Standing on the wrong side of history

The polls (0.00 / 0)

The Zogby poll also has 48% supporting gay marriage and 30% saying civil unions only without gay marriage and 20% saying don't do anything at all, so that is 48% in favor and 50% opposed.  Again, it depends on how the questions are asked.

The Rutgers poll also has 47% favoring a Federal Marriage Amendment while 44% oppose that.  So, there isn't a lot of clarity there.

Truman got some portions of his program passed (others had to wait two decades) because he mobilized political will behind it and had a coalition that would support it.  He didn't depend on the courts (which were a whole lot more liberal back then than they are today) to give it to him.

If our legislators are nervous about taking steps necessary to preserve our fiscal health, how quick do you think they are going to be on their own to get into a highly charged issue like this?

S112/A818 have the same number of co-sponsors they had before the report came out.  If people want this to happen, they need to call their legislators and tell them they want them to co-sponsor the bills.  I don't know what "commitments" Steven and GSE have gotten, but they obviously aren't real.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 23:32:54 PM UTC

Re: (4.00 / 1)

Yeah, it's a good thing Truman didn't play the same game with poll numbers. "Gee, 65% are either for [segregation, lynching, poll tax] or don't care either way...I don't think I'll touch this one."

---

by: Juan Melli @ Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 00:06:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Did you read my last paragraph??? n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:02:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Draft (0.00 / 0)

It  still  took  years, & two wars - Korea & Vietnam - for integration to really  take  hold in the  military. The Pentagon kept  calling for more "studies"  & "plans." But the plain fact,  as  Truman  could see,  was that segregation was incompatible with the post-WWII  draft.  The draft wasn't  intended to segregate but rather was a  huge program for controlling the entry of  young men into  the job market  while maintaining an  inflated armed forces  & an artificial wartime  economy. It was a   social  experiment,  & it  worked quite  well.. Some  services were quicker to institute reform  than  others.  Now states have to take  that role  with same  sex marriage.  New Jersey  is  logically  the next state on the list. We've  taken  the obvious  intermediate step & society did not collapse. If we do  it, there's a good  chance New York & California will follow  

---

by: Wesleylake @ Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 17:05:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Truman (4.00 / 1)

The significant portions of his program you're speaking of were done through executive order. That's a coalition of one, and in the face of ambivalent polling that Juan referenced, that's called leadership.

To use your own (silly) argument, technically such an order had zero legislative co-sponsors. Clearly, by your logic, desegregating the military "obviously [wasn't] real."

---

by: Brian McGinnis @ Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:32:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well... (1.50 / 2)

1)  Lynching still isn't a federal crime.  The Senate finally apologized for its failure to pass an anti-lynching bill in 2005.

2)  As President, Truman had the unilateral authority to desegregate the military and there weren't the votes in Congress for them to "resegregate" it.  The Southern filibuster could stop civil rights legislation, but couldn't pass new Jim Crow laws.

3)  Poll taxes were abolished with the 24th Amendment in 1964, a mere 16 years later.

Getting to this current discussion, I realize pointing out the shortcomings of GSE's "strategy" is a sore point for you since you are now the SJ guy for GSE.  But, I have only put facts into this discussion.

But, the only way you are going to get anything passed is to get Senators to sign on.  The Assembly won't do anything unless and until the Senate does.  So, if there really are even 12 Senators ready to vote for ME, then they should be willing to co-sponsor S118.  If there aren't, then the hard work of persuading individual Senators is going to have to start.  Everything needs to work through the prism of making that happen.  Anything that isn't doing that is simply unproductive.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:32:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Leaders lead. (0.00 / 0)

Wanted: Trumanesque leader unwilling to stomach discrimination.

---

by: Jeff Gardner @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 23:39:29 PM UTC

Found (4.00 / 3)

Draft Jeff Gardner for Governor.

I'll run for State Assembly on your slate, Jeff.  Who will fill the other 79 slots not to mention the county-level offices up for re-election next year?

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 00:07:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If called (0.00 / 0)

I will serve.

---

by: Jeff Gardner @ Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 14:40:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

to quote Rosi Efthim... (4.00 / 1)

...WOO HOO!!!!!

I am serious about this.  To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a primary challenge to a statewide elected official that had the support of a full slate of district-level and county-level candidates.

There is a ton of time to put together a list of prospective State Assembly and county-level candidates in all 21 counties who are prepared to run in 2009 if our Democratic majorities in Trenton do not do the right thing on...

...marriage equality.
...paid family leave (12 weeks, not 6, and no exemptions)
...progressive fiscal reform
...progressive ethics reform

...and any other issue that the progressive community places on its agenda.  Who's with us?

