"Is anyone else troubled by our govenor's recent position on this issue?"

NO!!!

It's a moral issue, not a civil rights issue. Stop already - the people of California spoke (voted), they didn't want gay marriage. The issue is OVER. People will complain the tactics that were used (e.g., the Mormon Church), but that's what every side resorts to and nothing illegal was done. When you lose an election/referendum, you can't cry and stomp your feet just because it didn't turn out the way that you wanted it to.

The economy is headed for the toilet and this what government has to worry about??? New Jersey has many and much more urgent issues than this - if this is at the top of your list, then move or go to Mass. and get married there - NO ONE is stopping you from doing that!!!

Is anyone else troubled by our governor's recent position on this issue?

As I understand it, he has encouraged the legislature to shelve the issue because he feels the legislature must devote all of its energy on the state"s economy. This is after he had indicated that he would sign a bill from the legislature after the November election since he felt it would be too "controversial" an issue to take up beforehand. Please.

Given what happened recently in California, and in Connecticut, I think this is the perfect time for this issue come to the forefront in NJ. Why are our legislators unable to concentrate on more than one issue at once? While the economy is certainly the most important issue facing the state right now, I think that civil rights are also important.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pi ... _woolner&sid=atkop7P0ZGYE

One of the best summary of the constitutional scenarios I have seen. It makes me wonder what would be the situation here if the state supreme court turned civil unions into marriages ? Super or simple majority for a constitutional amendment against it and what are the odds here ?

If some basic civil rights can not be conferred to a category of people other than through a civil union, what about making sure everyone has it but ooops, this is the only legally binding document for everybody. How does it feel ? ;-0

FAB, you're using a faulty analogy. voting a leader in is democracy at work. voting down civil rights is not.

Also keeping the NJ relevance, Al Doblin had a good piece in the Record.

Excert: "New Jerseyans should take note of what happened in California. A majority of voters in a very liberal state were not so very liberal when it came to the subject of same-sex marriage. It was the California high court that legalized same-sex marriage. And it was the California people who took that right away."

( FWIW: There is a great doc on Harvey Milk and soon there will be a feature film. )

=============================
Gays don't 'got Milk'

Monday, November 10, 2008
By ALFRED DOBLIN
RECORD EDITORIAL COLUMNIST

Thirty years ago, California voters rejected a ban on homosexuals teaching in public schools. Last Tuesday, California voters approved a ban on same-sex marriage. The difference was Milk.

Harvey Milk was the first openly gay man elected to public office in California. He served on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and was shot dead on Nov. 27, 1978, along with then-Mayor George Moscone, by a former member of the city's board.

Later this month, the film "Milk" will be released in the metropolitan area. Sean Penn's starring role is generating Oscar buzz. Milk's life narrative is compelling. But the attention on his life and death comes a little late for same-sex couples in California.

New Jerseyans should take note of what happened in California. A majority of voters in a very liberal state were not so very liberal when it came to the subject of same-sex marriage. It was the California high court that legalized same-sex marriage. And it was the California people who took that right away.

The victories that the gay community has achieved in the courts, including New Jersey's, can be taken away by voters who are exercised enough to change state constitutions. It is not winning the hearts and minds of justices or legislators that will bring marriage equality to all 50 states. It's the hearts, minds and vote-casting hands of the electorate that matter most.

By all accounts, when Milk was rallying support 30 years ago to block a ban on gays teaching in public schools, he was facing an uphill challenge. He was a formidable, focused gay-rights advocate. He wasn't open to compromise with the less activist gay establishment. I doubt Milk would be happy today because it is the gay elite that is running the show. And it is a show.

The gay community is enamored of celebrity, which is no substitute for leadership. A hero may become a celebrity, but being a celebrity is not heroic.

Organizations need celebrities to raise money and appear at fancy dinners that raise money. Celebrities are either the actual ATM or the PIN code to a potential donor's ATM. But celebrities are a conduit. They aren't currency.

You cannot buy a paradigm shift. You have to earn it.

That means shoes and pumps hitting the pavement, convincing people face-to-face. Few Americans voted for the first African-American president because a celebrity said he or she was voting for Obama. They voted for Obama because they heard and saw something that resonated deep inside them.

On the subject of same-sex marriage, Americans are resonating with fear.

Until an unlikely leader like Harvey Milk emerges within the gay community, state by state, voters will come out to support same-sex marriage bans. It happened in California; it can happen here. Conservatives still win regional elections in New Jersey.

I've seen a lot of polling data about same-sex marriage support in New Jersey. Polls don't reflect everything. Even moderates and liberals can draw conservative lines.

