November 29, 2007 - 12:10pm
Marriage Equality wants vote in 2008, not during '07 lame duck
By Wally Edge
Tags: Gordon Johnson, Loretta Weinberg, Steven Goldstein, Wilfredo Caraballo, Barbara Buono, Valerie Huttle, Joseph Vitale, Upendra Chivukula, John McKeon, Raymond Lesniak, Mila Jasey
Supporters of marriage equality say they have 19 votes in the Senate and 39 in the Assembly – two votes short of passing a same sex marriage law – and are “thrilled, strategically” that legislative leaders have decided not to post the bill during the lame duck session, according to an e-mail sent by Garden State Equality President Steven Goldstein and obtained by PolitickerNJ.com. Goldstein says his organization’s focus in lame duck is on hate crimes legislation.
“We put a ton of resources into the 2007 elections and it paid off. There will be no excuses (not) to pass a marriage equality bill in 2008,” Goldstein wrote. “Quite frankly, it would be a snap for us to gin up three times the calls and emails to legislators that the right-wing is doing now. We've done that time and again over the past couple of years, to the point where legislators have called us begging us to stop.”
Read Goldstein’s e-mail:
I've gotten some calls about the article in this morning's Star-Ledger saying that the marriage equality bill isn't being posted this lame duck session of the outgoing legislature. Not only is this of zero surprise to us at Garden State Equality, we're also thrilled, strategically. You know our message over and over again: 2008. 2007 hasn't even been in our thinking. We agree with the decision of Senate President Codey and Speaker Roberts not to post the bill this lame duck.
The key here is the composition of the incoming legislature. In the 2007 elections, we picked up four votes for marriage equality in the Senate, vital in a relatively small body. By our count, in the incoming Senate, before we even start lobbying, we'll be 19 Senators who are solid "yes" votes or leans "yes" votes, with our needing 21 votes to win. In the incoming Assembly -- where vote counts in a larger body can vary more -- we can project at least 39 solidly "yes" votes or leans "yes" votes, with our needing 41 votes to win. We can also project clearing 41 votes in the incoming Assembly, but the worst thing in lobbying is rose-colored glasses.
As advocates, we have to do our job, too -- putting the Senate and Assembly within reach so that when we approach legislative leaders to help us finish the task, the task is reasonable. That's why we worked so hard in the 2007 election and did so amazingly, bucking the trend of a year where not all progressives and progressive causes did well, to say the least. We put a ton of resources into the 2007 elections and it paid off. There will be no excuses to pass a marriage equality bill in 2008.
Quite frankly, it would be a snap for us to gin up three times the calls and emails to legislators that the right-wing is doing now. We've done that time and again over the past couple of years, to the point where legislators have called us begging us to stop.
The difference, of course, is that our calls and emails are really from New Jerseyans, and not from professional right-wing activists from places like Utah. The right-wing is in free-fall panic because the failure of New Jersey's civil union law to provide equality to same-sex couples -- as marriage would -- is moving new legislators to our side all the time. As scores and scores of witnesses have testified over seven hours of testimony before the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission, the civil union law is a disaster, and to say otherwise is a political fabrication.
Friends, polls can gauge horse-race numbers, where we do well in New Jersey, but they cannot gauge intensity. The fact is, opponents of marriage equality in New Jersey aren't anywhere near as intense as we supporters in our socially progressive state. That's why our opponents have to bring in out-of-state ringers to do their calls and emails.
We've made a conscious decision to rope-a-dope the right wing now. Let the right-wing exhaust itself silly during this lame duck. We'll turn the burners back on high after lame duck.
Indeed, our focus this lame-duck is on a hate-crimes bill, introduced in the Assembly a couple of weeks ago and in the Senate today, that should be a piece of cake for legislative leaders to post and get passed. We've worked on the bill with Attorney General Ann Milgram's office. The bill is as desperately needed, yet as noncontroversial as can be -- we haven't met anyone who opposes it. The state's hate-crimes law hasn't been updated in years, and an FBI report just came out ranking New Jersey #2, tragically, in the number of hate crimes among all U.S. states.
This isn't merely an LGBT bill, it's a bill to help all minorities affected by hate crimes.
The bill's primary sponsors in the Assembly are Fred Caraballo, Valerie Vainieri Huttle, Upendra Chivukula and John McKeon, with Gordon Johnson and Mila Jasey as cosponsors. The bill's primary sponsors in the Senate are Barbara Buono and Loretta Weinberg, with Ray Lesniak and Joe Vitale as cosponsors.
