The New Jersey marriage decision is handed down:
Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes.
The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.
Looks like a Vermont solution! We'll soon see how this plays out in the political process.
More.
Time magazine asks, Will the Gay Marriage Ruling Rally the Base?
Rick Sincere blogs from Virginia, a state facing a fierce ballot initiative over a state amendment to ban same-sex marriage, civil unions, and even contractual same-sex partnerships. Wanting to make sure that the anti-gays don't spin the decision to their advantage, he weighs in with New Jersey Court Rejects Same-Sex Marriage Rights.
Those with the luxury of living in true-blue states where such amendments aren't conceivable may have wished that the N.J. court had, like in Massachusetts, mandated full marriage equality delivered on a platter the legislature be damned now. But the rest of us would have paid dearly for such a fiat.
Prior posting:
The liberal-learning New Jersey supreme court announced that on Wednesday at 3:00 pm eastern time it will hand down its decision on the question: Does the New Jersey Constitution require the State to allow same-sex couples to marry?
Sadly, if the ruling finds that the state constitution grants gays full marriage equality, we can say goodbye to any slim chance of winning anti-gay-marriage referendums in Virginia and Wisconsin. If the court rules that same-sex couples are entitled to the rights, benefits and obligations that the state grants/expects of married couples, but allows for these to be accomplished through civil unions, the immediate political repercussions could, arguably, be less severe. And if the court finds no right to spousal equality, it could bolster the argument that we don't need to keep amending state constitutions to defend against so-called "activist judges."
But why, oh why, couldn't the New Jersey court just wait till after the election to hand down its ruling?
Worth noting. Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, on Democratic politicos' quite obvious nonsupport of gay marriage.
The political process is where the battle for marriage equality should be fought, not the courts. Through the political process, the public could be educated, and hearts (and minds) changed. But one party is actively hostile, and the other is missing in action.
45 Comments for “NJ Day.”
posted by Mark on
The judicial branch has no business timing their decisions so as to influence the political process.
posted by Avee on
By ruling on the cusp of the election, on an issue they know will have an impact on the election, I’d say they are clearly inserting themselves into the political frey.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Here’s are three questions which Mr. Miller (and many other conservatives) simply haven’t answered yet, and until they do, their position isn’t of much use as an analytical tool:
1) Are anti-gay marriage laws a clear violation of any state constitutions, or indeed, the federal constitution?
2) Are violations of the constitutional rights of an often-unpopular minority group best addressed through a referendum?
3) If the constitutional rights of certain groups aren’t guaranteed by jurisprudence, but rather are ephemeral things to be decided by referendum and derided by “political strategists,” why even bother having a constitution at all?
posted by Fitz on
“3) If the constitutional rights of certain groups aren’t guaranteed by jurisprudence,”
The enumerated Constitutional rights of indivisuals are protected by the constitution.
“but rather are ephemeral things to be decided by referendum and derided by “political strategists,”
They only become “ephemeral” (as you say) when they are not enumerated.
“why even bother having a constitution at all?”
To protect those rights that are enumerated.
posted by Grendel on
so why (apart from practical reasons) is not protecting equal rights under the law not the legitimate province of the courts? Isn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’t that right enumerated somewhere? hmm, let me look for my Constitution …
posted by Sanford on
Dead on, Steve.
The Democrats talk big, but when the chips are down, it is the Republicans who come through for gays and lesbians, and the Democrats who leave us out in the cold.
Look at New York. The ultra-liberal Spitzer says he is going to bring marriage before the legislature, but we all know that he’ll wimp out like they all do. And look at California, where the emocrats mocked gays and lesbians by passing gay marriage bills in both houses, for the sole purpose of embarassing the Governator.
Anyone who is looking for the Democrats to help gays and lesbians is a damn fool, twice over. Our best hope is to work for change inside the Republican party.
posted by Peter on
I must say I am a bit puzzled by the last comment (by Sanford). I agree that, in general, the dems are not that great on gay rights, but how, exactly, do republicans come through for gays and lesbians? And in what way were the dems in CA mocking gays and lesbians by enacting a bill extending marriage rights to them: they were doing exactly what conservatives say should be done, namely, to have elected representatives rather than unelected judges do it. And how was the governor of CA coming through for gays by killing the bill?
posted by Tim on
“The Democrats talk big, but when the chips are down, it is the Republicans who come through for gays and lesbians”
That is the most absurd thing I’ve read in a long, long time.
posted by raj on
Fitz | October 24, 2006, 7:43pm |
>>>”why even bother having a constitution at all?”
