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

Blame Codey and Corzine (3.00 / 2)

If the votes were there before the election then Codey should have posted thsi bill and Corzine should have pushed this bill while they both still had the power to influence the outcome.

Codey and Corzine had the ability to do so at any time .

Both dropped the ball and should be held accountable. Corzine was sincere but ,as usual, he was not decisive. Codey was simply a phony.

---

by: firstamend07 @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 18:56:07 PM UTC

Steve, I appreciate your perspective. (3.00 / 1)

---

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 22:23:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's Plenty Of "Blame" To Go Around..... (0.00 / 0)

....but your desperate attempts to deflect any of it from Norcross/Sweeney are pathetically transparent.  lol

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 14:14:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why... (0.00 / 0)

...was this issue allowed to be put off until lame duck 2009?

...was Reed Gusciora not instructed to keep the civil union law bottled up in the AJC until a marriage equality law was passed or the 180 day deadline that the supreme court decision called for was reached?  Isn't it likely that legislative inaction would have resulted in a new and better court decision?

...were Democratic State Senators and Assemblypersons who were unwilling to vote for marriage equality legislation not threatened with primary challenges in 2007 when both houses were up for re-election without a compelling statewide election, ensuring low primary election turnouts and the best chance of success?

...were pledges not made to prospective Republican Yes votes that pro-marriage equality voters would be mobilized in their districts to register as Republicans and vote for them in the 2011 primary elections, protecting them from a backlash from teabaggers?

...were efforts not made to reach out to people like Frank Robinson at the New Jersey Business and Industry Association as well as the NJ Chamber of Commerce to get them on board to support the economic argument for marriage equality?  Frank was a supporter of Howard Dean's back in 2003-2004 and would most likely have been open to bringing the NJBIA on board if properly engaged.

...were amendments or compromises that might have bought additional votes not considered in the days leading up to the Senate vote when it became apparent that passage was next to impossible?

Were there any discussions about amending the civil unions bill so that marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples by other states or countries could be recognized as marriages and not civil unions?  

Were there any discussions about changing the language of the bill so that the definition of marriage would not be addressed, but that municipalities would be free to affirmatively choose to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or not and that elected officials would be free to officiate same-sex weddings or not?

I recognize that such quarter loaf and half loaf compromises would have jeopardized the judicial route that is currently being undertaken, but are the odds of judicial victory so great that it would be worth not pursuing some form of compromise that would have enabled same-sex couples a greater degree of marriage equality than what they currently have right now?  If so, please explain, because even though the civil union law is clearly a failure, I am afraid that the courts are going to view its failure as one based in the law's enforcement and not in its inherent inequality.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 19:38:15 PM UTC

Bertin (why don't you use your real name already)... (4.00 / 1)

there are answers to all these questions, which range from we did that to we disagree with you, depending on the question.

---

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 22:22:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ask Juan Melli (0.00 / 0)

Needless to say, I would if I could.

That said, considering the fact that I have been a part of this fight to one degree or another since 1996 when Bill Clinton rammed DOMA down our throats, I don't think that it is out of line for me to ask these questions and to at least hope to get some answers.  While it is fine that you disagree with me, it would be nice to know why.  I don't think that is asking a lot.

As much as the focus of the anger and frustration that we are all feeling should be focused on the Democratic 9 and the moderate Republicans, I don't think that it is wrong to ask questions about strategy and tactics, particularly when it seems like some aspects of the campaign could and should have been handled differently.

If Blue Jersey is the laboratory for democracy that you claim that it is, then we should have some degree of insight into decisions that are made and why they are made.  I am not expecting you to treat us like members of the GSE Board, but I don't think that this should just be a place where marching orders are received and acted upon.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 23:29:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

rachael'sdad (4.00 / 1)

Try not insulting people who participate in this site. It's a really unfortunate choice you make, nearly every time. No light is shed when you do it, only heat.  

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 @ Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 18:15:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Cheers to that. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Matthew Jordan @ Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 19:01:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

who have I insulted? (2.00 / 1)

I am challenging people, asking questions, and stating opinions.  If you or others want to take it as an insult, that is your choice, but it is not my intent.

I have known Steven longer than you, Rosi, and if he finds my questions to be insulting, he can tell me that himself.  He doesn't need you to do it for him.

Instead of wasting time and energy trying to muzzle me, why don't you be the leader that you could be and provide some direction for all of the anger and frustration that is being expressed here.

Do you think that the Democratic 9 should be primaried in 2011 or is it possible that Steve Sweeney isn't the only "leader" who is trying to have it both ways?  In your signature, you tell us what you think we need in the next NJDSC Chair.  Why don't you be the Chair or Vice-Chair that we need?

