Quote of the Day: Legislators somehow afraid

AMEN!!! (0.00 / 0)

---

by: AreYouWithMe? @ Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 21:08:38 PM CST

matters of conscience (0.00 / 0)

With regards to issues like abortion and the death penalty, I can understand how someone can take a position opposite of my own and respect their right to it, but I don't understand how the same dynamic can be applied to the issue of marriage equality.

People can respectfully disagree about the primacy of a woman's reproductive healthcare choices versus the life of an unborn child or the death penalty, because reasonable arguments can be made for both sides of these issues.

However, the same is not true for the issue of marriage equality.  While I may not agree that the life of an unborn child is more important than a woman's right to make her own reproductive healthcare decisions, I can appreciate the concern that some might have about the unborn child.

However, when two men or two women get married, there is no potential victim or unborn child as the case may be for which anybody can reasonably be concerned.  Opponents of marriage equality can only offer up their bigotry towards gay men and lesbians and their anger and fear about the modernization and secularization of civil society as reasons, which are not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination.

While it is true that the cowards who oppose marriage equality purely because they are afraid of how it will impact the next elections are far worse than any bigot, I don't believe that most of the Democratic State Senators who have been discussed here as prospective no votes would vote this way out of cowardice as much as bigotry.

I guess it is possible that Madden's, Sweeney's, Van Drew's and Whelan's opposition could be more likely inspired by cowardice than bigotry, but I don't know enough about them to judge.

Redd is a lame duck and is at no risk of losing anything as a result of voting in favor of marriage equality and Girgenti, Rice Sr., Sarlo, and Turner are unlikely to be seriously threatened by any electoral challenge going forward based on casting a Yes vote for marriage equality.

The only possible exception to this is Girgenti if Hawthorne was cleaved away from Paterson during the next redistricting, but even if this were to happen, it is unlikely that he would find himself in a new district that is so hostile towards a vote for marriage equality.

If Lawrence Twp. was cleaved from Princeton and Trenton during the next redistricting, it is very possible that Turner would find herself in the same district as Bill Baroni, who would be tough to beat, but not because of a vote inj favor of marriage equality.

So if when push comes to shove, there are actually as many as NINE Democratic State Senators who are poised to vote against marriage equality, at least five of the nine are doing so because of their bigotry, rather than cowardice, neither of which should get the benefit of anybody's respect or understanding.

If there is anything that I am losing patience with, it is the degree of tolerance that proponents of marriage equality are willing to extend to their colleagues in the Democratic Party.

I understand that they are all going to have to work together in the weeks, months, and years to come, but the time for politeness and respect has come and gone.  It is time for progressive Democrats to play the game of NJ politics as hard as their traditional allies and adversaries on both sides of the aisle.

Whether or not they can get marriage equality legislation passed or not is the ultimate matter of conscience.

---

by: rachael'sdad @ Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 18:25:12 PM CST