Civil Union Bill Clears Judiciary Committee

Expectations (0.00 / 0)

Expectations on this have been unrealistic from the beginning.  I find it interesting that no one has asked what happened to Brian Stack who was supposed to be a co-sponsor of Reed's bill?  You can attack Weinberg, but she was the only senator to even say that she was in favor of gay marriage today.

If there are gay legislators who vote against civil unions, they should be outed for being hypocrites.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 22:18:11 PM UTC

unrealistic? (0.00 / 0)

A governor who has stated in the past he supports marriage equality. Joe Roberts who has said the same, and Dick Codey acknowledging that it is inevitable. Just months ago polls showed the majority of the state favored marriage equality (so I don't want to hear that we're not "ready" for it). Is there ANYWHERE with more favorable conditions for it than here? The problem isn't expectations from our end, it's lack of leadership from those in power.

Even for their own purely selfish reasons, you'd think these guys would want to be on the right side of history. It blows my mind.

Why not direct your shock at their direction instead of ours? Which side isn't doing their job?

---

by: Juan Melli @ Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 22:39:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lack of leadership (0.00 / 0)

It just amazes me.  They rush through an error riddled civil union bill in 3 days, yet work for 6 months on a reform package which everyone knew what the legislators were suggesting, and the governor sends a letter the day before they are going to present the bill saying he doesn't want them to do it?  What the hell is going on up there?

Regarding the issue of Marriage Equality, this blog has kept its focus on explaining to people what the difference is between marriage and civil unions.  I don't know what Trenton is focused on except for keeping their jobs.  Ironic that they're trying so hard to keep their job, they aren't really doing their job.

---

by: Jason Springer @ Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 23:17:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Isn't it silly... (4.00 / 1)

They have the guts not to do anything about pay to play and a whole host of corruption issues. But somehow, they're afraid that bible thumping voters will remove them from office over gay marriage, in NJ?!?? It's truly amazing what these guys get away with and continue to be re-elected, but gay marriage is the show stopper? I don't get it at all.
Maybe I just don't understand NJ, they can probably give themselves 100% raises and no one bats an eye, but touch gay marriage or support a bear hunt and they run for cover.
 

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 03:34:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So help me (0.00 / 0)

out with this.  I'm reading threads and comments here and not much is making sense. Of course not much in Jersey seems to make sense.

And forgive me, I'm new to state politics here.

Steve Goldstein, Blue Jersey, et. al. are doing a great job. But we/you can't be everywhere.

So Freddy Caraballo says they can't get the votes.  Why can't they get the votes?

Is Cody the main impediment? Corzine? Other so-called state legislative leaders? Who?

Is it because our dear leaders rushed through the legislation?  Why was it rushed through?  I know they wanted it out of the way, but couldn't it have simmered for a month or so to get some good grassroots and legislative lobbying in?

I'm beginning to get the process of Jersey legislation, but perhaps not the power figures involved.  Maybe I'm missing something; maybe I'm missing a lot.

The head explodes.

---

by: SmartyJones @ Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 23:22:38 PM UTC

Its all about Elections (0.00 / 0)

The whole legislature is up next year and they don't want this issue simmering.  It seems like they're trying to make it go away and get it off the table.  In terms of why people won't support it, some are truly against it and others are putting their fingers in the wind trying to figure out how many votes it will help them gain or lose.  If the math showed they would gain more at the ballot box, my guess is they'd have the votes.

---

by: Jason Springer @ Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 23:41:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Discriminatory Legislators (0.00 / 0)

Sounds like the same logic that allowed discrimination against African-Americans in this country for over a century after the Civil War.  For the life of me, I can't understand why the politicians of color in the legislature would want to be on the wrong side of this historical moment.  If anyone should understand this struggle, they should.

-pb

---

by: princetonblue @ Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 23:45:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here Goes (0.00 / 0)

1.  There are polls and there are polls.  The two polls done right after the Harris decision by Eagleton and Quinnipiac showed that support for gay marriage was about 40%.  Even the Quinnipiac poll that came out today showed that support was 44% (perhaps an increase or simply a reflection of the earlier margin of error).  There was a hard middle of about 20% that supported civil unions, but opposed gay marriage.  If gay marriage was ever going to become a reality, that group needed to be persuaded.

2.  There was too much reliance on the Supreme Court.  It was at least as likely as not that the court was not going to do all of the heavy lifting.  Despite repeated notices that a plan was ready in case the Court didn't go all the way, it seemed as though a plan and its execution was a problem.  How many house parties happened?