If you think that me challenging you like this is insulting, then you have way too thin a skin for politics, especially NJ politics.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 19:02:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

insults ... (0.00 / 0)

Here, for example:

I am not expecting you to treat us like members of the GSE Board, but I don't think that this should just be a place where marching orders are received and acted upon.

From your comment above:

If you think that me challenging you like this is insulting, then you have way too thin a skin for politics, especially NJ politics.

Everything doesn't have to be a pissing match. People on this site - the whole community, not just the frontpagers - weren't just hapless saps waiting around to be told what to do. Your challenges to me are reasonable enough, except you only see a part of what I do on this site, and because nobody ever seems to point those questions back at you.

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 @ Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 20:01:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

insults are in the eyes of the insulted (0.00 / 0)

When I say...

If you think that me challenging you like this is insulting, then you have way too thin a skin for politics, especially NJ politics.

...that is exactly what I mean.  I AM NOT saying that you DO have way too thin a skin for politics, I AM saying that IF me saying that you should be doing more with all of the relationships and resources that you have at your disposal than wasting energy and time scolding me for my insignificant comments is insulting to you, THEN you have way too thin a skin for politics, especially NJ politics.

You can point these questions back at me all that you want to and my response will always be the same.

I am not you.  I do not have the relationships and resources that you do.  There was a time that I did, but I chose to cede them to you rather than continue to fight with you.  I walked away and focused on my family and my career, the latter of which has gone up in smoke as a result of the economic downturn and the Madoff affair.

I still have the same passion for progressive issues, particularly marriage equality, that I have always had, but I do not have the ability to do anything more than share my ideas and opinions with people who have far more power to put them to use than I do.

If I get angry and frustrated because I feel that people with the power to do more or to do different things than what they are doing are not doing it, and I express that anger, what is the harm?  You say that it doesn't shed any light, only heat, but as far as I am concerned, both are necessary elements to get anything done.

What good is it to have the relationships and resources that you have if you are only going to do so much with them?  What good is political capital if it is not spent at some point?  At what point are you willing to risk it all for what matters most to you?

I recognize that I am probably not the best person to ask these questions, because I am where I am because I have chosen to risk all of the little political capital that I have ever had at any time at every turn rather than to more carefully pick my battles, but all I see is you accumulating political capital and I never see you risking one iota of it on anything that matters.

Once again, you have written something great about what you think we need in the next NJDSC Chair, but I don't see you throwing your hat in the ring to become the next NJDSC Chair or Vice-Chair.  Howard Dean did and look at what he accomplished for our country.  You could do the same for our state if you were willing to spend some of that political capital that you have accomplished.

Once again, if me challenging you like this insults you, I don't see how you are going to ever accomplish anything in politics, particularly NJ politics, because far worse things are ultimately going to be said to you by far worse people before you decide to turn off your laptop and call it a day.

And if I only see part of what you do on this site, why is that?  Why do I never read about anything that DFA-NJ is doing?  Is it because you and Jeff have turned it into a secret society or because the two of you have run it into the ground or something or something else entirely?

Of course, you are entitled to have some aspect of your political machinations kept private and quiet and it probably is necessary to some degree in order for you to be effective at whatever you do, but that cannot be a complete and total defense in and of itself.  At some point in time, whatever you do behind the scenes needs to produce some tangible and visible results or they cannot be quantified in any meaningful way, and if that is the case, there is no point in even referring to them.

As far as the comments and questions that I directed towards Steven are concerned, I never said that anyone was a hapless sap waiting around to be told what to do, and in fact, you only quoted half of the paragraph that I wrote.  The entire paragraph was...

If Blue Jersey is the laboratory for democracy that you claim that it is, then we should have some degree of insight into decisions that are made and why they are made.  I am not expecting you to treat us like members of the GSE Board, but I don't think that this should just be a place where marching orders are received and acted upon.

This was the 3rd paragraph of a response to what I felt was an unecessarily snide response to a series of what I thought were very fair questions, asked with the intention of getting a broader and deeper understanding about decisions about strategies and tactics that have been chosen over the past few years.

If Steven was insulted by these questions or my response to his response, once again, he can tell me that himself as he and I have known each other long enough.  He does not need you to do it.

Also, if I understand Thurman's comment correctly (and it wouldn't be the first time if I didn't), when he is saying that there was a total failure of leadership and that no one is walking away with clean hands, he is using words like "total" and "no one" as broadly as possible.  If I am understanding him correctly, then I think that the questions that I ask above are as fair as they were when I wrote them and deserving of better than the response with which they were received.

Needless to say, even though I didn't get the answers to these questions that I hoped I would get or any answer at all for that matter, I did not nor do I feel insulted, as this is politics after all, especially NJ politics, and there really is no place for such personal and petty emotions.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 22:25:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Again, I disagree (0.00 / 0)

emotions are going to rise over something as personal as this, and I think very few emotions are petty.