Next June is the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, the civil disturbance in Greenwich Village that jump-started the gay rights movement. The gay community has come far in 40 years. But it hasn't reached its mountaintop.

Gays and lesbians cannot openly serve in the military. They cannot legally marry in 48 states. If they can legally marry, those marriages are not recognized by the federal government. And gay men who have ever had sex since 1977 are banned from donating blood for life.

California's Proposition 8, along with same-sex marriage bans in Florida and Arizona, passed last week because there is no single voice uniting the gay community. For all the talk about a gay agenda, there is little homogeny among homosexuals. Maybe that will change in California because voters have approved taking away a legal right from same-sex couples.

In 2009, the Legislature may readdress the issue of same-sex marriage in New Jersey. And maybe the Legislature will vote to allow it. But unless a majority of New Jerseyans support that decision, it will be a decision carved in sand.

Don't pop the wedding champagne. Proponents of same-sex marriage need Milk.

Alfred P. Doblin is the editorial page editor of The Record. Contact him at doblin@northjersey.com.

Democracy at work - everyone had the chance to vote and the people have spoken in California. Those that disagree will have to wait until they have another VOTE.

Not all of us were happy with Bush in office, but he was VOTED in the second time !

Quote:

I don't think that is what happened -- like it or not, I think the reasons why many blacks voted "yes" is summed up well in this opinion piece in the LA Times:

No-on-8's white bias

The right to marry does nothing to address the problems faced by both black gays and black straights.

LA Times
By Jasmyne A. Cannick
November 8, 2008

I am a perfect example of why the fight against Proposition 8, which amends the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, failed to win black support.

I am black. I am a political activist who cares deeply about social justice issues. I am a lesbian. This year, I canvassed the streets of South Los Angeles and Compton, knocking on doors, talking politics to passers-by and working as I never had before to ensure a large voter turnout among African Americans. But even I wasn't inspired to encourage black people to vote against the proposition.

Why? Because I don't see why the right to marry should be a priority for me or other black people. Gay marriage? Please. At a time when blacks are still more likely than whites to be pulled over for no reason, more likely to be unemployed than whites, more likely to live at or below the poverty line, I was too busy trying to get black people registered to vote, period; I wasn't about to focus my attention on what couldn't help but feel like a secondary issue.

The first problem with Proposition 8 was the issue of marriage itself. The white gay community never successfully communicated to blacks why it should matter to us above everything else -- not just to me as a lesbian but to blacks generally. The way I see it, the white gay community is banging its head against the glass ceiling of a room called equality, believing that a breakthrough on marriage will bestow on it parity with heterosexuals. But the right to marry does nothing to address the problems faced by both black gays and black straights. Does someone who is homeless or suffering from HIV but has no healthcare, or newly out of prison and unemployed, really benefit from the right to marry someone of the same sex?

Maybe white gays could afford to be singularly focused, raising millions of dollars to fight for the luxury of same-sex marriage. But blacks were walking the streets of the projects and reaching out to small businesses, gang members, convicted felons and the spectrum of an entire community to ensure that we all were able to vote.

Second is the issue of civil rights. White gays often wonder aloud why blacks, of all people, won't support their civil rights. There is a real misunderstanding by the white gay community about the term. Proponents of gay marriage fling it around as if it is a one-size-fits-all catchphrase for issues of fairness.

But the black civil rights movement was essentially born out of and driven by the black church; social justice and religion are inextricably intertwined in the black community. To many blacks, civil rights are grounded in Christianity -- not something separate and apart from religion but synonymous with it. To the extent that the issue of gay marriage seemed to be pitted against the church, it was going to be a losing battle in my community.

Then there was the poorly conceived campaign strategy. Opponents of Proposition 8 relied on an outdated civil rights model, engaging the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People to help win black support on the issue of gay marriage. This happened despite the warnings of black lesbians and gays that it wouldn't work. While the NAACP definitely should have been included in the strategy, it shouldn't have been the only group. Putting nearly a quarter of a million dollars into an outdated civil rights group that has very little influence on the black vote -- at least when it comes to gay issues -- will never work.

Likewise, holding the occasional town-hall meeting in Leimert Park -- the one part of the black community where they now feel safe thanks to gentrification -- to tell black people how to vote on something gay isn't effective outreach either.

There's nothing a white gay person can tell me when it comes to how I as a black lesbian should talk to my community about this issue. If and when I choose to, I know how to say what needs to be said. Many black gays just haven't been convinced that this movement for marriage is about anything more than the white gays who fund it (and who, we often find, are just as racist and clueless when it comes to blacks as they claim blacks are homophobic).

