Don't Ask, Don't Tell

No comment n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 00:01:17 AM UTC

I'll comment (4.00 / 2)

Although Senator Turner, did not support the marriage bill, she voted for the Domestic Partnership legislation and the Civil Unions bill.

Translation:

"Although Senator Turner did not support equal rights, she did support separate but equal, which should be good enough for you, so stop complaining about petty equal rights".


Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.

---

by: Adam L @ Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 01:02:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A nice gesture (0.00 / 0)

Senator Turner's DADT resolution was a nice gesture and I am glad she did it. I'll take a nibble of a loaf over no loaf but it's still no excuse for her bringing her religiosity into the State House.  Politicians need to stop hiding behind  God to excuse their timidity.  Jim Beach did the same thing.

activist for hire.

---

by: Jay Lassiter @ Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 13:02:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jay, you're right but... (4.00 / 1)

whereas Shirley Turner hid behind God, Jim Beach hid behind Steve Sweeney, who only some consider God.  

Here's the real story with Jim Beach:  He told us he would vote for marriage equality.  You and I met him together, in fact, when he made that promise - recall that he began the meeting saying look, I know why you're here, you have nothing to worry about, I'm with you.  Months later, during one of our lobby days post lame-duck, he reaffirmed his commitment to me in person.

The morning of the Senate vote, Sweeney told Beach to "watch me and vote how I vote."

Sweeney did not lift his hand to press the vote button.  Beach watched and did the same.

 

---

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair @ Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 13:56:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Painful memories... (0.00 / 0)

Senator Jim Beach did just what Steven said he did and blamed the whole thing on God, more specifically his Catholic faith.  

And now that I am recalling that meeting, Steven, and it's not an easy memory to bear.  

activist for hire.

---

by: Jay Lassiter @ Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 15:49:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

His Lie Hurt (0.00 / 0)

On April 3, 2009 Senator Beach lied in a handshake, he lied in his words, he lied to the faces and hearts of a couple in his district who want the right to marry. For this we will never forgive him, or put trust and faith in a politician merely by their words. Shame on you Senator Jim Beach, shame.

---

by: RichieNJ @ Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 14:02:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Too little, too late (4.00 / 1)

Is it just a coincidence that this announcement is made one week before Garden State Equality plans a rally and march in the 15th District?

If Senator Turner and Assemblyman Gusciora wish another "round of equality talk" let them join GSE in Trenton on Monday 22 in Trenton.  

"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die." - Sen. Ted Kennedy

---

by: Bill Orr @ Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 00:22:00 AM UTC

Dialogue? Resolution? Where's the beef? (4.00 / 3)

I'm not sure what kind of true dialogue Senator Turner had with Progressives and moderates regarding enabling same gender adults to enter into a civil marriage contract!

A Resolution in favor of repealing DADT has little meaning ... perhaps legislation to actually give LGBT  members of the NJ National Guard protections against DADT as the California legislature did a couple of years ago might have more meaning.

A resolution in favor of ENDA might be appropriate since NJ has had success with the LAD and ENDA is about jobs and we'd like some real bi-partisan support for that


"Discrimination caused by ignorance and fear is a tax on human progress" - Barbra Casbar Siperstein

---

by: Babs NJSD @ Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 00:53:07 AM UTC

Identity? (4.00 / 1)

Ok, I'm confused.  Is FlamingModerate the alias for Assemblyman Gusciora?

Or was this a repost of a press release?

---

by: princetonblue @ Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 02:08:44 AM UTC

Flaming Moderate = Asm Reed Gusciora (0.00 / 0)

Yes, I am confirming that the poster Flaming Moderate and the Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (NJ-15) are one in the same.

We don't out (as it were) anonymous users here, but the Assemblyman did indeed want Flaming Moderate's identity known. Sorry it took me several hours to answer this question; I just wanted to make sure Reed did this on purpose instead of by accident.

And hell yes, Flaming Moderate is absolutely one of the funniest anonymous names at Blue Jersey, considering the source.

