Comments

  1. Sargon Bighorn says

    THANK GOODNESS! Should marriage have been deemed a civil right open to all state citizens New Jersey wold have crumbled away! A disaster as been avoided, a bullet dodged. Does NJ have a state income tax? Do Gay Citizens like paying equal taxes for unequal treatment? I don’t know the answer to that.

  2. Karl says

    Thanks to the sponsors for getting this vote on record. Nia Gill was persuasive in her argument that NJ has placed itself in violation of the 14th amendment. Unfortunately the Scalia court only recognizes the constitution of the United States of Surveil & Torture. It’s like Foucault never died.

  3. Wes says

    Lets not act as if had this passed they wouldn’t have let the bigots come vote against us en mass in another totally embarrassing debacle of civil rights. That is, if the governor-elect didn’t somehow manage to veto it beforehand.

    I think gay marriage will be accepted an a wide scale eventually, but in the meantime we’re stuck with the undesirable circumstances that bigots are collectively more reliable voters and activists.

    Nothing will come easy, there will be plenty of pain before we see justice. If history shows anything, its that.

  4. TANK says

    Thomas, should joey have called it a waste area? OR perhaps a refuse zone? I understand not liking garbage-pit, but there’s little alternative other than euphemism.

  5. Rowan says

    You gays are f*cked. So disparate.

    Why is this a surprise?

    Yawn.

    Towleroad NEVER doeas anything to push or change anything in the lgbt comm, except just posting neutral information…

    Queerty is a right wing version that exists on the bad stuff that happens in the lgbt comm…

    Do you even talk to each other?

    Canada or the UK may not be as large but we have it.

  6. Willig says

    Yes, NJFairness, this is not the end. Remember when the ban on gay marriage was first decided by the NJ Supremes to be unconstitutional, the court said the state can choose whatever mechanism they liked to make things equal. The NJ legislature chose civil unions and appointed a task force to monitor the “equality” of civil unions v. marriage. This task force has found civil unions to be unequal. Now with the cowardice of the legislature, the Supremes of NJ will have no choice but to institute marriage equality by judicial fiat to achieve the equality demanded by the NJ state, not the US, constitution.

    I’m sick of waiting and being a NY’er even more disgusted with our top court and state legislature, but good things come to those who wait. NJ will soon be a marriage equality state.

  7. Derrick from Philly says

    JOEY,

    You need to read Sargon’s comment again…and again, if necessary. Sargon and I NEVER agree but you totally missed his sarcasm.

    Still, New Jersey is more progressive than this Alabama-smellin’ state next door. No, not New York: the one with Philadelphia in it.

  8. JeffRob says

    Willig’s right.

    And if your only experience of New Jersey is either flying in to Newark or watching Jersey Shore, please withhold your opinion. It’s a beautiful state.

  9. AndrewW says

    We lost again today. When will we learn?

    Now, the angry calls will go out to change the Pols – elect new people, more Democrats, etc., etc., BUT the same thing will happen until we do the real work – changing the minds of the people.

    It’s the Polls, not the Pols.

    Politicians are whores and they care mostly about their own survival. If we change – or demonstrate a changed public opinion – politicians will fall in line. That’s the only way to actually win.

    There is no “political solution” for our equality. No amount of money, lobbyists or eloquent promise-makers will create our equality. We need to do it. We need to enroll our fellow citizens and move the polls. Until we get our friends, neighbors, associates and strangers to join us, we will continue to lose.

    As a “movement” we do almost nothing in that regard. We always expect “someone else” or some politician or some organization to do it for us – 50 years is enough history to see that will NEVER happen.

    We need a real movement. Let’s hope this is the year.

  10. Bill says

    Andreww must be young or stupid. Or both.

    We need to change the minds of our oppressors? Really? Our rights should be allowed to be voted on by our oppressors?

    Only the Supreme Court will settle this issue.

    Change hearts and minds indeed, fool.

  11. brian says

    As a JC gay, can’t say I’m not depressed about the decision. However, it has made me as motivated as ever to get off my ass and do everything I can to make marriage legal in Jersey and everywhere. Let’s hope the court action happens quickly.

    For the life of me, I just can’t understand why the haters hate so much in the name of religion, or what they’re getting out of this.