Contributors
Wally Edge
One of the classic stories of the New Jersey Legislature in 1968 were allegations that a Newark Assemblyman wanted to cancel a hearing on organized ... >
Bob Torricelli
The Record announced yesterday that it was closing its Hackensack offices and "reinventing"itself. It was actually announcing its own ... >
Michael Patrick Carroll
NJ STARS, while failing in its intended purpose, nonetheless demonstrates the need for fundamental reform in NJ's high schools. >
Debbie Holtz
Another fiscal-cutting measure still lies on the Governor's desk -- it's the one that reduces spending by way of statutory tweaks to the ... >
Steve Lonegan
The 2009 New Jersey State Budget is not the stunning tribute to sound fiscal policy The Trenton insiders would have you believe, but just a ... >
Dr. Joseph Marbach
The budget proposed by Gov. Jon Corzine has produced myriad negative reactions, featuring various interests seeking to limit the impact of the cuts ... >
Rob Tornoe
Michael P. Riccards
Recently, I walked into a large movie theatre with my wife Barbara to see "Sex and the City," the long, long rendition of themes that ... >
Carla Katz
As the Presidential election draws closer and closer, we tend to focus our attention on the daily horse race between the candidates and lose sight of ... >
Top Tags
Most Active Stories
- Torricelli on The (Bergen) Record
- Is Murphy on the short list to be Crowley's L.G.?
- Corzine and Christie meet on the campaign trail
- Obama state director choice comes down to Decheine, Mueller and Chicago
- Is Bret Schundler the next Thomas F.X. Smith?
- O'Toole assumes lead role of GOP chairmen
- Garrett consultant hits back on lobbyist staffers
- A thumbnail New Jersey guide to Obamaland, Part III
- Van Drew '08?
- Round 2: Doblin takes on Torricelli
- Dr. Bones goes to Washington
- PoliticsNJ.com Power List 2007
- Eleven arrested in bribery scandal
- Lyndhurst GOP, nearly all of them, switching parties
- Lobbyist arrested
- Governor Paralysis
- Who is the best State Party Chairman in New Jersey
- KYRILLOS, BECK, KEAN & HANDLIN VOW WORK TO KEEP SEASTREAK FERRY UP AND RUNNING
- Torricelli on COAH
- Two N.J. super delegates go to Obama; Norcross backs Obama; key Clinton supporters endorse Obama
Quote of the Day
July 6, 2008
"I do not." -- James Laurie, an 18-year-old Brookdale Community College student, asked if he knew who Dick Zimmer was.
-Star-Ledger, 07/06/08
Recent Press Releases
- Jul 4 2008
In the News
Read the expanded Wake Up Call, our summary of today’s news media coverage.
Today’s Must Reads:
Trump wonders why Corzine left the Senate ― CHARLES STILE
Bob Torricelli is Mad at the Big, 'Mean' Bergen Record― THE MEDIA MOB
Sweeney-Buono alliance shakes up N.J. Senate― JONATHAN TAMARI
Stile: Pay to play helped to quell party insurgents ― CHARLES STILE
Newark’s Mayor Cory Booker at Midpoint ― DICK BENFIELD
MUCHAS MARGARITAS― ANDY UNANUE
NJ Economic Growth chief leaves office― Gary Rose
Candidates spend plenty of their money― Philadelphia Inquirer
News anchor sizing up run for governor― Star-Ledger
Political parties get right down to business― Daily Record
PolitickerNJ.com Jobs
Syndicate
Gained 4 in the Senate?
Van Drew, Whelan -- who else?
Propaganda
More left wing radical propaganda. This email only shows Goldstein is more detached from reality than most think. The truth is that there are not - nor will there be - enough votes for gay marriage; and the legislators know it.
Let's put it to the public for a vote and the overwhelming and resounding answer will be that the people in this "socially progressive state" are not as liberal as Goldstein wants people to believe.
How abuout equality for the people?
If you think this issue is so popular, why not put it on the ballot for the people to decide?
Why are you hell-bent on forcing your lack of morality on the people of New Jersey that you pretend to represent?
"Sometimes it looks as if the Democrats are out to win at all costs, while the Republicans are out to compromise at all costs." Thomas Sowell, September 8, 2007 - Random Thoughts.
Baroni?
Well, Baroni has apparently convinced Goldstein that he is for marriage equality, but it will be interesting to see how he votes when the rubber meets the road. Baroni has been on so many sides of the marriage issue that it's hard to know how he'll vote.
Where's Wison?
