Quote of the Day: "Alot of punting going on"

by: Jason Springer

Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 03:48:30 PM EST

The question of when a vote might come for Marriage Equality has been hotly debated recently. Following the comments of Speaker Roberts on New Years Eve that he wanted the Senate to go first, Senator Codey had this to say:

"Obviously there's a lot of punting going on," he said. "Sounds like a ballgame, and somebody's got to decide who's going to take the kick."
Codey said he will talk with other senators, but added they may not be willing to vote because of a perceived lack of support in the Assembly.

It's just a game they're playing with people's lives to avoid taking a stand. They'll say they can't have a vote because there is a perceived lack of support. But they won't make people go on the record and take a stand on whether they support or not because they won't call a vote. Many people have made statements along the way and have not lived up to their words, so how do you know where they truly stand until the chips are down. Since Dick Codey is one of the more integral players in the game, maybe he should take his own advice and decide to take the kick already. There are only a few players who can step up and make it happen.

Jason Springer :: Quote of the Day: "Alot of punting going on"

Tags: QOTD, Quote of the Day, marriage equality, Dick Codey, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Quote of the Day: "Alot of punting going on" | 6 comments

Please don't take offense to this... (4.00 / 1)

Jason,

I know how dear Marriage Equality is to many on BlueJersey but really, how is the Legislatures lack of spine now any different from their complete failure on tax or ethics reform for the past 20 years? If it weren't for massive arrests recently we would have had no ethics reform at all.

Both houses have plenty of time to focus on TV shows and seat belt laws but always "punt" on anything of meaning.

I wish the impressive organization that fought to get "equality" to the cusp of a vote could mobilize to replace the cowards in the Legislature with people from all walks of life and political philosophies who will do their job.

by: AreYouWithMe? @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 01:22:59 AM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Steve sounds like he says lets vote (0.00 / 0)

If Steve is looking for both houses to vote, then my guess is he thinks we have the votes, or very close to having the votes. SO I'll defer to Steve, he wants a vote in both houses, so do I.

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

by: FogerRox @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:31:55 AM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I haven't seen any evidence (0.00 / 0)

that marriage equality has anywhere close to 21 votes in the Senate. On the Republican side, Bill Baroni is the only GOP senator to declare support and all his previously fence-sitting colleagues have banded together to come out for "civil union reform" (http://www.senatenj.com/index.php/ciesla/five-republican-senators-pledge-their-support-for-civil-union-reform/4891). Despite having a 23-17 edge, enough Democrats have already said they are voting no (Sarlo, Sacco, Turner, Girgenti, Van Drew, Rice) to bring us down to 18 possible yes votes. Subtract weak-kneed Democrats like Sweeney and Madden and we're looking at a New York-level disaster.

Steven Goldstein and GSE bought some time when the original Senate vote was postponed but what has actually changed since then? There's a reason Joe Roberts decided not to force his people to vote on this. I'm not sure how the marriage equality movement gains from getting pummeled in embarrassing fashion in a second consecutive state when this issue will be taken up and likely decided by the courts before any senators are up for reelection.

Of course, if we really do have a chance to 1) get a vote and 2) win a vote, then the risk might be worth it. Someone let me know what I'm missing here.

by: boomer @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 06:00:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

while I support equality... (0.00 / 0)

Something of this magnitude really needs to be put to the voters, especially since it might involve a constitution change.

If it passes the people have truly spoken that they support it. And if it fails then the people have also spoken.

We can't worry about another embarassing defeat. Just as we are pushing the Legislators to take a stand so should the people.

by: AreYouWithMe? @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 14:59:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

The problem with this is (4.00 / 2)

That Marriage Equality is a civil right. Although many states have voted on whether or not to approve Marriage Equality, it is essentially unconstitutional to vote on civil rights.

I don't care what the majority thinks about a civil right. The majority have been wrong before. The majority used to oppose interracial marriage, women's sufferage, African-American sufferage, freeing the slaves.

You can't put a civil right up for a popular vote. My rights are guaranteed by the Constitution. It's just that we have to convince the NJ Leg of that.

by: the pollster @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 16:30:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure (0.00 / 0)

what this non sequitur comment has to do with anything I wrote. Citizens take a stand almost every November when they elect senators, assemblypeople, and other officials. I look forward to reading an in-depth diary from you that explains why we should put important civil rights issues up for a popular vote.

by: boomer @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 17:20:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]