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 Feb 15, 2010 at 07:28:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

These things are not equivalent. (4.00 / 3)

And a vote to support the repeal of DADT, particularly since the President was clearly already providing the leadership (and thus the cover) doesn't make this problem she's created for herself go away.

And though I'm happy she took that stand, you don't get to redeem that vote with this one.  

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 Feb 15, 2010 at 03:23:10 AM UTC

So Senator Turner thinks it is OK for Gay and Lesbians ..... (4.00 / 1)

to fight and possibly die in defense of the nation, but it would upset the domestic tranquility to allow them to marry the partner of their choice.  Perhaps someone can explain the logic of that position, but to me it seems to be the worst sort of pandering.  

---

by: FormerBureaucrat @ Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 04:29:45 AM UTC

It's Not Sour Grapes, Reed (4.00 / 1)

If I recall correctly, Sen. Turner's reason for voting against the marriage equality bill was, "I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman".  This smacks of a vote based on her personal or religious beliefs, not one based on her political beliefs on which she was elected.

Be that as it may, the issue is dead with el Grande in office as Governor.  Further, the Dems will have their hands full fighting el Grande's takeover of legislative responsibilities.

While I appreciate your introduction of the resolution to rescind DADT with Sen. Turner's support, I see nothing from her that has changed in regard to the issue with which I am concerned; marriage equality in NJ.

As a constituent of both of you, I cannot support Sen. Turner.  This would be true if I was NOT concerned about marriage equality; I would not be able to support any politician who allowed their personal and/or religious views to interfere with their political duties.

---

by: parnell44 @ Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 11:06:57 AM UTC

Turner's record (4.00 / 1)

P.s. she voted against Paid Family Leave in NJ too.  

activist for hire.

---

by: Jay Lassiter @ Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 13:04:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lousy Record (4.00 / 1)

That stinks!  Why not be a republican?

---

by: parnell44 @ Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 14:10:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not buying it (4.00 / 1)

The senator had an opportunity to vote on a matter of substance having a direct bearing on the interests of lesbian and gay New Jerseyans and their families and chose to vote no. She then has an opportunity to vote on a largely symbolic matter which is not in the hands of the New Jersey state legislature and votes yes. Since we're using a fruit metaphor, let's just say that comparing the two is a matter of apples and oranges. With all due respect to the Assemblyman, whom I admire, this gay man isn't so naive as to think this DADT gesture in any way addresses the inequality my partner and I continue to have to deal with every single day, thanks to people like Senator Turner.

---

by: Alex @ Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 13:14:59 PM UTC

Be content with what you have! (0.00 / 0)

Shirley wants you to be content with your "separate but equal" status.  I'll bet she wouldn't want to go back to that for herself.  How about we start a "separate but equal" movement throughout NJ based on the old Jim Crow laws?  I can see it now...bathrooms, drinking fountains, restaurants, public seating, etc.  

---

by: parnell44 @ Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 14:16:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Is there really a point to this? (0.00 / 0)

If conversations like the one Reed started here are for the purpose of understand the playing field so we gauge things better, and can be more strategic down the line, I'm all for them.

But I'm way less interested in dissecting this if the point is to acknowledge people who favored different strategy.  

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 Feb 15, 2010 at 18:05:23 PM UTC

or (0.00 / 0)

if those elected officials like Reed "post and run" - talking down to the community and not even coming back to answer any legitimate replies, questions, comments or concerns.

It is nice that our elected officials read and post here, but it is a 2 way street - if one is to post without comment, then that really isn't dialogue and certainly isn't productive.

Sen. Weinberg and Congressman Pallone are 2 perfect examples on how interaction SHOULD work.

Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.

---

by: Adam L @ Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 20:35:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reed's point (0.00 / 0)

Once again, I am probably out of line for trying to discern why someone else has written a diary, but in my opinion, this is much less about advocacy for the repeal of DADT, which may not even make it to the floor of the Assembly and Senate for a vote much less Christie's desk for a veto, as much as it is about trying to absolve Senator Turner for her marriage equality vote, and with regards to that, he is wasting his and our time.