    The other thing the recent NY and NJ defeats and convinced me of is that all of us living our life to the fullest and enjoying every moment and everything that’s good in the world may be the very best revenge against those that hate. I’m not going away because I can’t get married. My BF isn’t going away because we can’t, and neither is our relationship. We’re here whether they like it or not. And while the haters sit around stewing and watching their numbers dwindle and their world crumble around them, I’m going to fight–and enjoy life more than ever before. Take that Maggie and anyone else who doesn’t believe in equal rights for everyone. Karma’s gonna get you eventually because you’re on the losing side–the side of hate.

  12. Paul says

    well, I always say this…this will be settled by the supreme court. it is just a matter of time.
    and I listen to a lot of right-wing radio and they keep talking about taking back the country and contitution and guns, which i don’t think the 2nd ammendent was about carrying unlicensed AK47’s.
    But, the thing that i just don’t understand about the marriage debate is how anyone can look at it and see it as being fair. You have 10% or more of population as gay. You have lots of gay families…gay people with children…and I just don’t see why two men or two women getting married affects these people. I mean, if the relationship is already deemed valid (living together, whatever) what fundamental difference does them being married make? I don’t understand this. I mean it isn’t like people have sex in public … so you don’t like gay sex..then don’t gay sex. what people do in the privacy of their own home is no body’s business. whether they be straight, or gay or whatever.
    I just don’t understand how you demand freedom and constitutional rights…but neglect the very freedom that all men are created equal. I mean, if gay people didn’t pay taxes thats one thing…but we fucking pay taxes just like everyone else. We are productive members of society and we should have the rights to marry our partners.
    they talk about the sanctity of marriage yet…most of the opponents of gay marriage have been divorced three and four times. wtf
    i just don’t get it. I thought we were progressive in this country…but other countries are so much progressive. sheesh

  13. says

    As a Jersey City native, I’m dismayed but not surprised. When Corzine lost, I knew some would cozy up to the lumbering incoming ‘Phobe-in-Chief. But we’ve had set backs before and eventually triumphed. We will also win with marriage equality. Why? Because its right and its fair.

    However, the right thing often takes more time than it should. Let the ‘phobes have their giggles and their champagne, and may they choke on their hypocrisy.

    Suck it up for the moment brethren, roll up our sleeves and move on to the next phase. Right will win in the end. It always does. It just takes a little time.

  14. mike in houston says

    Saturday Night Live has a new episode this weekend. Look for a spoof of this on Weekend Update with their recurring “2 gay guys from Jersey” characters

  15. says

    @ Paul –

    I think it’s like when Christians claim to “hate the sin but love the sinner”, when their actions make it clear they hate both.

    These people smile and say we should be happy with civil unions and shut up about it, because deep down inside they think they’re better than us. And to give equality to us (people they secretly loathe) makes their skin crawl.

    I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.

  16. AndrewW says

    Bill:

    What you do not understand is that our “enemy,” as you have described, is less than 1/3 of our fellow citizens. We need to get the other two-thirds to stand with us. If we do, it’s game over.

  17. DR says

    I think, Taylor, that although you’ve described *some* of our opponents, I don’t think you’ve described them all. This debate is much more complex than that. We’re talking about a cultural shift that isn’t even solidified within our own community, let alone without. And while the haters can be very vocal, it’s the people who don’t hate but don’t want to redefine “marriage” who need to be reached out to. I can tell you that the regular cries of “you’re with us or you’re a bigot” is a HUGE turn-off to them.

  18. Lucas says

    While some people who oppose gay marriage do so on bigoted grounds, calling people bigots does not help persuade people to our side. In fact, I have heard mushy moderates in the middle express that they are turned off by gay rights activists who call people who disagree with them “bigots.” The only people who are apt to support gay marriage because they think opposition to it is bigotry are already pro-gay liberals and progressives. Calling people bigots either doesn’t is an impotent insult or turns people against the pro-gay movement.

  19. Dave says

    Am I the only one who listened to the arguments themselves?

    Kean (R) set himself up for attack, as the reason he voted against the bill was because people were being mean to him! Imagine that, in politics!

    Another (D) declared that there was no inequality after hearing about specific and repeated cases of inequality.

    Polls and pols BOTH have to be changed and they change together.