Some people seem to think that homophobia trumps racism, and that winning the battle for gay marriage will symbolically bring about equality for everyone. That may seem true to white gays, but as a black lesbian, let me tell you: There are still too many inequalities that exist as it relates to my race for that to ever be the case. Ever heard of "driving while black"? Ever looked at the difference between the dropout rates for blacks and for whites? Or test scores? Or wages? Or rates of incarceration?

And in the end, black voters in California voted against gay marriage by more than 2 to 1.

Maybe next time around -- because we all know this isn't over -- the gay community can demonstrate the capacity and willingness to change that America demonstrated when it went to the polls on Nov. 4. Black gays are depending on their white counterparts to finally "get it."

Until then, don't expect to make any inroads any time soon in the black community on this issue -- including with this black lesbian.

Jasmyne A. Cannick is a writer in Los Angeles. jasmynecannick.com.

This is a Civil rights issue, plain and simple, and so therefore like the Civil Rights Act it has to be made into law by courageous legislators and not left to a referendum.

Do you think The Civil Rights Act would EVER had made it into law if the people in the south were allowed to vote on it back then?

No. LBJ had to ram it down their throats, at the cost of his political career, it can be argued....but he did it because it was the right thing to do, and History has just proven him right with the election of Obama. This very well wouldn't have happened without LBJ having the guts to do the right thing.

What should happen is Obama should make gay marriage a federal issue at some point...during a second term perhaps, and move it through Congress just like the Civil Rights Act.

Biscuit.

I partially agree with you. I'm not saying that every issue needs to be put to a popular vote. I was just saying that it's not totally unfair. I think in certain situations it makes sense.

Questioning the wording or the clarity of the actual ballot is an entirely different argument. And yes, if the ballot was drastically biased or confusing, then it's unfair.

BUT. If people voted a certain way, who are you or anyone else, to question how informed people are on the topics? I read up, real quick, on the propositions, and they didn't seem that difficult...

It's loser talk to be complaining about the results if they don't go your way. The same could be applied to the presidential election...

One could then make an argument that the people who voted for Obama are "uninformed" or "didn't read up" on the issues. In sore loser fashion, someone could say that it was unfair because Obama had more advertising and special interest groups helped him drive more voters to the polls....

Brian, why do you think we elect state representatives? To make decisions on our behalf. And if they pass bills we don't agree with? We vote them out of office. It's called democracy. Take a whiff.

While you're exhaling, take a look at how many propositions were on California's ballot this year:

The Stories Behind the Propositions

Do you know how many millions are spent on campaign ads for all of this? And if you think special interest groups aren't behind every one of these propositions, you are incredibly naive.

How many voters do you think study up on each question before heading to the polls?

The doublespeak used in these ballot initiatives is such that it's easy for an uninformed voter (hello, Courtney) to believe they're voting for something that they're really voting against.

Sorry, but if this is what it means to live in a state run "by the people," I'll stick with politicians. It's why I vote for them in the first place.

Quote:

You don't think people's civil rights should be decided by THE PEOPLE??? I think it's pretty fair, rather than politicians or special interest groups FORCING laws on people when the majority doesn't want them...

All these people are saying, "what's the big deal". Well, if it wasn't a big deal, gay people wouldn't be fighting to make it happen. Obviously it IS a big deal to some people.

And just because you feel a certain way about a topic doesn't mean everyone else loses their right to oppose it. I know it's not the best example, but yeah, Adults are not allowed to have relations with 15 year olds. The majority of people agree with that. But I'm sure you can find some people that think it's perfectly ok. Should the law then be changed just to suit them? NO, because the majority of the people think it's wrong.

I've said it before in a previous post, I think gay couples should be able to attain the same rights as married couples, hospital visitation rights, legal/tax purposes, ect. But I, personally don't think they should be "Married" or be able to adopt children.

Gay Marriage isn't like other political topics like taxation or defense. It's something that people are deeply tied to and aren't really going to be persuaded into changing religious beliefs or social conventions that they have lived with their entire lives. And I think it's slightly offensive when certain people try to make you feel guilty for having these beliefs...

I can also see a lot of voters not even realizing it was on the ballot. I nearly walked out of the voting booth on election day without voting on anything else but prez and senate.

not that she's a bellwether or anything, but Courtney Love was crowing about how she voted "Yes" to support gay marriage, and was so happy it passed.

I wonder how many other (stoned? distracted?) voters thought they were voting FOR gay marriage when they voted Yes to Prop 8.