Otherwise, I don't get the sense that there is anything educational or strategic going on here.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 14:25:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is very disappointing, Reed (0.00 / 0)

As the first elected official in the state to endorse Howard Dean's Presidential campaign, I had always held you up as the standard-bearer for progressivism in the State Assembly, and when Senator Turner voted no on marriage equality, I hoped that you would be the one to stand up and make her pay for that vote by challenging her in the 2011 primary.

You can call yourself whatever you want, Reed, but whether you are a progressive, moderate, or any other label you want to choose, by providing political cover for Senator Turner, who along with Senator Rice, I call the George Wallaces of marriage equality, in my opinion you are nothing more or less than a disappointment.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 21:10:34 PM UTC

Indeed one should not "post and run". So here goes.. (0.00 / 0)

I get the anger everyone has, especially when you'all wanted to gamble on going through the legislature and not go back through the courts as I suggested 2 years ago. We also need to realize we can't change the past.  What can be done however, is the LGBT lobbying effort (uncoordinated from the start) can take a good look at what was done.  

Do you really think the protest at member's homes or at their children's ballet recitals helped our cause (not to mention coincidentally on the same night AND fair or not, identified with the same group based on phone calls that were made organizing the pickets)?

Did it ever occur to anyone we should rather be focused on the 10 supposed pledged senate members that were going to vote for marriage equality (although this list seems strangely in the classification of soviet space secrets -- still) but never materialized? Why not just publish the list??

As someone who understands a little about the legislature and what Members said in caucus about the lobbying efforts (or better yet, what do you think Members of the legislature thought of the tactics?  The expected reply, "who cares," is exactly my point in this exercise)  I am merely suggesting an alternative course.  By all means shoot the messenger as well as the only gay serving Member of the legislature.    

At some point we have to find common ground with those that have disagreed with us in the past.  Otherwise, we'll stay at minority status for quite some time. Of course the cause will never die, nor the fundraising needs therewith.   Reed

PS. thanks Rosi for the opportunity to post.  I'm proud to be a contributor to the bluejersey cause.

---

by: FlamingModerate @ Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 03:18:09 AM UTC

who are the "you'all" that you are referring to, Reed? (4.00 / 1)

Since I am not gay, I may be disqualified from having an opinion about how people who are gay should feel about a particular issue that pertains to them exclusively or how they fight their political battles, but this is one battle that I have been fighting wholeheartedly since Bill Clinton lobbied for the passage of and signed DOMA, so while I may not have the right to feel like I have a stake in the outcome of this battle, I do nevertheless.

Reading your most recent comment, Reed, I can't help but feel, once again, disappointed in the position that you are taking here.  The only people who could disappoint me more at this moment are Howard Dean if he suddenly came out against the public option and Loretta Weinberg if she came out in support of Joe Ferriero's reinstatement as BCDO Chairman.

You say that you suggested two years ago that the marriage equality fight go back to courts, which makes perfect sense.  However, if you felt this way back then, why did you vote for the civil unions bill when it was in the Assembly Judiciary Committee?  

Correct me if I am wrong, but along with your Republican colleagues on the AJC, you could have kept the civil unions bill bottled up in your committee until the six month deadline established by the original State Supreme Court decision had passed at which point, the issue would have returned to the SSC where they would have had to do what they originally did not want to do, which was to provide a name, marriage or otherwise, for the legal construct that would provide same-sex couples with the rights that they had previously been denied.

If I am right about this, then you and only you could have been the man who sent this issue back to the courts where I believe marriage equality would have been established and all of the legislative nonsense of the past few years could have been avoided.  Am I wrong about this?  If so, please educate me.

