A shot across the bow

by: Adam L a/k/a clammyc

Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 12:52:39 PM EST

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.

On the issue of marriage equality, AmericaBlog has already initiated a Don't Ask, Don't Give initiative, and as noted by Pam's House Blend (where you can also see the entire text of the resolution), this could lead to support for Republican Party candidates who support marriage equality.

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.

The religion thing

by: Rosi Efthim

Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 04:52:02 PM EST

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.

I wouldn't be disappointed to see an NJDSC floor fight tonight, but I won't see one.

by: Rosi Efthim

Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 04:57:50 PM EST

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.

Then, the last couple days, we hear that a viable candidate for Vice-Chair, Janice Kovach, Corzine's Division on Women Director and current NJDSC Secretary is now likely dropping out of a race to move up to Vice Chair because Dana Redd wants to stay.

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 Keeps Up the Good Fight on ME

by: princetonblue

Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 02:15:14 PM EST

http://www.politickernj.com/ed...

Marriage Equality and "Harming Heterosexual Marriage"

by: princetonblue

Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 11:45:40 AM EST

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."

Another reason for Garrett not to like those activist judges

by: Jason Springer

Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:30:00 AM EST

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.

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.

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.

Now Scott Garrett supports Judicial Activism

by: Jason Springer

Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 11:45:00 AM EST

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.

The difference between the NJ Senate and MTV's Jersey Shore

by: Jason Springer

Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 03:04:31 PM EST

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.

An incredible lack of leadership by Senator Sweeney

by: Adam L a/k/a clammyc

Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:48:12 AM EST

Sweeney was one of three abstentions on the marriage equality vote, and his cowardice was explained so well by Charlie Stile's article late last week:

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.

An open letter to Sean Kean

by: tabbycat31

Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 05:25:39 PM EST

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.  

Sincerely
Caroline Lastname, aka tabbycat31

[Infuriating] Quote of the Day: Sweeney the Abstainer

by: Rosi Efthim

Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 12:03:00 PM EST

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.  

An inside look at the legislative phase of the marriage equality campaign just concluded

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair

Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 11:52:47 AM EST

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.]

An open letter to NJ state Senator Stephen Sweeney

by: Aegletes

Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 10:43:49 AM EST

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.

QOTD: The next generation of Democrats will not balk at the opportunity to confer civil rights

by: Jason Springer

Fri Jan 08, 2010 at 07:10:04 PM EST

"I can only find solace in the fact that the next generation of Democrats, which overwhelmingly support marriage equality, will not balk at the opportunity to confer civil rights on their fellow citizens."

New Jersey College Democrats' Response to the Failure of S.1967

by: NJCollegeDems

Fri Jan 08, 2010 at 02:52:10 PM EST

(TRENTON)- Jay Swanson, President of the New Jersey College Democrats, conveyed his deep disappointment in the New Jersey Legislature's failure to pass the Marriage Equality Bill. Over the past few weeks, Democratic leaders have been tossing the issue back and forth, pushing for the opposing house to take action first, but on Thursday it was voted on by the full Senate.

"Representing Democrats in colleges and universities across the state, I can say with profound certainty that the Legislature has let us down and has delayed equality for thousands of New Jersey's citizens," remarked Swanson. A marriage equality bill will have to wait at least another four years for consideration because Republican Governor-elect Chris Christie has vowed to veto any marriage equality bill that reaches his desk.

"I cannot give enough credit to Garden State Equality, which has worked and lobbied tirelessly on behalf of equal rights for gay couples," continued Swanson. "The fight is far from over and I sincerely hope that in the near future, we can live in a state and a country that treats all of its citizens as equals."

Several Democratic state senators either expressed their outward opposition to the measure, or were unwilling to publicly take a position prior to the vote. Support for the bill was equally shaky in the Assembly where Democrats hold a larger majority. "Those Democrats who voted 'nay' will be judged to have been on the wrong side of history," concluded Brian Block, President of the TCNJ College Democrats. "I can only find solace in the fact that the next generation of Democrats, which overwhelmingly support marriage equality, will not balk at the opportunity to confer civil rights on their fellow citizens."

My education in New Jersey politics

by: Aegletes

Fri Jan 08, 2010 at 10:43:45 AM EST

Yesterday saw the long-awaited vote in the New Jersey state senate on the issue of marriage equality. I won't go into the legal aspects of this issue, all stemming from a court case decided a few years ago by the New Jersey supreme court finding that the state was required to offer same-sex couples the same rights and protections as currently enjoyed by straight couples who are married under the state's civil marriage statute. That the state legislature's 2006 civil unions statute has failed to meet the requirements of the court decision has been amply demonstrated. What remained was for the legislature to do not only the right thing with respect to justice, but to do what it had to do to comply with New Jersey's state constitution. Yesterday, the New Jersey state senate failed to do that.

