Loretta Weinberg, with a request

Amen n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 20:28:21 PM UTC

Amen (0.00 / 0)

to the Amen.  

It's not a particularly snappy signature, but here's what I think we need in the next NJ Democratic State Chair.  

---

by: Rosi Efthim @ Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 20:52:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Amen to the Amen's Amen. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Matthew Jordan @ Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 21:01:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

if Paul Sarlo can do it.... (0.00 / 0)

....then so can i.  So amen.

activist for hire.

---

by: Jay Lassiter @ Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 21:30:10 PM UTC

A mild, alternative perspective of the long view... (4.00 / 1)

Perhaps some calming is required.  Here is something I wrote quickly, this afternoon:

Dear Senator:

Please forgive us.  We are not a monolith, nor a group beyond reproach, but drawn from all walks of life and all attitudes.

For the four or five weeks of discomfort, even intense discomfort, that may come to some Senators who have not yet embraced Senator Baroni's wisdom of keeping "personal belief" out of the public square while ardently protecting it for all private associations, gays and lesbians may suffer in New Jersey for potentially eight more years, if Governor-elect Christie is successful in painting Democrats as obstructionist, as was Governor Schwarzenegger, winning another term for himself.

If there is leeway to be shown, please let it be with us, who are the ones with something tangible to lose in this debate.

Some of us are old enough to have come of age when the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right of the majority to put a policeman in our bedrooms, if needs be (Hardwick, 1986).   Let that history inform you of what "venue" was thrust upon us, at one time.  This is no excuse for egregious action, but a plea for understanding.

Finally, let's disabuse ourselves of the notion that it is especially "civil" for legislators to issue simple statements like, "for personal beliefs, I vote 'no'" or "I have listened, but I vote 'no'".  This is not what the great legislators do, this is not what we study as the greatest of our tradition in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, when legislators of great insight and courage fought for their ideas, putting forward rationales and, having their arguments forcefully tested, refined them to garner a consensus view, often in which the sum was better than the parts.

And, while some seem civil, issuing absurdly terse epithet-imperatives like "one-man, one-woman", they are, in fact, deeply aggressive, dismissive and cutting pronouncements, a view in which we know you sympathize and why we are so grateful to have you as one of our great champions in the Senate.

---

by: Amicus @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 05:08:59 AM UTC

I respectfully disagree, Senator Weinberg (0.00 / 0)

Since we first met in 2003 when I lobbied for and won your endorsement of Howard Dean's Presidential campaign, you have been without a doubt my favorite elected official and the only person who has kept me from giving up on the democratic process in NJ when it seems to fail us time and time again.  Your leadership on marriage equality and so many other progressive issues has been an inspiration.  However, while I agree in spirit with most of what you write above, there are some aspects of it with which I must respectfully disagree.

First and foremost, I don't think that anybody here has attacked anybody's religious and spiritual beliefs as much as their willingness to overtly apply these beliefs to their deliberations about matters of purely secular (especially considering the lengths that you and the other authors of this bill as well as Senator Baroni in the drafting of his amendment have gone to divorce this legislation from any and all religious or spiritual complications) public policy.

Second, while there can be no doubt that elected officials are entitled to personal lives and privacy and should not be accosted in their homes or while participating in personal and private events like the one that Senator Kean was at when he had his unfortunate experience, but as one of the few truly full-time legislators in Trenton, who has historically been a vocal critic of the corrupting nature of the part-time politician, particularly when their part-time or full-time occupations represent a potential conflict of interest with their elected responsibilities, I would hope that you would agree that to the degree in which an elected official blurs the line between their political and professional lives, their professional life becomes an extension of their political life.

For example, I believe that the Rider students who visited Senator Turner's office in the university's Career Services department to advocate for marriage equality were well within their rights to do so, and it is disturbing on a number of levels that she could so callously respond to their appeals by saying "black people aren't equal yet either", as if the discrimination that one disenfranchised minority has experienced justifies the discrimination of another or all other disenfranchised minorities or that equality is something that can only be delivered on a first come, first served basis.

What was particularly despicable about Turner's choice of words was that it showed a complete and total lack of responsibility as a professional in an academic environment to the students whose very expensive tuitions pay her salary.  I am not saying that she should have changed her mind on this issue because they asked her to, but if nothing else, she owed them a far more thoughtful response than the one which she gave them.