It will be a good time for Wison to show some leadership on this issue; making sure that every Republican Senator knows that they will not be on the Republican Line in 2009 if they support the Democrats on this issue.
Let the people know they can count on Republicans to hold the moral high ground! Wilson, NOT ONE REPUBLICAN VOTE!!!
"Sometimes it looks as if the Democrats are out to win at all costs, while the Republicans are out to compromise at all costs." Thomas Sowell, September 8, 2007 - Random Thoughts.
Democrats don't even have a majority within the caucus.
If Goldstein thinks he's getting every Democrat to go along, he's completely out-to-lunch!
I want to see how certain Dems in potentially swing districts vote. There won't be any free rides in competitive districts in 09 like this year.
Democrats don't even have a majority within the caucus.
If Goldstein thinks he's getting every Democrat to go along, he's completely out-to-lunch!
I want to see how certain Dems in potentially swing districts vote. There won't be any free rides in competitive districts in 09 like this year.
Republican Conscience....
Why do you insist on forcing your bigoted way of thinking on the people of New Jersey you pretend to represent?
Republican Conscience....
Why do you insist on forcing your bigoted way of thinking on the people of New Jersey you pretend to represent?
Republican Conscience....
Why do you insist on forcing your bigoted way of thinking on the people of New Jersey you pretend to represent?
Republican Conscience...
Why are you hell-bent on forcing your bigoted way of thinking on the people of New Jersey you pretend to represent?
Republican Conscience...
Why are you hell-bent on forcing your bigoted way of thinking on the people of New Jersey you pretend to represent?
Republican Conscience...
Why are you hell-bent on forcing your bigoted way of thinking on the people of New Jersey you pretend to represent?
Civil rights are not ballot questions
Majority rule is not how this country has handled civil rights. Anti-miscegenation laws were not struck down by voters. Segregation was not ended through ballot questions. Women did not get the vote through public referendums. Indeed, there might still be anti-miscegenation laws in some states if it were up to the voters.
Marriage equality will go the same route as past civil-rights movements. Initial irrational, reactionary resistance, followed by acceptance, and the country will be better for it. Future generations will not moan that the electorate did not directly vote on it. Rather, they will wonder what all the fuss was about.
Civil rights are not ballot questions
Majority rule is not how this country has handled civil rights. Anti-miscegenation laws were not struck down by voters. Segregation was not ended through ballot questions. Women did not get the vote through public referendums. Indeed, there might still be anti-miscegenation laws in some states if it were up to the voters.
Marriage equality will go the same route as past civil-rights movements. Initial irrational, reactionary resistance, followed by acceptance, and the country will be better for it. Future generations will not moan that the electorate did not directly vote on it. Rather, they will wonder what all the fuss was about.
Marriage Equality
It means A MAN AND A WOMEN - that's what GOD ALMIGHTY, your creator made - not HIM & HIM period, end of discussion, which there is NOT.
"I'M WITH FRED" "I'M WITH FRED" "I'M WITH FRED"
"I'M WITH FRED" "I'M WITH FRED" "I'M WITH FRED"
"I'M WITH FRED" "I'M WITH FRED" "I'M WITH FRED"
Marriage Equality
It means A MAN AND A WOMEN - that's what GOD ALMIGHTY, your creator made - not HIM & HIM period, end of discussion, which there is NOT.
"I'M WITH FRED" "I'M WITH FRED" "I'M WITH FRED"
"I'M WITH FRED" "I'M WITH FRED" "I'M WITH FRED"
"I'M WITH FRED" "I'M WITH FRED" "I'M WITH FRED"
It means A MAN AND A WOMEN -
It means A MAN AND A WOMEN - that's what GOD ALMIGHTY, your creator made - Not HIM & HIM period, end of discussion, which there is NOT."I'M WITH FRED" "I'M WITH FRED" "I'M WITH FRED" "I'M WITH FRED" "I'M WITH FRED" "I'M WITH FRED" "I'M WITH FRED" "I'M WITH FRED" "I'M WITH FRED"
Marriage Equality
It means A MAN AND A WOMEN - that's what GOD ALMIGHTY, your creator made - Not HIM & HIM period, end of discussion, which there is NOT.
"I'M WITH FRED" "I'M WITH FRED" "I'M WITH FRED"
"I'M WITH FRED" "I'M WITH FRED" "I'M WITH FRED"
"I'M WITH FRED" "I'M WITH FRED" "I'M WITH FRED"
Marriage Equality
It means - that's what your creator made - Not HIM & HIM period, end of discussion, which there is NOT.