But the story is much more nuanced than simply focusing on a 20-14 tally would suggest. After all, three Democrats abstained from voting altogether: Senate judiciary committee chair Sarlo, who had voted no in committee in December, abstained rather than voting no again, with no explanation offered. Senator Beach, whose district includes the city of Collingswood with its large gay population, likewise abstained and promptly fled the chamber refusing to explain why. Incoming senate preside Sweeney, who admitted that our side had made a persuasive argument for marriage equality, abstained. Yes, the incoming leader of the upper chamber of the New Jersey state senate, a man who through a power play was able to push aside a widely-respected leader like Senator Codey, demonstrated his idea of leadership by failing to vote on probably one of the most important pieces of legislation in quite some time. Senator Sweeney's brand of leadership is to see which way the political winds are blowing and to act accordingly. He's not a leader. He's not even a follower. He's a weather vane.

And the hypocrite of the decade goes to......

by: tabbycat31

Fri Jan 08, 2010 at 12:07:20 AM EST

In the last five years, the city of Asbury Park has made a miraculous comeback.  For the first time in over a generation people want to move to and visit Asbury Park.  People are no longer afraid of walking down the streets of Asbury.  One group of people is largely (and correctly) credited with Asbury Park's comeback.  And Bruce Springsteen has nothing to do with this group.  The group is the gay and lesbian community, who invested in Asbury Park's comeback.  Now the city has a boardwalk with many new businesses, hotels, restaurants, and entertainment.  The gay community is as essential to Asbury Park's comeback as water is to an aquarium.  Unfortunately the one person that Asbury Park counted on to be an ally in Trenton just threw the community where he works (in his non-government job) and his constituents under the bus.  Today, Senator Kean, you threw your friends who own a restaurant in Ocean Grove, and helped you celebrate being elected, under the bus.  I hope that they have the dignity to no longer call you their friend.  

Today, Senator Kean, I am ashamed to call myself your constituent.  I first contacted you Senator about the issue of marriage equality over a year ago, when I realized it could be on New Jersey's radar.  I received a letter in response completely flipping my view and thanking me for "supporting traditional marriage" and was absolutely disgusted.   (On a side note, can anyone in a traditional marriage who's marriage was negatively affected by someone else's same sex marriage please contact me.)  As a legislator, you are welcome to disagree with me on an issue, but you have an obligation to listen to my opinion because ultimately you represent me.  You did not listen to my opinion and instead flipped it, and that Senator is unacceptable behavior.   I thought you would be a complete long shot on the issue when I first volunteered at Garden State Equality, and was pleasantly surprised to see you on the fence.  However today on the senate floor, I saw more flip-flops from you than I see on a summer day on the beach.  You had our hopes up and then let us down.  

Senator Kean, after admitting that you represent "the gayest district in the state" why on earth would you vote against your constituents?  On the senate floor today, you mentioned that this issue impacts "only a minority."  But Senator, do you realize that more than the minority care about marriage equality?  I've been fighting for marriage equality since June, and this is an issue that has no impact on me whatsoever.  I'm a straight woman who is perpetually single.  I take my right to marry for granted.  But there are several people who have been in committed relationships for years that would love to get married, but New Jersey is keeping them from doing so even if their religion allows it.  

Do you not realize that the gay community is very politically active?  You do realize that your vote today possibly cost you any political future, including your senate seat.  And don't think that your district is always Republican either, as President Obama carried the district in 2008.  The fight has just begun, and this will be the first of many articles I write on the political future of Sean Kean.  As a progressive community (gay and straight), we now have to mobilize.  We need to find a candidate who can defeat Sean Kean, and make him regret his vote on marriage equality.  If there was ever a call to action, this is it.  As soon as I hear any news on a potential challenger to Sean Kean, I will update the Blue Jersey community.  

June 2011

by: Matthew Jordan

Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 10:41:42 PM EST

Senator Van Drew is honestly the only person on this list who deserves a pass, his district is just overwhelmingly Republican.  

I've never been more disgusted and embarrassed than I was today to be a Democrat.  

Can we make this the official primary candidate suggestion list?  

NJ Stonewall Comments on Marriage Equality

by: EJZip

Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 08:07:26 PM EST

Barbra Casbar-Siperstein, President, New Jersey Stonewall Democrats tells us:
"Despite the leadership of bill sponsors Democratic Senator Loretta Weinberg and Democratic Senator Raymond Lesniak and the hard work of grassroots activists including the members of the New Jersey Stonewall Democrats, the bill failed with 14 yes votes and 20 no votes.
"Today's vote just prolongs the inequality felt by same-gender couples across New Jersey, and underscores a stark truth: as the LGBT community continues to fight for our equal rights, we need to pay attention to whom we are electing to office. The importance of electing pro-equality Democrats has never been clearer."

I say: "that if Governor Corzine had been re-elected over anti-equality Governor-elect Christie, I believe we would have had the necessary support for the bill to pass as our legislators would have voted their conscience and made all LGBTI citizens equal under the law."

The New Jersey Supreme Court in 2006 obligated the state legislature to provide either marriage or another structure that provides equal protection to same gender couples in New Jersey. Today the legislature failed to do so and has admitted that civil unions do not provide equal protection. NJ Stonewall Democrats supports Garden State Equality's and Lambda Legal's decision to fight today's decision in the state courts.

Only 1 South Jersey Democratic senator supports marriage equality and other thoughts

by: vingopal

Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 05:56:11 PM EST

See below the thread...