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 18:14:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

what these polls don't tell us... (0.00 / 0)

...is whether or not the people who are opposed to same-sex marriage care about the issue enough to base their vote on it.

Florio was ousted in 1993 because the NRA funded the tax revolt.  People didn't care about the assualt weapons ban that Florio passed, but were inflamed over the tax increases by rhetoric that was paid for by the gun lobby.

If Corzine and the Democrats in the Assembly and Senate passed some serious ethics and fiscal reforms that the public could buy into, it wouldn't matter how much money the anti-ME forces spent to inflame the voters.

NJ voters care more about their pocketbooks than they do about social issues no matter what side of a particular issue their personal leanings are.

But since Corzine et al are incapable of doing the right thing on fiscal issues, they are afraid to give the far right any reason to dump a lot of money into NJ on a slash and burn campaign.  They are cowards.

I have said this before and I will say it again, progressives need to create their own organization within the Democratic Party that will run candidates at every level of government.

Barack Obama has proven that if properly engaged and inspired, Democratic primary voters will come together to do what is right.  However, this won't happen in NJ until the voters actually have a real choice.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 00:05:20 AM UTC

According to William F. Buckley (lmhriH) (4.00 / 1)

A conservative is a man who "stands athwart history yelling 'Stop!'"  Kind of puts the issue in perspective.

Your question of whether or not polls should determine rights is a fair one, but one that is rightly answered, "Obviously not."  I think, however, to get at Creed's point, the poll may be best viewed as a measure of where the political coalition needed to enact that legislation stands.

To Steven Goldstein's credit, it is undeniably closer than it has ever been.  But New Jersey's political establishment has a lot of inertia left to be overcome (some of the staunchest criticism comes from fellow Democrats) and parts of the population lag behind the rest.

We can't wait for everyone to reach consensus - some feelings are just going to be hurt.  But there is still work to be done before it is a done deal.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:55:31 AM UTC

Creed, can you go one LGBT related thread (0.00 / 0)

without an ad hominem attack on me and some other LGBT people?  Just one?  The only times I've singled you out are in a good natured way, with humor, trying to see if a softer approach would possibly work.  I have tried so, so hard to be a gentleman.  

You see the issue marriage equality and you go fiercely negative, and that's your right.  Given the balance of those at Blue Jersey who strongly favor marriage equality on the one hand, and you on the other hand, I can't quibble with the balance.  

But your ad hominem attacks are out of bounds.  You want to attack the issue?  Go ahead.  Your fellow progressives?  Not nice.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  I am happy to go over our vote count for marriage equality with people in person, and it's not through rose colored glasses.  Some of you, our allies, have taken us up on this offer.

But if you think I'm taking the bait, no matter the taunts as to our vote count, and detail it all out on a public list serv, nothin' doin.

We know for a fact that the right-wing opponents of marriage equality read Blue Jersey  everyday.  They tell us such.

 

---

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair @ Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 14:48:33 PM UTC

I have repeatedly accepted your offer, but you never followed through (for me or Dottie). (0.00 / 0)

Just because Nick says everything is an ad hominem attack doesn't make it so.  I have stuck to the merits and facts.

I have never attacked ME on the merits.  I am not opposed to ME.  What I am opposed to is the constant p.r. ginning up of the issue for nothing to happen other than giving the GOP something to beat us over the head with.

Like I said in the header, I have been open to meeting (the ball has been in your court since before Christmas).  

The reality is, nothing is going to happen until the Senate votes for S118.  S118 is not going to get posted for a vote without an assurance that it will get to 21.  There aren't any secret votes in the Senate to adopt anything.  So, Senators will have to go on the public record.  Either the votes are there or not.  If even a half a dozen Senators aren't willing to sign on as co-sponsors after the Commission report, there certainly aren't even 12 that going to vote for the bill.

Just because I mention those inconvenient truths and point out that depending on inconclusive polling isn't going to move this doesn't make me the enemy.

Brian and Jay can mark down my historical comments all they want, but it doesn't alter the fact that change is hard and takes a while.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:44:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

".......Nick says everything is an ad hominem attack....." (0.00 / 0)

Everything???   Isn't that just a tad hyperbolic?  lol

******************************

Meanwhile, as to the topic at hand,  
I am glad to know that you are

"not opposed to ME"!  

I am also glad to know that you

"have never attacked ME on the merits."

I invite you to take the next step and to state that you, in fact, enthusiastically support marriage equality as does, I believe, the large majority of the progressive community.

When you say,

"What I am opposed to is the constant p.r. ginning up of the issue for nothing to happen other than giving the GOP something to beat us over the head with."

 the implication is that GSE and Steven should somehow stop

"ginning up"

the

"p.r."

because then you seem to believe that

"nothing"

would

"happen"

"other than giving the GOP something to beat us over the head with."

