the fact that New Jersey is staring at an opportunity to be ahead of the curve on marriage equality - another equal rights issue - yet we are currently looking at a situation where something so basic, something that in twenty or fifty years will be looked at the same as civil rights or women's suffrage is now, is being debated by some (including too many Democrats) as "not for now" or not really a big deal.
Now I understand that some Senators and Assemblymen (and Assemblywomen) may be doing what they think is "politically safe". But in addition to that being preposterous in most cases, it is truly reactionary thinking, and is no different from the "separate but equal" arguments that were made in the late 1800s.
Civil unions are, by definition, separate. "The same legal rights" are maybe "equal" in some respects but if someone has to explain and ultimately produce some additional "proof of civil union" when their partner is heading into emergency surgery, then how is that truly equal?
Even if there wasn't horror story after horror story about how same sex couples have to struggle for the same basic rights as those who are married, the mere fact that there is a separate law on the books for civil unions and same sex couples makes it discriminatory on the face. The additional fact that this distinction is an arbitrary one and generally steeped in religious beliefs as the basis makes it even worse - as the last I looked, it was the Constitution, not the Bible that dictates our laws. And it is a civil law that allowed me to marry my wife - not a religious law.
The same should hold true regardless of skin color, religion, hair color or sexual orientation. To do otherwise is nothing short of bigotry.
I missed this when it happened, but recently Rob Andrews laid the smack down during a committee hearing on transgender discrimination in the workplace. The first speaker in this clip, a transgender man, spoke about some of the challenges facing transgender employees.
Following the testimony of the first speaker, Congressman Andrews gave a shout out to Garden State Equality for their great work and then moved onto questioning the second speaker about his opposition to equal rights for transgender employees in the workplace ...
If we would just treat people like people and not worry about their circumstances, we wouldn't have this problem. I can only hope that years from now when I have children, people will look back on these debates and say how foolish it was that we even spent our time worrying about these things.
