Katz Claws Corzine Over Marriage Equality

Baroni (0.00 / 0)

Since GSE and Katz couldn't endorse Baroni fast enough, I am assuming that he is going to sponsor a ME bill???

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 23:07:12 PM UTC

I take exception... (4.00 / 1)

You are a much better writer than Katz.

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

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 00:09:34 AM UTC

I agree. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:49:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your swete (0.00 / 0)

:-)

---

by: huntsu @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 13:22:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

CWA and Katz continue to embarrass (0.00 / 0)

Maybe it is time for Ms. Katz and the rest of the inept CWA leadership to concentrate on Union matters.

This group has been so full of themselves with the media attention they attained at last years budget and contract talks that they have forgotten that their Marx Brothers antics have done nothing more than embarrass their membership and alienate the average taxpayer.

It was their failure to negotiate the day after Thanksgiving as a day off that has caused them to make a scapegoat out of the Governor to coverup their screwup. One Local President,Wade of  1040 even sent out a letter to her members stating that it was not her fault that the membership would be working after thanksgiving, it was Corzine's!

Katz and the rest of this lightweight group should go back to the sidelines and concentrate on the needs of the membership.

CWA , which in political circles is beginning to stand for Can't Win Anything , were on the wrong side of quite a few important election battles last week and have alienated some key Democratic leaders is seeing the Unions political clout sliding while its Leadership is fighting about e-mails and days off.

This failure to attend to their main job has hurt the already tarnished image of the state workforce.

Katz might have some important things to say about ME, but as a Union Official who represents a lot of people it would behoove her to stop making enemies, especially the Governor!

---

by: firstamend07 @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 02:03:56 AM UTC

Re: (4.00 / 4)

Marriage equality - and the benefits and security it will ensure for committed couples - is an issue that affects union members, too. The old way of fighting single-issue campaigns doesn't work. Instead of focusing on individual 'pet issues', progressives should build broader alliances and work collectively to move a progressive agenda forward.

Katz understands that this isn't a "gay" issue - it's a civil rights issue - and everyone should be concerned about it.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 02:17:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, but... (0.00 / 0)

"Instead of focusing on individual 'pet issues', progressives should build broader alliances and work collectively to move a progressive agenda forward."

The two problems that arise are that the definition of "broader issues" seems to depend on whose doing the defining and that the GLBT community is insisting on immediate action on THEIR "broad issue" despite public support not being present.  Get Baroni to sponsor a bill.  Things will move.  When he doesn't maybe we'll finally see a "hearts and minds" strategy that doesn't just preach to the converted.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:48:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wow, where do I start... (0.00 / 0)

The two problems that arise are that the definition of "broader issues" seems to depend on whose doing the defining and that the GLBT community is insisting on immediate action on THEIR "broad issue" despite public support not being present.

First of all, nobody said that marriage equality is a "broad issue".  Second, when the state systematically denies a class of people their civil rights, that's not a "gay issue", a "black issue" or a "woman issue"; it's a civil rights issue.  Go read Letter from Birmingham Jail again, and pay special attention to the part about the "white moderate".  Third, to assert that there is not public support for marriage equality is absurd.  Marriage equality has recieved either plurality or majority support in every recent poll conducted on the issue.

Get Baroni to sponsor a bill.  Things will move.

It's utterly ridiculous to assert that a Freshman member of the minority can, simply by cosponsoring a bill, get it to the floor for a vote and get it passed.  Bill Baroni wishes he had that kind of power.

When he doesn't maybe we'll finally see a "hearts and minds" strategy that doesn't just preach to the converted.

Preaching to the converted.  I guess that's how Garden State Equality got gender identity included in New Jersey antidiscrimination laws with unprecedented majorities in the Assembly and Senate.

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:42:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

kill the straw man (0.00 / 0)

Very good job of refuting the arguments that I didn't make.

I am not the one who tried to position marriage equality as a broader issue that is an integral part of the "progressive agenda."

I don't know what polls YOU are looking at.  There aren't (certainly any reputable) polls that show a majority support for marriage equality.  I would imagine that there is a lot more support for paid family leave, but we don't talk about that much on this blog.  Any guess about which one is closer to being adopted (but is still going to need a push because of business opposition) and will affect many, many more people?

I bring up Baroni because Katz and GSE couldn't endorse him fast enough, yet it is everyone else's fault that ME isn't moving at a satisfactory pace.  I am still curious to hear what the "strategy" is.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 14:02:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Straw man? (0.00 / 0)

You have a lot of nerve, my friend, accusing me of debating a straw man when you just put something in quotes that nobody actually said.  Juan talked about "broad alliances" not "broad issues".  You bring "broad alliances" behind you on many "narrow issues" while you advance the "progessive agenda".  Got it?

Oh, by the way, I'M looking at THESE polls.