I suppose the "us" in that sentence is the Democratic Party and it's candidates running for office in New Jersey.

You then go on to point out that the required number of "votes" for passing ME are not yet publicly declared.  

Assuming that your counts are accurate as to the present moment; I dare say that Steven Goldstein and company are at least as good at counting as you.  So even granting the correctness of your numbers, there is no great revelation in  their mere existence.  No one is expecting a "vote" on this right now.

Consider the possibility that if GSE were to take your implicit advice (which was to  somehow remain meekly silent on what, for them, is a deeply held virtually life and death issue just so that you might feel less likely to be "beaten over the head" by Republicans)  that that "strategy" would not be in their own best interest.

Frankly, I don't know what the internal strategic/tactical plans of GSE are.    I have some idea of what might be going on; but no "inside knowledge".  But I do know that I have far more faith and trust in Steven Goldstein's judgment and competence in the matter of promoting ME than I do in yours.

My own sense is that there is zero real conflict between the broad based progressive/Democratic agenda and the passage of ME as soon as possible.

I believe that most New Jerseyans are ready for ME and that the minority who aren't wouldn't be likely Democratic voters anyway.

I believe that ME is, at its core,  a civil/human rights issue; period.  

To the extent that there are political risks involved; those risks are greater for its opponents than for its supporters.

I had a chance to see the Academy Award Winning Film(!!!) "Freeheld" at the wonderful Oscar party that GSE put together at SOPAC last Sunday; there is no doubt in my mind that any New Jerseyan (who wasn't already some kind of hard core bigot) who saw that 38 minute movie would be quite pleased to see ME pass.

ME is not a matter of "gay rights" vs "straight rights"; the opposite is true.  

Whenever any subset of human beings in NJ obtain their rights to be fully human that only strengthens and deepens the rights of the whole community.  

E Pluribus Unum isn't just some empty slogan.   "Out of Many, One" is what America is all about.  

We are one people.    

That's what makes us strong, and that's what makes us free!

Anyone, anyone who thinks they're going to get away with politically "beating us over the head" because Democrats enthusiastically support marriage equality will be in for a rude awakening on election day!!!

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:09:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, Niick... (0.00 / 0)

How I wish I could share your optimism about the enlightenment of the American voter (or the New Jersey voter, for that matter)!  I guess I've just been around too long...

One thing I've learned from my more than 50 years in the political vineyards is that a lot of voters--more than you can imagine--are just looking for an excuse to vote for a Republican.  And any excuse at all will do, alas.

Part of it is the "Don't do it to me--do it to Julia" syndrome.  Another part is the "Screw you, Jack, I'm all right" mentality.  And then of course there are all those people who want road improvements, police and fire protection, and good schools, but don't want to pay for them.

Look how slim the margin was for abolishing the death penalty--another hot-button issue.

And you know how supportive of ME I am!  

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

---

by: DottieG @ Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 16:32:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

how do you explain 2006? (0.00 / 0)

In 2006, Bob Menendez beat Tom Kean Jr. by 10 percentage points.  If voters are just looking for an excuse to vote for a Republican, that would have been a year for them to do it.

You have Bob Menendez, a Congressman who was only well-known by a very small percentage of the state with a past that was inextricably linked to the most corrupt county party organization in the state, running against the fair-haired son and namesake of a very popular former Governor.

If the voters are just looking for an excuse to vote Republican, it shouldn't have mattered how poor of a campaign Junior ran or how pissed off people were over Iraq.  If voters were just looking for an excuse to vote Republican, Junior's corruption charges would have stuck firmly with Menendez being as sticky as he was.

But they didn't and Menendez won.  And if someone with as corrupt of a past as Menendez can survive an onslaught of corruption charges from someone with as many natural advantages as Junior had going into that race, then Jon Corzine and the Assembly Democrats can survive an onslaught of far-right-wing garbage if they do the right thing and pass marriage equality.

However, this is only true if Corzine et al are able to get our state's fiscal house in order in a truly meaningful way.  If they don't, it won't matter if they do the courageous and right thing and pass marriage equality or if they do the cowardly and wrong thing and continue to delay.  Either way, they will lose and lose big.

Because if the voters are just looking for an excuse to vote Republican, Trenton Democrats will give them more than enough if they fail to solve the state's fiscal problems once and for all.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 18:53:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kean lost (0.00 / 0)

because he wasn't a good enough excuse ;-)

You assume that Menendez was corrupt.  But true or not (and I think not), New Jerseyans generally prefer a crook to a wimp.