To protect those rights that are enumerated.
Oh. Then explain the US Supreme Court’s decisions in the US v. Schenck and US v. Frohwerk cases, in which the Court held that the First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech or of the press” did not mean what it says.
I am sorry, but the sad fact is that even the “rights that are enumerated” are not protected. And we’ll see what happens with the Bush malAdmninstration with the recent obliteration of the right of habeus corpus.
posted by raj on
Sanford | October 24, 2006, 10:00pm |
The Democrats talk big, but when the chips are down, it is the Republicans who come through for gays and lesbians, and the Democrats who leave us out in the cold.
Oh, let me understand. The Republicans have been in the leadership of bringing some semblence of equal rights for gay people, whereas Democrats have sat on the sidelines.
So, explain to me just why, here in Massachusetts, it was the Democrat Dukakis and the Democrat state legislature, who, in 1989, added “sexual orientation” to the state’s anti-discrimination law. And explain to me just why, here in Massachusetts, it was the Democrat-dominated state legislature who, in 2005, defeated a proposed state constitutional amendment to overturn the state Supreme Judicial Court’s Goodridge same sex marriage ruling–all Republicans voting in favor of the amendment, of course.
More generally, explain to me why, it was the Republican Congress that in 1996 overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act–by a veto-proof margin–and the only senators and congressmen voting against were Democrats.
And further, explain to me why it is that the Republican-dominated Congress that has consistently refused to allow the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to even be brought to the floor for a vote.
Those are only a few examples.
So explain to me again. Just why is it that “it is the Republicans who come through for gays and lesbians, and the Democrats who leave us out in the cold.”
posted by raj on
From the post
The political process is where the battle for marriage equality should be fought, not the courts.
Oh, Stevie, don’t be silly. If the Negroes had waited for the political process to play out, there would still be segregation and bans on inter-racial marriage in more than a few states.
I don’t have the slightest idea how the NJ court might rule, but, if its ruling is anything like the VT and MA courts, the NJ court will probably rule something like the VT court: require equality in everything but name, and give the legislature a set period of time (in both cases, six months) to determine how to accomplish that.
The difference between the VT and MA courts’ rulings is based on the differences in the language of the state constitutions. The VT constitution only requires that there be equality in benefits (the so-called “common benefits” clause), not equality in general. On the other hand, the MA constitution requires actual equality: “all men are born free and equal,” and the court acknowledged that anything less than “marriage” would be unequal.
BTW, I would say that, if Virginia were to pass the anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution–it’s sure to pass anyway, whatever the NJ court does–you would be invited to move up here to Massachusetts to enjoy the benefits of living in an enlightened state, but I’ll refrain. Given your record here, it is apparent that you would vote for the cretins that currently populate the Republican party in the state.
posted by Avee on
Oh, rajie, baby, boobie, sweetie, why are you such a jerk?
posted by jomicur on
Steve has yet to explain precisely why he thinks any discussion of gay equality belongs in the legislatures rather than the courts. All he’s come up with is his ongoing assertion that a pro-gay judicial ruling will cause a backlash. But as I’ve noted here before, ANY pro-gay action causes a backlash. (Does anyone seriously believe that if the NJ legislature were to pass a law approving gay marriage today there would NOT be a backlash? Followed by attempts to strike down the law THROUGH THE COURTS?) The only reasonable approach to advancing gay equality is to use every strategy available to us, legislative, judicial, executive, and even by ballot initiative and referendum in cases where they might work.
Also, as others have noted here, it IS the proper function of the judiciary to determine the meanings of the various state constitutions. If a state legislature passes an unconstitutional anti-gay law (and a lot of the various DOMAs seem to fit that category), who would make that call if not a court? One clear function of our judicial system is to protect unpopular minorities from hostile legislatures; there?s no reason why we shouldn?t expect them to do so.
posted by Public Agenda on
Surveys indicate that public attitude toward gay marriage changes based on question wording and whether the word marriage is used. Results like these suggest that many people are still wrestling with the implications of same-sex marriage, so surveys on this issue should be interpreted cautiously. Want to know more about what the public thinks about same-sex marriage and other issues surrounding gay rights? Check out Public Agenda?s Issue Guide on Gay Rights.
Public Agenda is a nonprofit, nonpartisan group devoted to public opinion and public policy. Find out more at http://publicagenda.org/.
posted by Good in Jersey on
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled a few moments ago that gays and lesbians must be given equal rights and benefits as straight couples enjoy under New Jersey’s marriage laws.