Get all the Gay and Lesbian couples of the US to move to California, then vote when it comes up again !

I was thinking the same thing because the policy on this site is to keep NOT Jersey City New Topics to a minimum. The policy is subjective and is meant to keep this site on the topic of Jersey City, not to be judgmental.

In this case GrovePath who has contributed 6000 posts of mainly important news and information has earned the privilege of posting whatever he wants. I appreciate his time and effort and cannot thank him enough for his contribution.

Heights, I would have challenged GrovePath if I did not think this to be an important topic of interest. I am not saying that your Manhattan topic was not interesting, could you remind me about the subject matter on that?

What does the state of California have to do with Jersey City ?? I posted something of interest in Manhattan and it was deleted.

Quote:

You would think, but unfortunately SCOTUS' record on gay rights is mixed. Currently, the standard of review applied to equal protection challenges for laws that discriminate using sexual orientation as a criteria are reviewed under the "rational basis" test, which is one of the most deferential standards applied by the Court (though the case law suggests when applied in the gay rights context, it has more bite). See Romer v. Evans for a discussion. However, in light of Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned Texas' sodomy laws, there have been suggestions that the Court might move to expressly hold sexual orientation as a "suspect class". That does not mean gays are "suspect", by the way, it means that a classification by a law on the basis of sexual orientation would be "suspect" under the 5th and 14th Amendments and thus would be subject to more stringent review, or "strict scrutiny." If the Court decides that a classification is prima facie suspect, laws making such distinctions rarely survive an equal protection challenge. But in light of the most recent appointments to the Court, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Quote:

I really can't see any reason for a person to oppose gay marriage unless they feel they need the government to keep them straight.

For me it's a hugely important civil rights issue for everyone, as it goes to the government's ability to regulate people's private life. Government staying out of marriage is relevant to divorce, miscegnation, polygamy, fornication, and the infinite list of arbitrary restrictions that the government could (and does) place on people's private lives.

I'm worried that a political climate that allows people to go out of its way to ban gay marriage could ban -anything-. I consider gay marriage votes a barometer of whether people believe that the government should be micromanaging people's lives.

Just like when Bloomberg started enforcing anti-dancing laws.

The over-riding issue that tends to get ignored and implicitly accepted is whether the government has any sort of business handing out marriage licenses, period. It doesn't, imho. A legal contract could be sanctioned by either religious institutions (pro or con on gay marriages--if the latter, then the couple would have a decision to make) or law offices.

A much better tack by the gay community (whose ability to marry I support 100%) would be to challenge the legitimacy of any government body issuing marriage licenses in the first place. When you cede power to a political body, it's tough to be shocked when it makes decisions based on political expediency or pressure.

Quote:

Well said!!

How people can even put the idea of two consenting adults entering into a contract for love and legal protection, alongside relations with minors, and people living like animals is insane. When 2 adults, not 3 or 4 or 5....not dogs, cats or children, when 2 adults decide to enter into a marriage contract there is no one on earth, or no thing on earth that is affected by that union other than the 2 people involved.

They will NEVER hurt your relationship, your family or status on the planet. They will exist in their own space and go about their lives, never asking about or infringing on the relations of straight people. They will never judge the multiple of times that straight people get married and re-married, over and over. They just wish to be allowed to be loved and protected under the same laws as all loving adult couples.

I think this could ultimately go before the Supreme Court and be struck down. IMO it violates the Equal Protection Clause. We shall see.

As far as legislating morality - yes you can, you've been living through it before this Proposition - you cannot have multiple wives or husbands, you cannot have relations with a minor, etc. - these are all moral issues that some religions or cultures find acceptable. When gov't or the majority of the public finds such behavior as unaccepting then you legislate against allowing it. If it weren't for laws, some people would live like animals. I'm not passing comment on this particular issue of gay marriage, just pointing out the issue of "legislating morality". Obviously the majority of people were uncomfortable with it (due to religious, personal beliefs, etc.) so it did not pass. What might be moral to one person is not necessarily moral to the next.

My opinion is that us straight people who support gay marriage have not done enough to help our gay friends and family members win this battle. Me, personally, I believe they have the right to get married just like I did, but I have been sort of complacent about it... yay if they get it, but not paying enough attention to it if they don't. I think many of us are feeling the same way, until we really think long and hard about it and realize that our gay friends and family members are treated so unfairly in this regard.

So, I am beginning to ask my friends more and more "what can i do to help out?"

Quote:

Really? I mean, you are aware that Obama doesn't support Gay marraige, right?

Quote:

Great Melissa Etheridge essay!