3.  Regarding the Legislature, anyone who has seen them in action knows that you really have to push to get things done.  I don't know what outreach was done in the long time before Harris came down, but it didn't seem to accomplish much.  Reed Gusciora was the only Assemblyman to come out (in both senses of the word) after Harris.  Loretta Weinberg was saying that the votes simply weren't there.  Brian Stack never sponsored Reed's bill--he has seemed to escape all notice.  Caraballo sponsored the civil unions bill.  What whip count did the LGTBI community have?

4.  Long polemics about how people who aren't throwing themselves in front of the civil union train are either stupid or bigoted wasn't going to convince anyone who wasn't already converted.  Preaching to the choir doesn't accomplish much in church, nor in politics.

5.  Also with outreach, what was done with the Republicans in the Legislature?  Are virtually all of the Republicans going to vote against the civil unions bill in hopes of repeating the Vermont experience?

6.  What is the strategy from here?  I know on the Progressive Caucus Yahoo! group there is a long list of items that LGTBI leaders are hoping to accomplish.  My concern about burning bridges on this unwinnable battle is doing damage to the rest of the agenda.  I guess time will tell on that.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 02:48:43 AM UTC

Re (0.00 / 0)

Creed, you know I have a ton of respect for you, but I think you are running in the wrong direct here.

If you look at today's poll you'll find that the MoE is 2.6%.  That means that the 3% shift towards supporting marriage is a real shift - even if, in the worst case, it is only very slight.  The numbers in opposition to either marriage or civil unions haven't changed at all.  The shift is caused in people moving from undecided to support.  The 3% increase in favor of marriage is mirrored by a 4% increase in favor of civil unions.

If you contrast the results for civil unions with the results on marriage, you find something interesting.  When moving from civil unions to marriage, the opposition number grew by 16% last month and only by 15% this month.  Likewise the support fell by 15% last month and fell by 16% this month.  Again, the movement looks inconsequential and is within the MoE, except that the movement out of the undecided column indicates that some real movement occurred.

Unless you consider "the votes aren't there" as lobbying the public on behalf of civil unions, then there is a definite effect from pushing for marriage - a very real movement of people out of the undecided column.  Even more interesting than that is that ALL of the movement is positive. 

The goal isn't to change the minds of those who support unions but refuse marriage.  In my experience they are as closed-minded as those who oppose any rights at all (not as wrong-headed, but just as likely to not change their mind regardless).  The goal is to reach those who are undecided and convince them to get off the fence and support marriage. Notice that if the trend continues for another 50 days as it has this month (which I grant is unlikely) it will actually be a dead heat on the marriage question.  A shift of 3.5% from the undecided to support puts it within the MoE.

That's hardly an indication of an unwinnable contest.  It's actually much closer than any of the Congressional elections we just finished.  It's only unwinnable if you don't try.

As far as preaching to the choir is concerned - it's actually very helpful.  In fact, all preaching on Sunday morning is, in effect, to the choir.  Only those who are dedicated enough to come to church hear the sermon.  In politics, it's called "reaching out to your base" and it is where the vast majority of your donors and volunteers come from.  In church, it's called "uplifting the hearts of the saints".  That is a large part of why I get myself out the door on Sundays.

As for Republicans - 70% of those polled oppose marriage and 49% oppose civil unions.  I can think of better ways to spend energy than trying to convince someone that those numbers won't hurt them at election time. 

Burning bridges?  It's possible.  But that goes both ways.  52% of Democrats support marriage.  Our majority simply isn't strong enough to withstand either side sitting on their rears and sucking their thumbs because they don't like where the other side is on the issue of marriage equality. 

I'm sure hard feelings will exist - and they should.  When you tell someone they cannot enjoy a basic right of society, you should expect them to hold it against you (not you in particular, just my way of speaking).  It is beyond me why anyone would think otherwise.  On many other issues, most, in fact, there is room for moderation on all sides.  On this issue, there simply isn't. 

If anyone can give me a legitimate reason for "the votes aren't there" (translation: we're too gutless to stand for what the majority of our party wants) that doesn't go back to "God hates fags", then I'll be willing to listen to their reasoning.  But "the votes aren't there" is the same thing as "we aren't ready", and that means "I don't want those people to get married".