  20. TANK says

    Nah. I think we can take a lesson from other civil rights movements. There is ZERO tolerance for racial bigotry right now because there was zero tolerance for it during the civil rights movement. Of course there were slow and steady goes the fight types back then, but those who really got the ball moving were not prepared to back down by discontinuing to call bigotry by its proper title.

    Many of you who think that softening the language will help move the dialogue and win support for our cause are operating under the illusion that being against same sex marriage, for example, does not make one a bigot, and is at root just as reasonable a position to take as its counterpart. I can hope to explain this in terms of internalized homophobia and lack of personal experience with homophobic bigotry…perhaps you have “well meaning” family members that you care about but are unfortunately bigots, and you are uncomfortable with having them labeled as such.

    On a practical level, what softening the language becauase it hurts the feelings of those who “disagree” actually achieves is to make it easier to disagree. It indirectly legitimates an unacceptable position. By keeping the language as shrill and uncomfortable as the result (viz., gay apartheid) will eventually accomplish is the total ostracization of a harmful view. These harmful beliefs will be contained, though they won’t go away. Eventually, it will be acknowledged even by those who have them that it is entirely inappropriate (one of the strongest words in the English language, btw) to give voice to them. Those who do will be deemed as social pariahs, much like KKK members and white power groups are today.

    Softening the language isn’t what is going to reach people who have already made up their minds. For those on the fence about the issue, making it abundantly clear that one side of the issue is categorically unacceptable will make siding with the inevitability of complete gay enfranchisement more attractive.

  21. Javier says

    Going to the federal courts would be a viable strategy if 1) we had a reasonable chance of prevailing there and 2) it would not hasten the efforts to add an anti-gay Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Any attempts by the federal courts to make marriage a federal right would unleash a crushing backlash against us through an anti-gay marriage amendment. The only thing that stopped it for the time being is a Democratic congress. This time next year, there is a very good chance we will have a Republican Congress that will likely be calling for an federal anti-gay marriage. IT only takes 38 states to ratify an amendment, and 30 state constitutions already ban gay marriage, and 10 ban it by statute. Voters reject same-sex marriage in all 31 states where it has been on the ballot. There is a fair chance that at least 38 states would ratify such an amendment, which could almost snuff out same-sex marriage nationwide for generations to come.

  22. Patric says

    I agree with Dave that we need to focus both on moving the polls and on defeating those pols who are against us and who are vulnerable to either primary or general election challenges.

    While I agree that all those who support equality and oppose discrimination should do their part to support challenges by pro-equality candidates to the nine Democrats who weren’t with us today, I strongly disagree with any suggestion that it is Democrats who are principally responsible for this denial of constitutional assurances of “equal protection of the laws” to gay and lesbian citizens. When 14 of 15 Republican senators present voted for discrimination and over half of the chamber’s Democrats voted for equality, it is obviously the party which has been the primary obstacle to all the great civil rights movements of the past 50 years which bears principal responsibility for today’s setback for equality. Yes, let’s definitely target Democrats Girgenti, Madden, Rice, Sacco, Turner, Van Drew, Beach, Sarlo and Sweeney but we should at least as vigorously be targeting Republicans, particulary those in swing districts whom we actually have a shot at defeating. Jennifer Beck and Tom Kean, Jr. are two prime examples. Ms. Beck, who is said to personally favor equality, couldn’t be bothered to listen to the heart-wrenching stories of those victims of discrimination who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in early December, as she instead sat punching away at her blackberry. She knows very well that what she did today was wrong and that it will harm many families and vulnerable young gay people but she cares less about that than she does about her own hopes of seeking higher office as the candidate of a party where support for equal rights for gay people will not be tolerated. Same for Tom Kean, Jr., whose patronizing, self-indulgent speech to the chamber was one of the more grotesque moments of today’s proceedings. If every gay man or lesbian living in Asbury Park, and everyone in the district who cares about a gay or lesbian person or believes that our laws should treat people equally, were to commit to taking down Kean in 2011, we might be able to replace him with a pro-equality Senator. Don’t forget the likes of Beck and Kean when you are identifying those we need to target with all of our resources and energy.