As far as the lobbying effort is concerned, I think that there is more than enough room for criticism, but in my opinion, the problem is less about those people who went too far as opposed to those people who did not go far enough.  If marriage equality is an issue that truly matters to you, Reed, it is my opinion that as the only gay legislator in Trenton, you should have made it very clear to Senator Turner that if she voted no, you would be challenging her to a primary in 2011.

Not only did you not do that, you are now posting on Blue Jersey in defense of her rather than announcing that you will be challenging her to a primary in 2011. Do you understand how maddening that can be from the point of view of someone, gay or straight, who has been involved in this fight for more than a decade?  At the moment, I think that I am angrier with you than I am with her. Why the hell should any straight person, progressive or otherwise, give a damn about whether or not LGBTs have the right to marry if the only openly gay legislator in Trenton isn't willing to put his political career on the line for it?

I recognize the fact that I don't have a political career to risk like you do, so it is easy for me to say what you should do or should have done and not being gay, I probably don't have the right to tell you what you should do or should have done on this or any other issue of concern to the LGBT community, but that has never stopped me before.

Finally, since I have already crossed over many lines that I probably shouldn't have, I am going to cross over one last one before I am finished.  I understand that all issues regarding LGBT discrimination are important and must be fought and DADT is undoubtably bad public policy and yet one more reason that Bill Clinton should be ashamed of himself and his presidency.  That said, if I was a member of the LGBT community and was treated as badly by my country as you have throughout your history, the last thing that I would be fighting for is the right to die for that country.

Whether they were telling the truth or not, many people were able to dodge the draft and avoid fighting and dying in the Vietnam War because they claimed to be gay.  In my opinion, that was a good thing.  Any reason that any person can give to avoid dying in an unnecessary war is a good thing.

And as much sympathy as I have for the thousands of patriotic men and women who have been dishonorably discharged from the military for being gay, I have a hard time empathizing with them, because I do not understand what the hell they were doing serving in the military in the first place.

It is bad enough that the poorest and least educated amongst us feel that military service represents the best chance that they have at improving their socioeconomic status and are dying as a result, but when your country turns its back on you the way that ours has turned its back on the LGBT community, I think that the DADT battle should be put on hold until the DOMA battle has been fought and won.

In my opinion, Reed, there is no common ground to be found with the 9 Democratic State Senators who voted against marriage equality and the only fundraising that anybody should be doing is for their 2011 primary election opponents.  If you are not going to be one of those primary challengers, so be it, but there is a saying that is applicable to this situation and it is LEAD, FOLLOW, OR GET OUT OF THE WAY!!!!!  As a defender of Senator Turner, right now, you are most definitely in the way.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 06:16:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reed (0.00 / 0)

PS. thanks Rosi for the opportunity to post.  I'm proud to be a contributor to the bluejersey cause.

You're very welcome. In both senses of that word. And come back here more often. This is an interesting conversation you provoked, though I think you & disagree on some of the fundamentals.
REE

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 @ Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 08:01:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

why is he thanking you, Rosi? (0.00 / 0)

isn't anyone welcome to contribute here or is there a new gatekeeping rule i didn't hear about?

activist for hire.

---

by: Jay Lassiter @ Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 15:26:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jay (0.00 / 0)

Yes, you're right, we take pains to make this site open-source. I think Reed was being polite, so I was just returning that in kind.  

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 @ Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 18:47:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

which fundamentals? (0.00 / 0)

I am sure that I am not the only person here who would love it if you would elaborate on the fundamental disagreements that you have with Reed.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 16:03:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

On the fundamentals (4.00 / 1)

I think Reed had the opportunity to be Loretta Weinberg, Ray Lesniak and Bill Baroni rolled into one, if he had done in the Assembly what  they did in the Senate. He's fiercely intelligent, and could have argued its case like no other person on the inside; he is gay and opening marriage could change his life someday.

I would have welcomed him as the voice of this issue here on this blog. Likewise, I'd have been so pleased if for example he offered to be its voice with our activist groups who were not organized for gay rights issues, like DFA.