You also seem to assume that our current fiscal mess won't matter.    


"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

---

by: DottieG @ Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 19:12:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

read what I wrote again (0.00 / 0)

What I am saying is that to NJ's voters, our current fiscal mess is the only thing that matters.

If Corzine et al were to find a way to solve our state's fiscal mess in a meaningful way that has the support of NJ's voters, they would be free to take "risks" on any number of "controversial" issues like marriage equality and paid family leave and win re-election in 2009 by a landslide.

(I place quotes around the words risks and controversial to allow for the possibility that some people may wrongly believe that issues like marriage equality and paid family leave are controversial and supporting them is risky.)

But if Corzine et al fail to find a way to solve our state's fiscal mess in a meaningful way that has the support of NJ's voters, they could continue to be as cautious as they want to on any number of issues and they will still lose in 2009.

But if you are right about NJ's voters not liking wimps, then that is probably the best argument for Trenton Democrats to stop being wimps and pass marriage equality and (real) paid family leave legislation.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 19:32:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nick, sorry for the typo n/t (0.00 / 0)

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

---

by: DottieG @ Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 19:13:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Take Your Point; Voting Republican is like Rolling a Ball Downhill... (0.00 / 0)

...while voting Democrat, in some sense, goes against the grain of lower human nature.
Of course , this also applies in the context of machine Democrats vs progressive Democrats.

The history of human progress is one of people, somehow, breaking the mold and behaving in ways that surprised the cynical "smart money".

Of course, it ain't easy; but it's certainly possible.    :-)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 23:19:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Question now having nothing to do with the substance of the thread at hand (0.00 / 0)

By the time a thread gets to 20 posts - heck, I'd even say 10 - does anyone of whatever point of view on whatever issue really think the thread, at that point, matters?  I think we who blog past that point being to have a conversation among ourselves.  Civilians, ie those folks beyond us hardcore blogger political junkie types, can't possibly have the patience to scroll down past a certain point.  Don't kill the messenger here.  I'm just sayin.

---

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair @ Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 21:42:14 PM UTC

No data (0.00 / 0)

but based on my own experience, if it has gone very far, I just don't jump in.

But then, I'm really very shy.  Really.  

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 21:55:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you are saying without any real developments in legislative support that this whole discussion is a waste of bandwidth, then... (0.00 / 0)

I agree with you.

Nick may think that the sun rises and falls with you.  I do not.  I know that you are at least as fallible as the rest of us (and sometimes very much more so).

Obviously, the large number of diaries posted to the front page on this issue in the past few weeks is happening for a reason.  I am not going to speculate about that reason, but it would not shock me if it is because some are trying to move the issue forward in the absence of any significant legislative support or if the hope is that somehow "Corzine will see the light" and "make it happen."  Of course, this disregards his relative inability to get the Legislature to go along on other issues that he has pushed for very hard.

But, it is an obvious fact that many more (and longer) front page diaries have been posted on ME in the past 30 days than have for paid family leave (for example).

Of course, it doesn't help the "readability" of the thread when one post takes up 20% of the screen space.  It might be a useful axiom to follow that once you go beyond 300 words you are speaking for your own ego rather than to persuade anybody of anything.

BTW, whassup with the lunch?  :-)

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 22:32:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

LOL There is no doubt that all of us are... (0.00 / 0)

imperfect, Steven, me and you too.  Perhaps we can all agree on that much , at least.

It may turn out that you wind up being right in all that you say.

Time will tell.

I still would like to hear you say that you enthusiastically support ME and hear your reasons.  

Merely telling us that you "don't oppose it" is kind of weak.

Re the "count" of where individual "votes" stand at any given point in time; that remains merely one element in a complex and dynamic situation.  

Obviously it's eventually the critical bottom line at the end of the process; but all I've been saying is that there is much that must be happening behind the scenes that you and I aren't privy to, eh?

I simply have far more respect for Steven's opinions on these matters than yours since he's directly involved as a authoritative player with a track record in the this particular issue and you are not.

That doesn't mean that you can't have strong opinions; it simply means that his carry far more weight than yours.    

I hope that y'all do meet and that whatever good ideas/proposals/insights you may have to contribute will be helpful to the cause!

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 00:11:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dunno about reason (0.00 / 0)

we all tend to write about breaking news, continuing news, or our general interest.  There's an awful lot that falls within those bounds.

I've been pondering the thing with family leave.  My problem is that I really don't have much more to say about it.  Actually, that's largely true with this issue as well.  I've staked out very public positions and they're still out there.  If someone says something stupid in relation to them, I'll speak up.

Lunch sounds good.  Drop me an email and we'll see what works for everyone.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:06:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]