    We know the names of the nine Democrats who weren’t with us today and against whom we should be supporting primary challenges by pro-equality candidates. As significantly, below I’ve listed those of the 14 Republicans who today voted for discrimination and who received less than 65% of the vote in their last election in 2007 (in an election year which, significantly, was a good one for Republicans). These supporters of discrimination are beatable and we should focus on replacing them with pro-equality senators:

    Jennifer Beck, pro-discrimination Republican who received only 53% of the vote on what was a good election night for Republicans in 2007 despite the fact that her Democratic opponent was hampered by ethics charges and the fact that rain on Election Day may have kept many senior citizen Democratic voters from the polls; this seat was previously held by a Democrat, there is significant support for equality in the district and Beck should be the No. 1 target in 2011 for those who believe in equality

    Gerald Cardinale, pro-discrimination Republican (received 55% in 2007)

    Tom Kean, Jr., pro-discrimination Republican (received just under 60% in 2007 and could be in trouble if gay and lesbian voters in Asbury Park and surrounding areas and others who care about equality mobilize against Daddy’s Boy in 2011)

    Joe Kyrillos, Jr., pro-discrimination Republican (received just over 60% in 2007)

    Christopher Bateman, pro-discrimination Republican (received just over 60% in 2007)

    Sean Kean, pro-discrimination Republican (received just over 60% in 2007)

    Anthony Bucco, pro-discrimination Republican (received just over 60% in 2007)

    Robert Singer, pro-discrimination Republican (received just over 60% in 2007)

    Phil Haines, pro-discrimination Republican (received just over 60% in 2007)

    Christopher Connors, pro-discrimination Republican (received just over 60% in 2007)

  23. Dave says

    As for targeting those who voted No, the time to begin is now. A handful got up and spoke and explained their vote. Another handful posted to Facebook crying out to “fix” civil unions.

    So why did the rest of them vote the way they did. Every opportunity can be taken to inquire of them their justification. Phrase it openly and non-confrontationally. If they refuse to give a clear answer, they’re acting as if they’re too good to talk to the people they represent. If they give an answer, it’s almost impossible for it to not be riddled with logic holes.

    I did particularly like the abject rejection of the argument from tradition by the African-American and Hispanic female senators. If presented succinctly, this strikes me as a powerful argument why claiming “thousands of years” isn’t valid.

  24. DR says

    Tank, that was a nice piece of fluff, but it just comes down to more name calling. By demanding that people choose a side and telling them they are a “bigot” for choosing what you believe is the wrong side, you’re just pissing people off. By dredging up the tired old claims of “internalized homophobia” for those of us who want to educate instead of demand, you’re pissing us off.

    If there’s one thing I’ve learned over the last year or so, you can’t force people to accept your ideology by calling them names. Absolutely counterproductive. You’re going to turn them into enemies, because I certainly wouldn’t side with you if you told me “if you don’t support me without question you’re a bigot.” Which is, for all intents and purposes, your position.

  25. Dave says

    Tank, there are plenty of ways to mold the ineffective arguments into something productive:

    It’s about Religious Freedom! -> The problem with this is that it opens the door to polygamy and child marriage (it doesn’t, but that’s the opposing point that it enables). So you talk about how this reflects the moral consensus of every church that every person deserves every opportunity to succeed and love in life.

    Equality! -> The problem is that homophobes believe LGBT are inferior. So you talk up Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Then you talk up the legal limbo children and survivors have been put into because of the lack of marriage.

    The key is to mold the words being used into something that resonates and doesn’t merely serve to irritate.

  26. TANK says

    DR, Dave…with all due respect, you two are simple. It’s not merely name calling when you call someone opposed to same sex marriage a bigot. That is precisely what they are. No one wants to be associated with that term, and it doesn’t merely irritate. I’ve already upon the practicality of harsh vocabulary to characterize those who disagree, and I see no argument countering that from either of you two. You can enjoy a polite civil rights discourse on your own time…I want no part of it. There’s nothing polite about how gays have been treated and continue to be treated.

  27. TANK says

    And don’t think that you are “educating” someone who is opposed to same sex marriage. That’s a flawed model that has achieved nothing to date. All you are achieving by softening the language is making it easier to be a bigot. That’s it. You both have a flawed understanding of people, it would seem…and I do believe that it basically comes down to a lack of exposure to the realities of homophobia…and an inability to empathize with those realities.

