Marriage Equality: Why not this year?

by: Scott Weingart

Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:25:49 PM EDT

Remember why New Jersey doesn't have marriage equality yet?

New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine on Sunday called same-sex marriage in his state inevitable, but said it "won't be on my agenda" until after the 2008 presidential election for fear it would be used as a wedge issue by the right wing, New York's Gay City News reported.
"I don't think I'd like to see this debated in a presidential election year," the paper quoted Corzine, a Democrat, as telling members of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association at a gathering in Newark.

So much for that excuse. From Garden State Equality's Steven Goldstein:

"Today's victory in California obliterates the argument that New Jersey shouldn't pursue marriage equality in a presidential election year."

Scott Weingart :: Marriage Equality: Why not this year?

Tags: (All Tags)

Print Friendly View Send As Email

Marriage Equality: Why not this year? | 7 comments

timing is everything? (4.00 / 1)

First, let me say that I strongly support gay marriage.

But I don't think that a California Supreme Court decision is the same as passing a law (in NJ or CA), because voters have no recourse in the former but do in the latter. Passing a law (or trying to) would activate the rightwing base at a time that they are lowest in morale; why give your enemy a rallying point that they have used so well in the past?

I wouldn't be saying this if we weren't 6 months away from an important election. And I'm not saying wait those 6 months. No, use the time to draft the strongest bill possible, and use the willingness to wait to build the largest legislative advantage possible.

by: jimtobias @ Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:39:00 AM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Well (0.00 / 0)

what makes you think they aren't going to do that in California now? A simple amendment and it can all go away.

The idea that there is no recourse to a decision of law neglects the fact that laws are made in the first place.

Will commit political science for food.

by: Thurman Hart @ Fri May 16, 2008 at 17:06:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Correct: that is their next play. n/t (0.00 / 0)

by: Creed Pogue @ Fri May 16, 2008 at 17:15:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Right, this bolsters our strategic advantage (0.00 / 0)

But I don't think we should change the strategy of laying the groundwork for a big-time push the day after the election.

As JT says, much as this is good news for us, it's also fuel for the ire of the rightwing base.

I'm wondering, might we be better off laying low right now?

by: jennypenny @ Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:46:46 AM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

It's the Senate (0.00 / 0)

If the people who don't face the electorate until 2011 won't move on it, then how do you expect the people on the ballot next year to do it??? Senators can co-sponsor a bill anytime. So, people can call their Senator after the summits on Tuesday and ask them to co-sponsor S112. Barbara Buono has already signed on.

Thank you to Jim and Jenny. I don't feel so lonely anymore. :-)

by: Creed Pogue @ Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:13:15 AM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

take back my comment (0.00 / 0)

You're right -- I wasn't remembering that the legislature is not up this year (duh). The CA ruling has made it an issue in the presidential race regardless. So full steam ahead in NJ!

by: jennypenny @ Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:53:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

it's still the Senate n/t (0.00 / 0)

by: Creed Pogue @ Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:52:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]