I admit that I probably went too far yesterday when I insinuated that there was any similarity between the juxtaposition of the work that she does at Rider with her elected office and the chain of events that led to former Senator Wayne Bryant being arrested, convicted, and incarcerated for corruption.

That said, I would like to encourage the students at the Rebovich Institute for New Jersey Politics at Rider University to use their own Senator Shirley Turner as a case study of the part-time politician phenomenon and determine for themselves the degree to which the line between Senator Turner's political and professional lives are clear or blurred as well as the degree to which she is able to effectively serve her 15th LD constituents, the students and graduates of Rider University, and the residents of the state of NJ as a whole.

They could start by maintaining a constant vigil at the Career Services department over a period of several weeks/months to both determine the number of hours that she actually spends at her office and interview people who visit the office to determine how well they are being served.  They can also stay in constant contact with her district office, obtain copies of her public schedule, and compile data about the bills she authors, co-sponsors, and votes for and against.  They can also obtain information about any appropriations and legislation that involve Rider University during the period of time that Turner's tenure in Trenton and at Rider have coincided as well as political contributions that she has received from individuals and organizations that have any relationship, professional or otherwise with Rider University.

This and similar explorations into the dynamic of the part-time legislator/part-time or full-time professional that students at the Rebovich Institute for New Jersey Politics or at any of our state's finest academic institutions want to pursue should provide them with a very wide eye-opening experience.  Obviously, Senator Turner should not be the only subject of such an analysis.  Any/all legislators in Trenton who have professional lives outside of their political lives, regardless of their position on marriage equality, should have such duality be subject to some degree of scrutiny.

There is no doubt that a line can and should be drawn between an elected official's personal life and their public life as well as between their political life and their professional life, but these lines can only be as clear as they make it by their own actions, which includes the degree to which they impose their own personal views, religious, spiritual, or otherwise on matters of secular public policy as well as the degree to which they erect a firewall between their political and professional activities.

Finally, I do not agree that we can win this issue solely with traditional outreach methods like phone calls to district offices.  In my opinion, the only thing that will convince Democrats in Trenton who are planning to vote No on marriage equality to change their minds on this issue is the presentation of clear consequences that will result from them continuing on the path that they are currently on.

Senators Girgenti, Sarlo, Turner et al must be told that if they vote NO on marriage equality, they will face primary challenges in 2011 and outreach must be done to County Committee members in their districts to recruit their support in this effort.  As strong and well-intentioned as our best arguments are, they are clearly falling on deaf ears and no amount of phone calls are going to change that.  In my opinion, the only thing that will is the possibility that their political career could come to an end in January 2012.  I hope that you and others realize this to be true as well sooner rather than later and support efforts to this end.

Thank you for being who you are and for doing everything that you do.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 07:51:05 AM UTC

Amen (0.00 / 0)

Amen to Sen Weinberg.  

---

by: mmcgrath @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 15:06:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tough Love is Where It's At Folks... (0.00 / 0)

When Loretta says,

It is not appropriate to confront members of the Legislature at their homes or businesses or at private family events in order to engage them on this issue.

I tend to agree with her.   A person's private space, especially family gatherings and at home, ideally should be respected.

Obviously there may be some particularly heinous situation where lawfully picketing outside someone's home may be justified, but I don't see that as a helpful tactic here, at this point.

When Loretta says,

And please refrain from passing judgment on the personal religious and moral beliefs of legislators who happen to disagree with your particular belief system...

Isn't the mere act of demanding marriage equality ia prima facie challenge to and a "judgment" of the beliefs (moral, religious, political...whatever) of the opponents?

We have a disagreement with them...and it's valid and necessary to give voice to that disagreement (without being disagreeable.......for an example of what disagreeable sounds like, replay the audio of many of Senator Cardinale's remarks at Monday's hearing).

I agree with Bertin on his overall point that, if this battle is to be won, it won't be won on soley on appeals to the intellectual integrity and Consciences of the legislators....yes those appeals MUST be made in all depth and sincerity; but there must also be a stick....or sticks.

Call me a cynic if you will, Loretta, but I believe that there may indeed by some legislators who, in their heart of hearts, really don't care one way or the other about this issue and would just as soon allow marriage equality, but who are opposing it for all manner of self serving political and perhaps even self serving economic reasons.

