Why the push for same sex marriage now?
In a widely published OpEd piece, Rob Eichmann, the GOP State Committeeman from Gloucester County, questioned why the the State Legislature’s Democratic leadership has made gay marriage their top priority of the year.
Assembly Minority Conference Leader Dave Rible says the Democrats putting the issue on the front burner is a “slap in the face to the guy on the unemployment line.”
Both men have a point.
Garden State Equality, the gay rights organization behind the push for same sex marriage, boasts of 86,000 members on its website. That makes them, they say, the largest civil rights organization in the state.
That 86,000 number is questionable.
Steve Goldstein, Chair and CEO of the GSE, told MMM that they consider any person who takes two affirmative actions for equality to be a member. How they track that, he wouldn’t say. I’m pretty sure they consider me a member. Goldstein was aware that I signed up for their email list this week. I told him that I noticed that shortly after I signed up that the the number changed from 85,000 to 86,000. “I promise you, Art, we’re not counting you as 1,000 members.”
Goldstein finally acknowledged, sort of, that the membership claim is based upon a combination of their email list of 70,000 plus the 17,200 facebook friends they have, less a fudge factor to eliminate overlaps. Given that there is a facebook plug in on the GSE page, the fudge factor should probably be more than 1,200.
Even if GSE’s membership numbers were accurate, they would be representing less that 1% of New Jersey’s population.
The number of same sex couples who have committed to each other in the form of civil unions is a more reliable indicator of just how big this “civil rights” problem is.
According to Daniel Emmer, spokesperson for the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, 5,790 couples have been joined in civil unions since 2007 when the legislation designating the unions become effective. That’s 11,580 people, statewide, that this issue impacts directly, if we generously assume that none of those unions have been dissolved by divorce. Do they call it divorce?
One might conclude that Goldstein’s political skills are remarkable. He has managed to make his small, be it 11,580 or 86,000 people, constituency’s concern the top priority of our state government during a time when our economy is anemic, municipal governments are making significant changes to balance their budgets and our urban schools are not educating their students. Unemployment and foreclosures are not our top priority. Another generation of minority students are not getting educated, and Steve Goldstein has managed to make same sex marriage the most important issue of the State Legislature.
Or has he?
Goldstein has been played by the Democrats before. Jon Corzine, while he was governor got Goldstein to agree to back off the same sex marriage issue during the 2008 presidential election cycle and the 2009 gubernatiorial election cycle. Corzine made passionate speeches before gay audiences about how important their rights were. He was blowing smoke.
Are the Democratic leaders of the legislature playing Goldstein again? I think they are.
The Democrats and their special interest donors want nothing to do with Governor Christie’s agenda for this year. They want to raise taxes, not lower them. They don’t want to reform education. They don’t want to reform the civil service system so that municipalities can lower their costs and taxes.
The Democrats don’t want Christie to be an effective spokesman for Mitt Romney, especially if Romney wins the GOP presidential nomination.
That’s what this is about for the Democratic leadership. Avoiding Christie’s agenda and changing the public conversation. It’s not about civil rights and benefits for Goldstein’s small constituency.
Whether or not it’s really about civil rights for Goldstein and GSE is another question which will be the subject of a future post.
More from my site
Have Civil Unions Worked?
Garden State Equality Claims They’re Close To Marriage Equality Overide
Christie Conditionally Vetos Marriage Equality and Religious Exemptions Act
Garden State Equality Launches Campaign To Convert Chick-fil-A Operators To Their Cause
Gay married couple sues Catholic institution over medical benefits
Assembly Passes Gay Marriage Bill
Marriage Equality and Religious Excemption Act: It’s over except for the theatrics- Garden State Equality Apologizes For Endorsing Mary Pat Angelini
- Political Conservatism and Religious Conservatism
Gay Marriage and The Church
Art you said:
“4.6% of New Jersey’s population is roughly 405,000 people. 4.6% unemployment is considered a small number. ”
Well I guess this is as good a time as any to let the cat out of the bag.
I never said gays were 4.6% of the population any any comment.
4.6 is the percentage of New Jersyans collecting unemployment right now.