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 14:33:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

THOSE polls (0.00 / 0)

are New Jersey polls. Unfortunately, we in New Jersey can't vote in Ohio.

Several months ago in a similar conversation, Steve Goldstein said, "I can't speak for other states, but in New Jersey, I respectfully submit to you that you're wrong." And I will say here and now that in retrospect, I think he was right and I was wrong. In New Jersey.

But the governor's pragmatic statement was made in the context of a national Presidential election. And if Carla Katz's rhetorical question about how he thought the marriage equality issue would play in the '09 Assembly election wasn't a straw man on her part, it certainly demonstrated the same kind of mistaken view of the New Jersey voter that Steve Goldstein corrected me on.

However, New Jersey isn't the rest of the country. Don't think that a push for gay marriage in New Jersey couldn't or wouldn't be used as Republican fodder in the '08 Presidential election in swing states like Ohio. Just look at how Hillary's own fellow Democrats used Governor Spitzer's decision to issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants as bludgeon in the recent debates, forcing to give an opinion on something that wasn't even her decision.

At least concede that much.

---

by: EWO @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 20:55:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: (4.00 / 3)

It won't make any difference whether there is a push for marriage equality or not. The radical right does not distinguish between civil unions and marriage. When New Jersey passed civil unions, they were claiming that we were allowing gays to marry and it was an abomination and the sky would fall.

In their eyes, gays don't deserve legal recognition and they will scream about gays destroying families regardless of when we decide to end this form of state-sanctioned discrimination.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 21:10:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

An easier sell: (0.00 / 0)

The hard radical right may not distinguish between marriage and civil unions at their supper tables, but in the fight for the less radical swing voter, they know as well as you that the word "marriage" has greater emotive impact. It makes their wedge issue a much easier sell.

---

by: EWO @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 21:38:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't buy it (0.00 / 0)

If we have marriage equality in NJ, they will scream that we're allowing gays to marry. If we don't, they will scream that we want to/will allow gays to marry, or that we already do anyway. Expecting the gay hating and scapegoating to diminish because we're not pushing forward with marriage is like expecting John Kerry to not be smeared as a traitor because he served in Vietnam.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 21:59:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

take this Presidency and shove it (0.00 / 0)

If the Democratic Party and its Presidential candidate cannot win in 2008 because New Jersey did the right thing and passed marriage equality legislation, then they don't deserve to govern and the American people do not deserve to be governed well.

People should also recognize that when Jon Corzine is talking about taking this issue up in 2009, what he is saying is that it will be taken up during the lame duck session, following the 2009 gubernatorial and Assembly elections, which means that same-sex couples will have to wait at least two years for marriage equality.

How many families will be irreparably harmed during the next two years because of the inequalities inherent in the status quo?  I don't want to know and Jon Corzine shouldn't make us wait and find out.

That said, Creed is right about one thing.  Bill Baroni should earn his endorsements and he should co-author, along with Loretta Weinberg, a marriage equality bill and get it passed before February 5 so that both Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates will have no choice but to weigh in on this issue before New Jerseyans vote.

And while it remains to be seen whether the Republican Party chooses Rudy Giuliani as its Presidential nominee or not, if they do, the lone upside is that wedge issues like abortion and marriage equality will most likely be put on the back burner by Giuliani's nouns, verbs, and 9/11 references.

And what is wrong with Hillary Clinton being forced to express a clear opinion on any issue, especially when you consider the lengths that she has gone to date to avoid doing just that?

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 23:20:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for shoving it... (0.00 / 0)

...from all the people who will needlessly die in 2009 under another Republican Presidency.

By the way, anybody here for Obama? He's already weighed in on this issue from three different standpoints. I agree with him on two: it's always been a matter for the states; and it shouldn't be an issue in federal elections.

---

by: EWO @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 01:24:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

federal issue (0.00 / 0)

As long as DOMA is on the books and Republicans try to pass constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, this is and should be a question that Democratic candidates for President, as well as the House and Senate are required to answer.

And while it is unfortunate that not a single Presidential candidate with at least a remote chance of winning the Democratic nomination is an advocate of marriage equality, there is still something to be learned from how this question is answered.

And as good as any of the Democratic Presidential candidates might be, it is unfortunately very likely that many if not most of the people who will needlessly die in 2009 will do so under either a Democratic or Republican President.  The real question is how many will needlessly die in 2010, 2011, and so on.

Of course, this will be less under a Democratic Presidency than it will be under a Republican Presidency, but the idea that a same-sex couple in NJ should have to wait two years for equality so that a Democrat can become President in 2009 is the kind of thinking that led to Democratic failures in 2000, 2002, and 2004.