I've let people know where I stand and why.  I believe my reasoning to be sound and built upon a foundation of logic and supported by my personal faith in what is morally right.  I've heard opponents of civil unions also build their arguments from a position of logic and faith.  What I haven't heard is anyone who supports civil unions but not marriage come up with a sound logical reason for it.  Nor have I heard them base their arguments on any sort of personal conviction or faith.  In short, they appear, from all sides, to have compromised their reasoning skills and to have shielded themselves from the guidance of any personal ethical stance.

I'm more than willing to be proven wrong on all of this.  Anyone who feels up to it should take a shot.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 09:23:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Perspective (0.00 / 0)

The people were ahead of their elected representatives on giving women the vote and extending civil rights to African-Americans, Latinos and other people of color.  It is unrealistic to expect legislators to be ahead of the people.  We can debate the polling numbers, but the fact is that the two most reputable public polls in New Jersey showed a negative view of gay marriage.

I inquired of Eagleton and Quinnipiac when the post-Harris polls came out about the middle group.  Quinnipiac gave some crosstabs, but while they were slightly more Catholic than the total population there wasn't much difference.  But, that group of 20% which is supportive of equal rights in general, but opposed to gay marriage specifically is the group that needed to be persuaded.  That is probably the group in most states that gives the marriage amendments their margin of victory because the pro-MA people say that is the only way to prevent gay marriage.

My point about preaching to the choir was that simply convincing those who already agree with you (again the broad you, not you Thurman) was a losing strategy.  It may feel good because you are guaranteed affirmation of your views, but you aren't convincing the people you need to persuade.

There has been a lot of tumult over all of this, but for example, if you are trying to convince the broad middle that you are correct, then why wouldn't the financial muscle of the LGTBI community have gone into putting the "Think Equal" commercials on cable or even network TV?  It really seemed from the very beginning that the leadership put all of its eggs into the Harris case and then pilloried those of us who pointed out the strong probability that the Court wasn't simply going to impose gay marriage.  If six weeks after the Harris decision, you can get only four co-sponsors on the gay marriage bill in the Assembly and no one to introduce a bill in the Senate, then either a) there wasn't a real political strategy, b) the strategy was executed extremely poorly or c) it was never winnable from the beginning.  I am inclined to believe c) which also leads to a).

The commission does build ground for a future discussion of the issue.  It is a shame that there was no inclusion of a recognition of marriages in other states, so the couple that moved from Massachusetts could be told that they were married instead of Greenstein saying that she didn't know.  This is the type of incremental change that gets sacrificed in an "all or nothing" strategy.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 14:58:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re (4.00 / 1)

I'd say that those who oppose marriage but support marriage are simply unpersuadable.  They've obviously put some sort of thought into the issue to arrive at that conclusion.  The lack of support in the Assembly and Senate is telling - these people don't actually give a damn about equality, they were simply saying they supported it when they thought the Court was going to impose it because they thought it would get votes.  Now when push comes to shove, they are hiding behind "not enough votes".  The plane fact of the matter is that they simply aren't going to lead and they aren't going to let anyone else out of the box to do so either.

So appealing to the "broad middle" 20% is nothing but a recipe for frustration and defeat.  You might as well work on getting those who think gays should be shot on sight to support civil unions.

When 4% of the population has moved from undecided to supporting marriage, I don't think you can characterize that as "preaching to the choir".  It simply isn't true.  The fact is that, even without the resources (and I'll agree that it would have been nice to have a better planned and/or executed strategy), the push for marriage has had an effect.  When there has been no movement of the opposition to gay marriage, I think you have exactly what I've summed up - those who outright oppose marriage, regardless of their stance on civil unions, are simply not going to change their minds.

I'd also point out that the "Think Equal" ads are entirely a project of Blue Jersey (and actually they are a project of a subset of BJ front-pagers).  I can't explain why other groups haven't done the same - except that it would cost a lot more money to put it on TV than it does for us to host it ourselves.

Incrementalism doesn't work because people aim at small changes.  Incrementalism works because pushing big changes forces people to accept smaller changes they would otherwise be unwilling to accept.  The only people who are ever truly satisfied with incrementalism are those who don't really want to change anyway.  It allows them to say, "Look how bad it could have been.  Thank God I was there to compromise!"

You run a marathon one step at a time - but you don't set a goal of taking one step at a time.  You set the goal of finishing and, if you have to, you set shorter goals en route to the larger one.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 23:15:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

FYI... (0.00 / 0)

Brian Stack is now listed as a cosponsor of A3685.

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 00:12:00 AM UTC