| During a phone call organized by Garden State Equality two weeks ago in which over 100 activists participated, Jon Corzine said that "if gay couples win the lawsuit in New Jersey, there will be marriage equality in New Jersey, and the world will have to live with it." Steven Goldstein was co-manager for Corzine's 2000 Senate campaign and says that Corzine understood the difference between civil unions and marriage equality and supported marriage equality.
But according to the New York Times it seems he may have changed his tune: "But Mr. Corzine said on Thursday afternoon in an interview that he had "advocated on a consistent basis for civil unions." He said that he would sign a bill allowing gay marriage, but "it's not my preference."
...
A review of a dozens of newspaper articles about Mr. Corzine's Senate campaign in 2000 turned up 10 that stated flatly he supported gay marriage. He is not quoted directly, however; he is simply described as supporting gay marriage during debates and on the campaign trail. Other articles from 2000 cite Mr. Corzine’s support for civil unions.
...
"It seems that some folks are confusing his opposition to a federal amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage with support for gay marriage," [Corzine spokesman Anthony] Coley said. "The two are not the same. During his run for the Senate in 2000, Jon Corzine was for civil unions, and that remains his preference today." Let's see...New York Times, May 21, 2000
SECTION: Section 14NJ; Page 2; Column 5; New Jersey Weekly Desk
HEADLINE: Gay Voters May See Daylight With Florio Running to Right
BYLINE: By David M. Halbfinger; David M. Halbfinger is Trenton bureau chief for The New York Times.
DATELINE: TRENTON
And last Tuesday night, in their third debate, Mr. Florio pointedly said that he opposed gay marriages.
"This is one of those issues on which Jon and I disagree directly," he said, in response to a question from an audience member at a synagogue in Livingston. "Maybe it's generational, or whatever it happens to be, I just do not think that marriage is able to be certified between two people of the same sex."
....
In truth, the gap between Mr. Florio and Mr. Corzine on gay marriage is so subtle as to sound indistinguishable. In essence, Mr. Florio supports private contracts that would extend the legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. He just would not permit the state to grant two men or two women a marriage license. Mr. Corzine would go that extra but, in some eyes, inconsequential step." Nope. Nothing about a constitutional amendment there. In fact the New York Times went into great detail to explain the differences between the two candidates. Florio supported the rights of marriage but not the word "marriage" while Corzine supported the rights of marriage and the word "marriage". It's pretty straightforward, and if Corzine's position was the same as it is now, he and Florio would have been in complete agreement, and there would have been no need for such a detailed deliniation of their differences.
It's hard to know exactly what's going on here...or maybe not. Politicians frequently get pushed around by advisors and consultants who think they know better. Even those with strong convictions can be swayed by predictions of gloom and doom. Frequently, the advice comes from those who don't understand the power of leadership, think politics is a zero sum game, and clumsily project their DC conventional wisdom onto New Jersey. We've seen examples of that at all levels recently here in New Jersey.
On the other hand, maybe Steven Goldstein is lying, and maybe I and everyone else misheard Corzine during that call, and all the reporters misunderstood Corzine's position over a span of several months back in 2000, and Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia. |