The whole pay to play system, where we still "grandfather" in multiple office holders and there is much cronyism and "sweetheart dealing" does not lead me to easily believe that all of the opponents are being truthful when they use the figleaf of "religious" and/or "moral" beliefs to oppose this bill.

Bertin is right to demand that they give seriously deep REASONS for their oppositions.  Dismissive thirty second soundbytes add insult to injury.  

As a straight person I have the right to marry, the fact that my gay brothers and sisters do not have that basic human right is deeply offensive to me at a gut level.  Any legislator who votes "no" on this is not someone I wish to see remain in public office.  It is my sense that with the passage of time and the deaths of the older generations that more an more people will agree with me.  It is inexorable that the long term political/social trends are with the progressive impulse on this issue.

When this bill passes, and I believe that it will pass, it will be because a number of "swing votes" will have made the accurate calculation that it is in their own long term political best/self interest.  

Yes, some folks may be moved just by the rationality of the logic, the evidence, the arguments and by the sheer spiritual/moral rightness to allowing people who love each other and wish to make a life together to have the freedom to get married as a civil right.......but, to win this battle, I dare say, it will take the judicious use of sticks as well as carrots.

From what I've seen of politics, being nice is indeed a virtue an goes a long way toward having people respect you as a decent and viable interlocutor; but, unfortunately, just being nice isn't good enough to win.

We need to never forget that the people who opposed civil rights legislation on the basis of race, creed etc also had articulable "rationales" that some of them could actually frame in a "nice" way that sounded superficially "reasonable".  

Now we live in a time where, if someone were to try to use those rationales again, they would be laughed at and anathematized.....the vast majority of Americans now can spot racist bigoted bullshit and call it out as such.

Forty years from now, this battle will have been won long long ago and will be in the history books.  If anyone in that future were to try to justify a law proposing that we go back to the status quo ante, they will be subject to overt condemnation and ridicule...and rightly so.

If we buy into the stated "sincerity" of the opponents and simply let them off the hook without seriously challenging them at every legal level; then we, as "nice" progressives, will continue to lose and the quest for "liberty and justice for all" will be stifled/set back for years.

We can be strong without being ugly.  We can be effective without being vicious.  We can be righteous, without being self-righteous.  

Tough Love is where it's at folks.  

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 16:34:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My own "inartful" comments (4.00 / 1)

I did not clearly define in my comments that they were meant for both sides of the deeply felt issue of marriage equality.  I should not have used phrases like "your views" since the statement was written as a press release to be widely distributed.  I realized after it was printed in Blue Jersey that it seemed as if I was referring only to "you", our  supporters.    In fact,  when I wrote about the "religious and moral beliefs of legislators" being respected, I was actually referring to the sometimes nasty and  very unpleasant phone calls to my office from the opponents of marriage equality.

I do not regret writing these comments because they resulted in a further dialogue on how we best change laws that are so basic as our civil rights.   However, I should have been more neutral in my use of pronouns so that these words would not have sounded as if I was just passing judgment on YOU - my friends at Blue Jersey!

You each have the right to expect your elected representatives to be honest with you when they reach decisions which so basically affect how you lead your lives.

The fight for equality goes on.  Together we will find the best road to move marriage equality ahead.  

---

by: Senator Loretta Weinberg @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 04:06:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you (0.00 / 0)

Besides leading the fight in the Legislature, you continue to come back to engage in conversations and respond to comments here at the blog. You don't just speak highly of this place in private and publicly, which I've either heard myself or been told by others many times. You truly are an integral part of this community providing a take that many others are simply unable to provide.  

---

by: Jason Springer @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 04:36:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Home (0.00 / 0)

One of the highest compliments this joint gets is Senator Loretta Weinberg staying up late reading Blue Jersey, and engaging here. I've heard her say many times in speeches and to friends that Blue Jersey is her home.

Few things make me prouder than that.  

It's not a particularly snappy signature, but here's what I think we need in the next NJ Democratic State Chair.  

---

by: Rosi Efthim @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 11:34:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank You For Clarifying Your Position... (0.00 / 0)

...I appreciate what you've said and agree 100%.  Thanks again!

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 00:00:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]