Democrats don't need to make same sex couples in NJ wait for marriage equality until late 2009 to win elections in 2008 and 2009.  In fact, passing marriage equality in NJ in 2007 could set a trap for Republicans that would lead to huge Democratic victories in 2008 and 2009 if Republicans decide to talk about gay marriage when the voters want to hear about security both from terrorism and their own personal (and this country's) financial collapse.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 14:00:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"However, New Jersey isn't the rest of the country." (4.00 / 1)

No kidding.  And Jon Corzine isn't governor of the rest of the country either.

Oh, and we shouldn't stop asking the Democratic candidates hard questions because they might not want to answer them. 

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 03:01:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

NJ Polling (0.00 / 0)

I do get it.  It is obvious that you don't.

Eagleton just did a poll (check their website!) that had a 48-45 split in favor of gay marriage (which is a tie considering the margin of error) and 47-44 in FAVOR of the Federal Marriage Amendment (which is also a tie considering the margin of error).  You don't get a mandate for anything out of that!

Anyone who actually passed Poli Sci 101 knows that the most unstable coalition is made up of many diverse narrow interests.  You work from the broad to get the space to accomplish the narrow.

Katz doesn't say one word about Baroni even though she gave him an immediate endorsement EVEN BEFORE she knew who was going to run on the Democratic ticket!  The same is true for Steven and GSE.

Sen. Weinberg makes Steve Sweeney the Majority Leader even though he has publicly said that civil unions was more than enough.  In deference to Scott, I won't put that in quotes because it may not be exact, but it is the gist of his views.

However, Sweeney is also in favor of paid family leave which is a quality of life issue that will actually affect many more people than marriage equality will.  Yet, there has been little discussion of that.

People did not suddenly have an epiphany and recognize that blacks were people too and deserved the same human rights as everyone else.  The same is true for women's suffrage and economic opportunity.  It took a lot of effort to change hearts and minds.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 04:49:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

this is not an either/or situation (0.00 / 0)

Progressives can and should fight for both marriage equality and paid family leave.  They should also be fighting for single payer national health insurance.  As I have said before, there is a very long laundry list of issues that progressives should be fighting for.

As far as Loretta Weinberg's choices for Majority Leader goes, who were her choices?  Steve Sweeney and Paul Sarlo, who is just as bad on LGBT issues as Sweeney, if not worse.  And considering her ongoing battle with Bergen County Bossman Joe Ferriero, it was unlikely that she was going to support the grinning lackey of her arch-nemesis.

Of course, she could have been a gadfly like myself or Creed, ran for Majority Leader, lost badly, embarrassed herself, and burned a lot of bridges in the process.  But she didn't do that.  She voted for the lesser of two evils and hopefully made some allies in South Jersey in the process.  Who knows?  She might have won a few votes for marriage equality from Sweeney and others who might have otherwise been disinclined to support her on this issue.

It is because Loretta is as savvy and smart as she is that she is able to be as liberal as she is and as effective as she is at the same time.  She knows how to play this game as well as anybody in the state.

But Creed is right that there hasn't been enough discussion about paid family leave here.  But maybe if Creed spent half or more of the time that he spends attacking people like Steven, Babs, and myself for actively supporting marriage equality on advocating for paid family leave, there would be a lot more discussion about this extremely important issue.

I know that I have said that research isn't my thing, but if anybody wants me to, I can go back and catalogue all of the comments and diaries that Creed has written where he expresses a negative opinion about marriage equality and the activists who support it and all of the comments and diaries that Creed has written where he advocates for paid family leave.

Without doing this research, I am going to guesstimate that the ratio comes out to about 100-1 on the anti-marriage equality side.  Does anybody want to bet the over/under?  I think that my initial estimate  might be somewhat conservative.

Finally, I think or would like to believe at the very least that the successful efforts on behalf of African-Americans and women to achieve equality in this country succeeded at the same time in establishing the concept that hopefully most people grasp by now, which is that all people are equal, making it unnecessary for any group to have to fight for over a century to achieve what these groups have achieved.

This does not mean this fight isn't going to require effort, but it isn't as much of a battle for the hearts and minds of your average New Jerseyan, who basically gets it and under normal circumstances wouldn't vote for or against someone because they support marriage equality.

It is more about waging a propaganda war against the far right, who will use the average New Jerseyan's anger towards their corrupt, ineffecient, and ineffective government and appeal to the  latent homophobic instincts that would not otherwise drive them to vote one way or another in an election to stoke this anger and rev it up to a fever pitch.

It is also about battling the egos and insecurities of mostly white male politicians, who recognize that marriage equality is the right thing to do, but are uncomfortable with being part of that kind of history-making political breakthrough or will always learn the wrong lessons from a less than successful election cycle like the one that was recently completed. 

The wrong lessons that most will take from 2007 is that New Jersey is not a true blue state and that the only way for Democrats to win in 2008 and 2009 is if they play it safe. 