When I say that no one walks away with clean hands, I am generally speaking about the legislative body and our executive.  The votes were there!  So why did we wait?  It's frustrating, to say the least.

You are right about one thing though - Rosi would make one hell of a powerful Vice-Chair.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 22:33:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

more powerful and more progressive than Dana Redd (0.00 / 0)

Which isn't saying much, I understand, but I have to ask.  Why limit it to Vice-Chair?

According to PolitickerNJ, the current field of candidates for the NJDSC Chairpersonship are John Wisniewski, who has some progressive cred from being an early supporter of Howard Dean's in 2003, Nellie Pou, who should run against John Girgenti for his Senate seat in 2011 if Haledon and Hawthorne are still in the same district in 2011, and Bernard Kenny, with whom I am sure you are quite familiar.

As far as I am concerned, there is no obvious powerhouse amongst these candidates that should preclude her throwing her hat in the ring.

I think that you should change your signature to "To hell with what she wants, let's make Rosi Efthim the next NJDSC Chair."  I think that we have a much better chance of making that one happen.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 22:55:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dunno (0.00 / 0)

what you mean.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 23:46:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

can you change the link associated with Rosi's name? (0.00 / 0)

I think that it should be linked with her manifesto.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 02:34:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rachel's dad (0.00 / 0)

I know you in person.  You are a wonderful person.  Your passion for equality and justice is as deep and as sincere as that of anyone else in New Jersey.  And I will defend you in that regard to the end of time.

But something happens to you in writing that is, well, different - it's a very different persona.  It's a combination of personal attacks, conspiracy theories and far-away field trips that you really don't see.  I don't believe you intend them, but a number of people read them that way, sometimes including me.  

I love you anyway, but please, honey, reign it in when you write.

---

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 12:54:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

personal attacks, conspiracy theories, and far-away field trips (0.00 / 0)

Thank you for your kind words, Steven.  They are definitely appreciated.

I can appreciate that my opinions and questions can be perceived the way that you describe them and from time to time, I do try to reign it in somewhat, but at the same time, I also try to explain the intent of my words and to some degree, people will perceive what people say/write how they choose to perceive them rather than how they are actually intended.  I can only take so much responsibility for the choices that others, including you, make in this regard.

That said, I still believe that the questions that I ask above are fair game and could give all of us a better understanding of what has gone down since the State Supreme Court decision in 2006.  However, if the answers to these questions are not suitable for public consumption, I understand.

What I would like to ask for, if that is the case, is what you offered Creed Pogue a long time ago here, which is the opportunity to sit down in private with you to learn firsthand about the past, present, and future of marriage equality.

Recognizing how busy you are, this meeting doesn't have to take place in a day or a week or even a month. It can happen at your convenience and somewhere near your home.  You don't even have to buy me lunch.  Since I am asking for this meeting, I am willing to buy you breakfast, lunch, or dinner.  What do you say?

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 19:29:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Total failure of leadership (4.00 / 1)

Back in March, I wrote:

The only reason to wait for a lame duck session to vote on marriage equality is that a politician believes that a vote for marriage equality in October will result in people voting against that politician in November. This means that someone actually believes that voters in sufficient number exist that are more concerned with keeping loving and committed gay couples from being married than they are concerned with the health of our economy, the level of our taxes, or the plague of corruption on our state.

 State level elections are nearly a year away - as far away as elections come in New Jersey.  I don't think any politician who has ever faced New Jersey voters would believe that they would be voted out after that length of time for an issue relatively few voters are militant about.  Instead, I think the election simply allowed them a thin veneer of civilization to do what they really wanted to do anyway.

There was plenty of time to act on this.  No one is walking away with clean hands.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 20:07:18 PM UTC

Thank you Steven (0.00 / 0)

for all you did and continue to do on behalf of the progressive movement. During the last few months, I came to deeply admire your brilliance and your work ethic. You never sold out unlike so many other progressive leaders

My thoughts and prayers are always for your continued successes.

---

by: vingopal @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 03:58:52 AM UTC

a nobody (0.00 / 0)

Steven,

I hope that, when the time is ripe, you can write a brutally honest "lessons learned", in the spirit of those organizations that do it well, like the military or the medical profession.  I believe you have that candor, since it appears that it is already admitted that we underestimated NOM and its allies - that's a grave fault, given that Maine and California went before NJ.

As a 'nobody' in the process, I have absolutely no idea what information was presented to legislators and, therefore, what I can hold them morally accountable for, other than what I sent them myself.

What's more, if you want to safeguard the reputation of GSE as a rights organization, then there has to be indications of a strategy that pulled the party, even if it was small, not indications of what was "allowed", true?  