Anyway, the above question she poses is what it boils down for me. I look at marriage as having two major faces: the religious and the legal. Firstly, for many people, marriage is a religious ceremony. If certain churches or religions want to rail against homosexuality, so be it. They can have their beliefs and I can have mine. No problem if they don't want to marry gay couples, since we all are free to choose how and where we worship.

But when did it become okay to pass LAWS that have to do with morality, and thus by extension religious and ethical beliefs? If you look at marriage from the second angle, the legal aspect of it all, banning gay marriage makes no sense. It just seems like a huge violation of church and state to me. How can the majority decide what is moral and what is not for the rest of us? All of the legal benefits that come with marriage... hospital visitation rights, paid family leave, tax breaks, etc... need to be available to everyone equally, since we're all taxpayers. Otherwise we should just end legal benefits for ALL couples, both gay and straight, and put marriage ceremonies back in the hands of religious/cultural institutions.

Thought this was pretty awesome.

* * *

Singer Melissa Etheridge rails against the passage of the gay-marriage ban in California?and she won't be paying the state a dime.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-an ... /you-can-forget-my-taxes/

You Can Forget My Taxes
by Melissa Etheridge


Okay. So Prop 8 passed. Alright, I get it. 51% of you think that I am a second class citizen. Alright then. So my wife, uh I mean, roommate? Girlfriend? Special lady friend? You are gonna have to help me here because I am not sure what to call her now. Anyways, she and I are not allowed the same right under the state constitution as any other citizen. Okay, so I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes because I am not a full citizen. I mean that would just be wrong, to make someone pay taxes and not give them the same rights, sounds sort of like that taxation without representation thing from the history books.

Okay, cool I don't mean to get too personal here but there is a lot I can do with the extra half a million dollars that I will be keeping instead of handing it over to the state of California. Oh, and I am sure Ellen will be a little excited to keep her bazillion bucks that she pays in taxes too. Wow, come to think of it, there are quite a few of us fortunate gay folks that will be having some extra cash this year. What recession? We're gay! I am sure there will be a little box on the tax forms now single, married, divorced, gay, check here if you are gay, yeah, that's not so bad. Of course all of the waiters and hairdressers and UPS workers and gym teachers and such, they won't have to pay their taxes either.

Oh and too bad California, I know you were looking forward to the revenue from all of those extra marriages. I guess you will have to find some other way to get out of the budget trouble you are in.

?Really?

When did it become okay to legislate morality? I try to envision someone reading that legislation "eliminates the right" and then clicking yes. What goes through their mind? Was it the frightening commercial where the little girl comes home and says, "Hi mom, we learned about gays in class today" and then the mother gets that awful worried look and the scary music plays? Do they not know anyone who is gay? If they do, can they look them in the face and say "I believe you do not deserve the same rights as me"? Do they think that their children will never encounter a gay person? Do they think they will never have to explain the 20% of us who are gay and living and working side by side with all the citizens of California?

I got news for them, someday your child is going to come home and ask you what a gay person is. Gay people are born everyday. You will never legislate that away.

I know when I grew up gay was a bad word. Homo, lezzie, faggot, dyke. Ignorance and fear ruled the day. There were so many "thems" back then. The blacks, the poor ... you know, "them". Then there was the immigrants. "Them.? Now the them is me.

I tell myself to take a breath, okay take another one, one of the thems made it to the top. Obama has been elected president. This crazy fearful insanity will end soon. This great state and this great country of ours will finally come to the understanding that there is no "them". We are one. We are united. What you do to someone else you do to yourself. That "judge not, lest ye yourself be judged" are truthful words and not Christian rhetoric.

Today the gay citizenry of this state will pick themselves up and dust themselves off and do what we have been doing for years. We will get back into it. We love this state, we love this country and we are not going to leave it. Even though we could be married in Mass. or Conn, Canada, Holland, Spain and a handful of other countries, this is our home. This is where we work and play and raise our families. We will not rest until we have the full rights of any other citizen. It is that simple, no fearful vote will ever stop us, that is not the American way.

Come to think of it, I should get a federal tax break too...

Quote:

I disagree. I don't think people's civil rights should be decided by popular vote. In the case of California, the people have just decided to nullify the marriages and make bastards out of the children of 20,000 couples they probably don't even know and whose pursuit of happiness had not and probably would never have affected their own lives or relationships in any way. Talk about tyranny of the majority. It's disgusting.

Hispanics tend to be conservative people. This is the first time a Republican has not won the Hispanic vote. As far as Blacks, they too are very religious. I don't think their vote for the Gay Marriage Ban had anything to do with advertising.