Instead, the lessons that they should have learned from 2007 is that the voters do not trust them to govern anymore, because they only talk about doing the right thing, but never actually do the right thing.

And the way for Democrats to win in 2008 and 2009 is not to play it safe but to be bold and decisive and prove to the people that we have a clear and progressive vision for the future that will improve the quality of life for everybody.  And the way that they can do that is by looking at the very long laundry list of issues that progressives should be fighting for and take very strong stands on them.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 13:35:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Katz (0.00 / 0)

This thread started with the posting of Carla Katz' commentary attacking her ex for not doing enough for marriage equality.

The two points I was trying to make is that Katz should ask what she has done to help the issue since I doubt that her early (putting it mildly) endorsement of Baroni will result in him sponsoring an ME bill.  This is also a question for Steven and GSE.

The second point is that some people want to lecture the rest of us about how important this is while reserving the right to do their own thing when THEY see fit.  That is generally considered hypocrisy.

A large part of the reason why I have a large number of comments on GLBT issues is that a very disproportionate number of the diaries on this blog relate to GLBT issues.  I haven't written as many diaries as I probably should, but at least I am not wasting everyone's time talking about uncommitted slates in the primary or telling people that I am "retiring from partisan politics" at the tender age of 30 (just to mention two recent examples).

Bert has repeatedly shown himself as someone who is willing to accept Guiliani/Romney/Thompson in the White House if the Democratic nominee is not making exactly the same decisions that Bert would make with 20/20 hindsight.  I don't think there is any political realism or maturity in that, but others might.  Whatever differences I may have with Obama/Clinton/Edwards/Biden/Richardson on a particular issue, I know that any of them are far, far better than any of the GOP candidates. 

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 16:15:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

fuzzy math redux (0.00 / 0)

Refusing to accept (or tolerate those who adhere to) the political calculus which states that NJ passing marriage equality legislation in late 2007 or early 2008 equals Democratic losses in November 2008 is not the same as accepting a Republican President in 2009.

Since people are free to click or not click any comment or diary that they choose, I don't think that anybody needs to concern themselves about time that anybody else might waste reading a particular comment or diary except the person who has chosen to spend their time writing it.

Based on this calculus, Creed has clearly spent far more of his Blue Jersey time opposing progressive initiatives with which he disagrees than advocating for those with which he disagrees.  That might be politically mature and realistic, but what good does it accomplish.

The stuff that I throw against the wall may or may not stick, but I don't think that anybody can accuse me of not having my heart in the right place, or of being a curmudgeon for that matter.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 17:14:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

don't be so sure! :-D (0.00 / 0)

but I don't think that anybody can accuse me of not having my heart in the right place, or of being a curmudgeon for that matter.

"Take this Presidency and shove it" might qualify for both.  ;-)

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 17:29:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

strategy (0.00 / 0)

The fact of the matter is that passing marriage equality legislation shouldn't require a "strategy", because it is simply the right thing to do.  The Civil Unions Commission has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that civil unions do not provide equal rights under the law.

Forgetting about Bill Baroni for a moment (although I agree that we shouldn't because I agree with Creed that he should earn his endorsements), who are the three Democratic State Senators who will not vote for marriage equality legislation?  Ron Rice Sr. and who else?  Who are the Democratic State Assemblypersons who will not vote for marriage equality?

In my opinion, the polling is irrelevant.  How many Assemblypersons will lose in 2009 because they voted for marriage equality?  If Corzine loses to Chris Christie in 2009, it will not be because he signed marriage equality legislation into law.  It will be because he failed as a leader to get meaningful ethics and fiscal legislation passed during his first term.

Broad alliances requires that everybody cares about everything.  Public employees unions should want meaningful property tax reforms and an overhaul of existing school funding formulas passed as much as taxpayers' organizations should want to ensure that the people who work in their towns, counties, and state and keep them running smoothly are treated fairly and paid a living wage with sufficient benefits if not more. 

Environmentalists should care about the needs of building and construction tradesmen and tradeswomen as much as building and construction tradesmen and tradeswomen should care about fighting sprawl and preserving open spaces.

Doctors should want a single payer national health insurance system as much as patients, because it would mean better and more care, as well as more money and opportunities for everybody.

Employers should want paid family leave as much as their employers, because in the long run, it will result in greater, not less productivity.

And everybody should want to see marriage equality legislation passed because it is simply the right thing to do.

There is a very long laundry list of issues that progressives should care about and it doesn't matter whether anybody thinks that marriage equality should be at the top of this list or the bottom or somewhere in between, because they all need to be dealt with ASAP and the only way that the logjams that are preventing them from being dealt with in Trenton and Washington will be broken is if we deal with them all collectively.

The laundry list needs to be given to our electeds and party leaders and they need to either support these issues or be prepared to not be an elected or a party leader for much longer.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 23:54:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]