6 reasons why goldstein is so full of it
Number 1 - Fred Caraballo is gone from the Assembly, just like Goldstein's lame duck attempt
Number 2- I received emails not from UTAH but from friends, pastors and family ALL OVER NJ representing many faiths and ethnicities
Number 3- If you have the votes, why dont you give us the names of your supporters in the State House; will they want to be counted with your extreme views? would Baroni? i doubt he would in Catholic Hamilton...
Number 4- If you could whip up supporters 3 times as fast, why didnt you? Your lame excuse doesnt cut it
Number 5- IF NJ is so progressive, why not put it to a vote once and for all? CUZ YOU KNOW IT WILL LOSE!
Number 6- how about disclosing the national money and help that you receive from extremists like Mr. Tim Gill?
6 points on why goldstein is full of it
1. His facts arent straight- Fred Caraballo lost, just like this lame lame duck strategy
2. I never received emails or calls from UTAH but from the decent people of this state who are tired of the gay agenda making us feel like bigots just for wanting to support the family and human biology
3. If you have all this support in the state house, why havent they come out in favor of your bill? It's time to name names and see if Baroni and company would want to be held accountable when they try to run for Statewide office
4. I seriously doubt that they have three times are forces, or they would have passed this bill in the dead of night just like he was planning.
5. Why not let all the people in our socially progressive state vote on the matter?
6. Goldstein neglects to disclose all the left-wing money he gets from left wingers thruout the country
Would you have put slavery on the ballot??
Bigot.
Not necessarily those two...
It may be one or both, or on the other hand, it may be the three women that are replacing corrupt/indicted state senators -- Dana Redd, Sandra Cunningham, Teresa Ruiz, and it might be whoever replaced Joe Coniglio... the name escapes me at the moment.
Not necessarily those two...
*dupe* But I was hardly the only one... heh
Not necessarily those two...
*dupe* But I was hardly the only one... heh
o.k, I'll bite
In N.J., we have a massive budget deficit, problems with school funding, corruption issues, lack of federal dollars -- and the handful of conservatives on these boards want instead to disenfranchise gays and lesbians and refuse their basic rights? I thought we covered this ground with Terry Schiavo and the bizarro fundamentalism that reared its ugly head in the Republican Party there. Wilderness, meet Republican Party.
Marriage equality is a basic human right that N.J. needs to recognize. Once the fearmongers, who prognosticate gloom and doom, realize that the apocalypse isn't coming with the advent of human rights being extended to monogamous gay and lesbian couples who merely want the same rights as heterosexuals, and type of anti-gay fervor will calm, and our state's equality mandate will be example that the rest of the nation will follow.
Marriage equality needs to come sooner than later, and let's get those two votes (Redd is one of the new 19; Beck needs to join us if she hasn't) needed to get this passed and signed into law. Civil unions have been a good start, but basic things -- hospital visitations, car insurance plans, etc. -- are always recognized under this law, and full marriage equality is the answer.
MadMax...
Your god is an angry god, huh???
Don't force your bigotry disguised as religion on me.
Not happening yet...
Both Sides: You're not gonna convince each other posting silly comments on here.
One side sees this as changing the definition of marriage, condoning an illicit lifestyle, approving of immorality, weakening cultural standards, legitimizing homosexual acts to kids and everyone else, and attacking religion and taditional judeo-christian decency and ethics. They see it as protecting tradition, morals, and the further decay of our culture.
The other sides sess this as marriage equality, a human rights issue, protecting a minority, extending certain legal protections and privledges, promoting fairness, and fostering tolerance and understanding for an alternative to the traditional marriage/family arrangment. They see it as moving law and society into a more modern, fair and tolerant era.
There doesn't appear to be any middle ground here, does it? The court, legislature, and governor thought they were finding a "middle ground" compromise when they enacted civil unions, but that didn't make people on the extremes of either side very happy.
Sometimes it's difficult to compromise and accept less than the full monty you desire. But, this is a democracy (republic) and there is diversity of views, religions, and politics involved. Maybe both sides accepting the "compromise" of civil unions isn't so crazy. At least for now?
Right Wing Group Confirms: just "a couple legislators short"
Link.
oh and "Republican Conscience"... I would liked to have the war in Iraq on the ballot for me to vote on as well... I'm sure you were out there in force during that debacle...
lol
you really are funny.the only reason they don't put it on the ballot is because they know that bigots(maybe you're one) will be the only one there.MOST supporters of equality actually have lives and don't watse their time on things that don't concern them.If you want it on the ballot then you should try and elect somebody who wants that.
makesure you give them a majority though.lol