But you have stated, quite rightly, that the importance of the issue that sets the priority, not the number. So in the end it appears we agree.
As to my answering about “marriage” vs “gay marriage” I use the same analysis for both.
Whether anything is a “civil right” is a knotty question, and I’m not saying that the government issuing a license with benefits and obligations creates a subtantive right (I think in terms of freedoms and government limitations of them, not government granting rights).
So I see everyone having the freedom to marry. When government starts licensing some and not others with benefits, that triggers the equal protection analysis. Some may come to different conclusions after applying the equal protection tests, but I’ve honestly never heard of anyone but you claiming the equal protection tests are not the appropriate stadard of review in a courtroom.
If it is not, what is?
but I’ve honestly never heard of anyone but you claiming the equal protection tests are not the appropriate stadard of review in a courtroom.
Where did I say that?
I don’t think I’ve mentioned a courtroom, in the context of gay marriage, yet. I’ve been talking about the legislature.
Yes, this is a knotty issue. I’m attempting to untangle it. Thanks for your help.
As to my answering about “marriage” vs “gay marriage” I use the same analysis for both.
So Tommy, you’ve already concluded that marriage and gay marriage are the same thing. Correct? If so, why?
Art said:
“…but I’ve honestly never heard of anyone but you claiming the equal protection tests are not the appropriate stadard of review in a courtroom. Where did I say that?”
You’ve made the assertion that this is not a “civil rights” issue but a “civil inconvenience” issue.
A legislature would certainly have to use equal protection analysis when drafting the law, as that is going to be how the law is ultimately judged fro constitutionality in a courtroom.
“ArtGallagher said at 11:10 am on January 30th, 2012:
So Tommy, you’ve already concluded that marriage and gay marriage are the same thing. Correct? If so, why?”
If by the same thing you mean identical, no of course not there are the two obvious differences that the partners in Gay marriage are of the same sex and can not procreate.
What I see as the same is that the same analytical inquiry must be applied to them.
Again I see freedoms as Narturally endowed, so I start from the premise that people have the freedom to do anything they please.
Those freedoms will get curtailed by government laws, the design of which are to protect us from one another and from government.
The questions that arise when the government starts qualifying and disqualifying people for anything is whether the state interest being furtherd in disallowing an action outweighs the Naturally endowed freedom to do it.
So you end up with the balancing tests, namely the three currently used by the Supreme Court.
A legislature would certainly have to use equal protection analysis when drafting the law, as that is going to be how the law is ultimately judged fro constitutionality in a courtroom.
You give the legislature too much credit.
You’ve made the assertion that this is not a “civil rights” issue but a “civil inconvenience” issue.
True, but that was a rhetorical poke in the eye, which I will use again, in an attempt to get the answer to the question, “why is same sex marriage a civil right?”
If by the same thing you mean identical, no of course not there are the two obvious differences that the partners in Gay marriage are of the same sex and can not procreate.
I don’t mean anything. I asking you what you mean.
What I see as the same is that the same analytical inquiry must be applied to them.
Why?
Again I see freedoms as Narturally endowed, so I start from the premise that people have the freedom to do anything they please.
Those freedoms will get curtailed by government laws, the design of which are to protect us from one another and from government.
The questions that arise when the government starts qualifying and disqualifying people for anything is whether the state interest being furtherd in disallowing an action outweighs the Naturally endowed freedom to do it.
The current question is not one of qualifying or disqualifying. It is one of redefining in order to qualify.
What state interested would be forwarded by such a redefinition and qualification?
Art asks:
“What state interested would be forwarded by such a redefinition and qualification?”
That question is not part of the Constitutional analysis. In fact it is the opposite question presented for Constitionality (the legislature and courts get this right, but journalists like yourself often don’t).
The current structure denies to Gays a marriage license.
The question the legislature must answer for the Court (and it is the appropriate question) is what state interest is there in denying a marriage license to a homosexual couple?
To answer that, you have to answer other questions.
First you have to determine the importance level of the freedom for Gays (for instance, fundamental right v non-fundamental right).
Then you have to determine whether the government interest in the ban on the action is a legitimate interest, an important interest or a compelling interst.
Then you apply one of the 3 tests to balance the two interests.