I am personally the tiniest cog in a machine of action on this issue that carries far more names (and hearts) than mine, so I don't want to take a lecturing tone - particularly on this - with a seated member of the Assembly who I respect more than you know. And let's not forget that legislation on this issue carried his name, too - and that is significant.

But like I said earlier, this conversation interests me less if it goes toward "I told you so" or "Look at the good things people who voted no have done" and interests me more if we're working together to get this done. By any means necessary.

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 @ Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 19:09:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

ok.....couple of things (0.00 / 0)

glad you came back to comment and respond, thanks much for that.

I have nothing personally in this fight - my (female) wife and I have been married for 4 years and nobody in my family is impacted by the discrimination against same sex couples.

But not just because I have friends who are personally impacted -- also because this is a basic equality issue -- it is one that I fight for.

There is plenty of blame to go around and plenty of disagreement on tactics or routes that could have/should have been taken.  Or votes that were initially promised as well.

But if I may, what active role did you - the only gay serving member of the Legislature - take?  Being "on the inside", why was there not a push from you in the Assembly like there was from Senators Weinberg and Lesniak?  

Why was there no coordination or postings here at Blue Jersey at the time?  

Merely suggesting an "alternative course" amid a number of "I told you so" posts - without taking a visible lead doesn't really do much to show that this is much more than covering for Senator Turner and an "I told you so".

I hope you will answer.

Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.

---

by: Adam L @ Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 15:03:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"what Members said in caucus" (0.00 / 0)

Let me guess.

J Edgar Hoover was gay, so why should I care if he and Clyde Tolson have the right to get married?

Why the hell do the gays want to get married?  So they can cheat on their spouses like we do?

I was never able to choose to be black or not, but the gays can choose to be gay or not and not being allowed to get married is the consequence of that choice. Heck, if 10% of people were gay, then 10% of slaveowners were probably gay back in the day, so why should I help them.

Garden State Equality has only raised a half million dollars for candidates in NJ.  Who the hell do they think they are?  You don't even get listened to for less than a million in this state and you don't get heard for less than five million.  Equality?!  That will cost you ten million.

My priest won't give my weekly cracker and juice fix if I vote for the gays and I won't give up my weekly cracker and juice fix for anything.

If I vote for marriage equality, my fellow parishoners will think that I am gay and there have already been way too many whispers behind my back about that already.

I don't give a f**king damn about the f**king butt pirates and the f**king rug munchers and whether they want to get married or not.  They can go f**k themselves, which is what they are already doing, for all I care.

Steve Sweeney will give me a spanking if I don't vote his way, and as much as I might like that sort of thing, his spankings are way too rough.  George Norcross has a much more gentle touch.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 16:00:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As a veteran (4.00 / 1)

I fully support the repeal of DADT.  It has been an utter failure, no matter how one wants to gauge its efficacy.  But I doubt this resolution, even if adopted unanimously, will ever make any difference whatsoever.  You might as well introduce a resolution urging Congress to eat blueberry pancakes on alternate Fridays.  There was an opportunity for Turner to make a difference, and she decided she really didn't care to do that.

I'll support Reed no matter what office he runs for.  I'll not support Shirley Turner for anything.  You can't blame it on the constituency when they represent the same people.  It's purely a personal choice, and I don't agree with her choice, so she doesn't get my money or support.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 17:49:21 PM UTC

can i get an amen? n/t (0.00 / 0)

activist for hire.

---

by: Jay Lassiter @ Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 18:46:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You Got One! (0.00 / 0)

AMEN!!!  I agree; Turner put her personal/religious beliefs before her duty as a Democratic Senator.  Her yes vote would not have hurt her politically, but it would have hurt her in her church.  She failed to leave her religion at the door.  Next thing, she will be supporting teaching Creationism or some such nonsense, because her church believes it.  Time to retire, Ms. Turner.

---

by: parnell44 @ Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 23:13:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]