---

by: Amicus @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 07:10:16 AM UTC

Hi, Amicus (0.00 / 0)

There are so many lessons we learned but also so many things that differed in our battle from the other states that fought the marriage equality battle.  One of the lessons was that the National Organization for Marriage played almost no role in New Jersey and spent almost no money here - we didn't underestimate them.  If anything, the opposite.

I don't know what you mean by a strategy that "pulled" the party, "allowed" it, etc, but as Mary Fuchs reports in her Star-Ledger article, we pressed the party for years - we pushed and pushed and pushed in 2007, 2008 and early 2009 in countless ways - not to hold this vote until lame duck 2009.  We saw miles away, years in advance, that Governor Corzine was a Governor struggling to get a popularity foothold, never really connecting despite a terrific record as Governor, and that the party's whole lame duck 2009 strategy was bull.  It's not as if we ever gave the party a pass until lame duck 2009.  Garden State Equality never did, Blue Jersey never did, no one in the progressive base ever did.

I'm gratified - it is no small comfort - that compared to other states, there are virtually no recriminations against Garden State Equality.  Believe me, it's happened in other marriage equality states, paritcularly in California, where the statewide LGBT civil rights organizations did an incredible job but where members of the community pointed guns anyway.  That's human nature and you know what, folks are entitled to that.

It doesn't mean we don't soul search.  It doesn't mean I don't - since Chris Christie's election in November, I've kept the psychotherapy industry in New Jersey alive.  I recognized on election night that something more was lost than the Governorship.  I would not wish my darkest hours in the first half of November on anyone - okay, maybe Gerry Cardinale a little bit.

Of considerable consolation and some happiness to me is that
GSE and our entire movement has emerged from this remarkably stronger, more united and more equipped to add to the battles won to the 210 battles we've won at the state, county and local levels since 2004 - that's 210 LGBT civil rights laws at every level in New Jersey since 2004, more than any other state.  Law 211 will come soon.

And to close the loop on this thread, I would bring our legislative loss back to one reason, that which Mary Fuchs reported in her Star-Ledger article I included above.  Chris Christie won in November, period.  Everybody in Trenton, before the election, knew we had this won - running away with it.  As Mary reports, our opponents thought so too - that was fascinating to me.

But once Christie won, he lobbied against marriage equality as Governor-elect like you wouldn't believe.  Big-time.  

If Corzine won reelection, marriage equality would have been enacted in early December, I'd be measuring my white dress and we'd all look like geniuses.  

In the end, I'm sorry, I don't blame Christie as much as Democrats who stalled this vote for years and never considered equality a priority.  Democrats should never have left equality to sudden death overtime.

---

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 12:46:09 PM UTC

Thank you (0.00 / 0)

Steven,

Thanks for the courtesy of your reply.  

When we say that telegraphing a lame-duck session vote gave opponents time to group, who, then are we talking about, if not NOM and their acolytes, following Frank Schubert's playbook?  

I obviously have zero knowledge of the back room pushing done, but I can say that we didn't get a call from GSE to mobilize for a vote until after the election.  Could we have had a 'lobby-day' as far back as Jan/Feb of this year, rather than in November?

I can't speak for the truth of the matter, obviously, so I wish no one to overstate this view-from-the-ground perspective:  after some cursory discussions with just two people, here, it just doesn't seem credible that Christie was able to sway that many votes, Republicans and Democrats alike.  What leverage did he have?

It seems like the abiding truth is that Democrats and some Republicans are afraid to take their "careers" to the polls on this issue, even though there is scant evidence that it is a top voter issue when they pull the election-day levers (according to Evan Wolfson's research/documents, at least).  I mean, what else explains the cowardice of Girgenti, to be specific (unless he wasn't ever one of the votes in a 21 count back when it was 'in the tank')?

Perhaps part of that fear is NOM-related, afterall?  If that fear is operative, then we haven't "won", it doesn't seem.

---

by: Amicus @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 16:09:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

adding... (0.00 / 0)

I want to make it abundantly clear that 'lessons learned' is not about recriminations.

It helps people - perhaps those in Iowa, now? - who will face similar challenges.  It arms people - pundits, observers, opinion makers - with information and general knowledge, that hasten organization building in the future.

Among things that might go into such a report;
-We could have gotten people involved sooner, before the opposition opened up on us
-They had better printed materials than we did, we found in discussions
-Many legislators were swayed by the gravitas of meeting with a Cardinal  and his entourage.
-We found that this issue would not be like other issues we would tackle
-We found our 'war room' lacked ...
-Given the complex formula for pressuring people that we developed, we found we were stretched so thing for all the votes we needed to cover
-We didn't have time or resources to adequately implement some of the ideas we had
=We found direct-mail was a good way to reach out and frame the issue with voters in certain counties and got people to call their reps

etc., etc., etc...

---

by: Amicus @ Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 07:39:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]