Of course, when it comes to Gays, their will also be an analysis of whether the are a “suspect class” which can actually alter the above tests.
To shorten the above (and to oversimplify so don’t use this as the ultimate test without the above analysis):
The Courts won’t ask what benefit Gays get by marrying (why would the Court care?). The Courts will ask what interest the State is protecting by banning Gays from marrying.
“What state interested would be forwarded by such a redefinition and qualification?”
That question is not part of the Constitutional analysis. In fact it is the opposite question presented for Constitionality (the legislature and courts get this right, but journalists like yourself often don’t).
I won’t pretend to be a constitutional anaylist. However, I was using your standard: The questions that arise when the government starts qualifying and disqualifying people for anything is whether the state interest being furtherd in disallowing an action outweighs the Naturally endowed freedom to do it. in framing my question.
Are you changing the standard now or was your prior statement poorly worded.
The current structure denies to Gays a marriage license.
Does it? Jim McGreevey did it twice. Both of his marriages produced a child.
I realize you’ve argued earlier that it prevents them from marrying the person that they want to have sex with.
Marrying someone you don’t want to have sex with is also a centuries old tradition. History books and literature are filled with prominent examples.
The Courts won’t ask what benefit Gays get by marrying (why would the Court care?). The Courts will ask what interest the State is protecting by banning Gays from marrying.
I promised a gay marriage proponent that I would thoroughly read Lewis v Harris. I think I need to do that before responding your statement here.
No Art my words weren’t poorly worded by me, they were poorly read by you.
I said there needs to be a state interest in denying the marriage license.
You asked what the state interest would be in allowing the license.
That’s why I said yours is the opposite question from the one the Court will ask the legislature (actually the executive branch – who will be representing in Court the actions of the legislature).
The questions that arise when the government starts qualifying and disqualifying people for anything is whether the state interest being furtherd in disallowing an action outweighs the Naturally endowed freedom to do it
Really? I misread that?
What about McGreevey?
Art read the next two words after the words you made bold….
I’m not sure where you are going with the McGreevey comments – he was married to women (unless there is something I don’t know).
Art read the next two words after the words you made bold….
OK, I did. I’m not getting you’re point. What am I missing?
McGreevey is a perfect example of a gay person who exercised his right to marry. He did it twice, both times with a woman, both times producing a child.
You said that the current structure denies to Gays a marriage license. McGreevey proves that your statement is not so.
I’m not sure how you can miss it.
My statement: The Court will have to look at the state interest IN DENYING THE LICENSE.
Your reading of it: The Court will look at the state interest IN GRANTING THE LICENSE.
I don’t know how to make it more clear to you that those are not the same questions.
You’re point about about McGreevey is sophistry. The debate is about SSM, not OSM. Let’s not be juvenile about it.
I see where we have not been communicating, Tommy.
I understand what you are saying.
However, to my way of thinking, as I have said previously, perhaps inartfully, the question of gay marriage is not a matter of allowing or disallowing, but rather a matter of redefining what the word marriage means.
If marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman than the Court or the legislature can not deny two members of the same sex the right to marry. Nor can they grant that right.
If the word marriage is redefined to be the union of two adults, regardless of gender, then we don’t have this issue.
I didn’t make a point about McGreevey. I asked a question in response to your assertion. It was not juneville. Stop doing what you often complain that others do on this site.
You said,
The current structure denies to Gays a marriage license.
I said,
Does it? Jim McGreevey did it twice. Both of his marriages produced a child.
That’s a question.
In response to others who have argued that gays have the right to marry, you responded, that they are denied the right to marry the person they want to have sex with.
Certainly, you’re not arguing that “wanting to have sex” with a person is a basis for either the right or the definition of marriage.
Yes, the debate is about SSM, but we can’t have that debate without considering the rights of the individuals….McGreevey demonstrated the right of a gay person to marry.
We also can’t have the debate without defining marriage. Would you agree that for “centuries and centuries” that marriage has been defined as between one man and one woman, regardless of where the definition came from…government, religions or Nature?
If, this is a matter of altering the definition, then those now married have standing in the debate. No?
There has traditionally no definition of marriage.
There has never been a federal definition.