  28. TANK says

    And you accuse me of fluff!? DR, you’ve basically said “can’t we all just get along?” No, dr, apparently we can’t. But hey, that’s the way it is…you know…it’s tough to confront reality.

    You’re advocating castrating the dialogue from our side because you think it will attract people. They DON’T CARE what you call them. They think you’re non- person…and many believe that you’ve made a choice, and don’t really exist at all. It’s infuriating to talk to passive homosexuals who have absolutely no understanding of effective outreach, advocating impotent initiatives to win support.

    I’m also entertained by Dave’s scenario of polite outreach at church… Just how many times do you have to walk away empty handed before reconsider your approach? Do you know what the definition of insanity is?

  29. DR says

    Tank, I’m not advocating anything besides cessation of the labeling of every single person in America who doesn’t agree that full marriage equality needs to happen right this very second as a “bigot”. It’s tiresome, annoying, unfair, and throwing out potential allies.

    If you think that moderate people who could be educated are gong to change their minds because you call them a “bigot” every time you open your mouth, you’re sadly mistaken. What they will do is tune you out. That’s it. That’s all you accomplish. Because they’re not going to hear anything else you have to say, they’ll tire of the fact that you’re calling them names.

    Dialogue needs to happen, and calling people who don’t immediately agree with you “bigots” is about as appealing to them as being labeled an “uppity, loudmouth faggot” would be to you.

  30. TANK says

    “Tank, I’m not advocating anything besides cessation of the labeling of every single person in America who doesn’t agree that full marriage equality needs to happen right this very second as a “bigot”. It’s tiresome, annoying, unfair, and throwing out potential allies.”

    Being against marriage equality is not a moderate position. That’s where you fail to grasp the situation and what bigotry is. Once again, internalized homophobia is definitely a option to assign to this attitude of yours. Another would be lack of direct experience with discrimination becauase of sexual orientation, and an inability to empathize…yet further, the people you’re around who you care about who are, in fact, bigots if they’re against marriage equality….all perfectly legitimate options to explain this attitude. Whatever the actual reason, though–it’s not progay.

  31. TANK says

    “Dialogue needs to happen, and calling people who don’t immediately agree with you “bigots” is about as appealing to them as being labeled an “uppity, loudmouth faggot” would be to you.”

    This is direct confirmation of what I wrote earlier with,

    “Many of you who think that softening the language will help move the dialogue and win support for our cause are operating under the illusion that being against same sex marriage, for example, does not make one a bigot, and is at root just as reasonable a position to take as its counterpart.”

    I understand that you believe that being against marriage equality is just as reasonable a position to take as those who are for it…but please don’t speak for anyone but yourself. You are a relic of the past.

  32. DR says

    Tank, the way you suggest approaching this is as a bully, plain and simple. You figure that by insulting and demeaning people, they’re going to change their minds and hearts. If you think it works that way, you are utterly naive. Those people will nod their heads politely then slam the door as soon as they have a chance.

    By assuming that anyone who doesn’t immediately support your position is a bigot, you work under the false assumption that they have all addressed the issue. You do not take into consideration whether they know gay people (statistically those who do are more likely to support us than those who do not). You fail to take into account whether or not anyone has actually talked to them person-to-person about the subject (again, statistically, that helps). Especially whether or not a gay person has talked to them (wonder why some of the ads in this battle haven’t worked? It’s because we have yet to actually humanize our own community).

    Your assumption that I think that bigotry is ok is utterly asinine and quite frankly idiotic. I know people, Tank, and many need to be educated on this issue. Surprisingly enough, this is not an issue on the radar of most heterosexuals, despite the conspiracy theories to the contrary. And people who want to be educated, or need to be educated, aren’t going to change their minds over night because some PC Thug tells them their a bigot and tells the gay guy trying to educate them he’s “internalizing homophobia”. Again with the “pissing people off” concept you fail to grasp. Go figure.

    Working in my own local community, I know what does and doesn’t work, and screaming “bigot” doesn’t work. We have people in my local community who are just like you, and the folks who are being asked to address this issue pretty much avoid them. Gee, I wonder why? I wonder why they gravitate toward people like me who have a softer and more approachable touch. And I know who wins in my community, Tank, and it ain’t you.

Leave A Reply