Same for New Jersey. The only statute New Jersey had was a list of people who may not marry (siblings, etc.) and lo and behold, same sex people were not on the list.
Isn’t it those looking to have laws that exclude sex partners from marrying who are attempting then to redefine it?
There has traditionally no definition of marriage.
Really? You are really making that argument?
Isn’t it those looking to have laws that exclude sex partners from marrying who are attempting then to redefine it?
If there is no definition, how can those looking to exclude sex partners from marrying attempt to redefine it?
Take a Mulligan, Tommy
And….there is no one that I know of looking to exclude sex partners from marrying, gay or straight.
What there is is gay people looking to have their unions classified as marriages and there there are those who are oppossing that classification. This debate wasn’t started by a straight person declaring, “We can’t let gay people marry each other!”
“ArtGallagher said at 11:53 pm on January 30th, 2012:
There has traditionally no definition of marriage.
Really? You are really making that argument?”
Not making an argument Art – stating a fact.
Prove me wrong. Cite for me the federal law that defines marriage and the New Jersey law that defines marriage.
Or, save yourself the time because they don’t exist.
federal law and tradition are not the same thing, Tommy.
Marriage did not begin as an institution or as a class of relationships in 1789.
Yet there is federal law defining marriage, here’s your proof:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.3396.ENR:
Take the Mulligan
‘Tradition” provided no definition either, Art.
If you and our big government “marriage statist” Governor wish to honor tradition, then you’ll have to get rid of the government marriage laws, because for the “centuries” the Governor recently referred to there were none.
If you are truly a man of tradition, will you bring back Coverture? It was the traditoin for centuries and reletively recently was banned.
Or are you one of those who isn’t really a traditionalist, but cherry picks pieces of tradition and calls yourself one?
‘Tradition” provided no definition either, Art.
Yes it did, in both word and dead. How did marriage become a union between one man and one woman?
And what do you mean, “either.” I demonstrated that marriage is defined in federal law.
If you are truly a man of tradition, will you bring back Coverture? It was the traditoin for centuries and reletively recently was banned.
Where did I say I was a traditionalist? How am I cherry picking? I was simply answering you your inaccurate statement as part of my inquiry into this issue.
You reactionary invocation of coverture is most disappointing. It is analogous to the reactionaries who oppose same sex marriage invoking pedophilia and beastiality.
First you argue centuries of tradition must be respected and marriage not redefined, and later you turn to a Clinton-ear “redefinition” of marraige (the very redefining of tradition you rail against).
You brought up tradition. Coverture was a major part of it and unlike marriage itself was even defined.
If you truly penning another post on this issue, you’ve got a lot to consider before you do.
First you argue centuries of tradition must be respected and marriage not redefined, and later you turn to a Clinton-ear “redefinition” of marraige (the very redefining of tradition you rail against).
I did no such thing.
As for the Clinton -era Defense of Marriage Act, I didn’t “turn to it,” I cited it as the rebuke to your inaccurate statement “to save time” that there was no federal law that defined marriage.
I never “agrued” that centuries of tradition must be respected. I haven’t taken a position yet, I am conducting an inquiry. I am grateful for your participation in the inquiry.
There is no question that there are centuries of tradition, in word and dead, that define marriage. That’s a fact. Not something that I am arguing, at this point, has to be respected. It doesn’t have to be disrespected either.
There is also centuries of tradition that define what coverture is, what pedophilia is, what beastiality is and what poligomy is. Just because each of those distinctions are related to sex or marriage doesn’t mean they are germaine to the question of same sex marriage.
Earlier you accused me of sophistry. Look in the mirror.
I’ll anxiously await your post.
If I go into a store and the store says buy dress pants and get $5 off and I go in to buy dress pants and they say I can’t have the discount because my eyes are green I am being discriminated against. If I go to the store and buy jeans and demand $5 off and I am told no because I am not buying dress pants I am not being discriminated against.
Marriage between heterosexuals and Marriage between homosexuals is not the same thing.
Gays are buying jeans and still want the discount. Equal protection analysis is inapplicable.
I doubt I’ll be seeing your analogy in a legal brief on equal protection any time soon, TR.