As was the case in Vermont, the court left it up to the legislature whether to amend marriage laws to include same-sex couples or establish equivalent civil unions or domestic partnerships. The legislature must act within six months.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
Fitz | October 24, 2006, 7:43pm
“The enumerated Constitutional rights of indivisuals are protected by the constitution.”
The Constitution specifically stipulates in its ninth amendment that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
posted by raj on
The text of the NJ Supreme Court’s decision is at http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/a-68-05.pdf (obviously, PDF). I haven’t read the full decision (it’s 90 pages long), but the operative summary of the decision appears to be in paragraphs 12-15 on page 3. Like VT and MA, the court held that the state legislature had 180 days to bring the state’s statutes in conformity with the decision. The decision is more in line with the VT decision than that of MA, in the the NJ court did not require that the legislature call same-sex relationships “marriage.”
posted by Patrick in KY on
This decision is a very good one for gay rights. It may not be perfect, but it is certainly pro-gay.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Steve Miller wrote, “But why, oh why, couldn’t the New Jersey court just wait till after the election to hand down its ruling?”
Because NJ Chief Justice Poritz had to retire today.
Until I learned that, I had the same question. So this was not timed politically.
On one hand, I think it is flat-out absurd to suggest that court rulings on fundamental rights of minorities are illegitimate. On the other hand, based on strategic considerations (which are vital if we intend to win), and given the political climate, most marriage-related litigation at this point is premature. The first priority has to be to prevent the federal Marriage Protection Amendment from passing. That in turn means that we should avoid taking any actions that would put wind in the sails of MPA.
Incidentally, one of the enumerated rights in the Constititution is equal protection of the law. The fact that our jurisprudence and politics are not yet ready to grant equal protection to gay citizens does not erase that provision or make it irrelevant to us. It just means that we have a lot more work ahead of us over many years, and for the next decade or two our main task is, as Steve says, a political one of education and persuasion. I am not happy about that. I have a foreign partner who cannot even get a visa to visit this country. Our situation is heartbreaking and stressful and expensive and other things. But wanting something and having it are two different things. Like it or not, we are not in a sprint but a marathon. Actions that make us feel righteous but are likely to result in our being worse off than before make no sense.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Steve: Sadly, if the ruling finds that the state constitution grants gays full marriage equality, we can say goodbye to any slim chance of winning anti-gay-marriage referendums in Virginia and Wisconsin.
I’m not sure that New Jersey will make a difference in Wisconsin. Polls of likely voters taken three months running now (October, September, August) show a consistent 9-point gap in favor of the amendment in Wisconsin. The gap does not appear to be closing.
We’ve been running debates all over the state and doing a lot of door-to-door work for months, but the gap isn’t closing, if the most recent poll is any indication.
The wild card is that we have no idea about turnout. If the usual 40% for an off-year election turn out, I’d expect the vote to be about 55-45 in favor of the amendment. If the Democrat surge, which seems to be happening in Wisconsin as well as other states, brings out a bigger turnout — say 50% — that number could change either way.
But I doubt New Jersey is going to make a difference in the vote on the amendment. What it might change is the social conservative turnout, which will help Republican assembly and state senate candidates.
The hot issue in Wisconsin this time around is state education funding — the Republicans cut funding significantly in the last couple of session, and the cuts are running so deep locally that sports are being cut back — but this is a subject of little interest to social conservatives, because so many home-school or use Christian academies.
People are pissed off, and the Republicans are running a scared on that issue. It was no suprise to a bunch of them issuing “the sky will fall” statements about New Jersey this afternoon. The “base” responds.
Off topic, I am pleased to see that Dick Armey is talking like a Goldwater/Reagan Republican. It is time somebody other than the rank and file start to insist that the party get off the Dobson bandwagon and return to Republican principles.
posted by Pete in Sacramento on
Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis …
posted by Carl on
“Steve: Sadly, if the ruling finds that the state constitution grants gays full marriage equality, we can say goodbye to any slim chance of winning anti-gay-marriage referendums in Virginia and Wisconsin.”
There was no chance of defeating those amendments. The sad but simple truth is that when you put something like “protect marriage!!!” at the ballot box, then the issue will win every time.
The worry I have is that the media and both parties will use this to lash out at gays and scapegoat us as they have so often before. That Time article you posted was licking its chops at the chance to blame gays and to chortle at gay couples in New Jersey regretting their suit a few weeks from now.
There’s a good chance the Democrats will not do well in the midterms. Why? Because they are a failed party. Yet they will once again get to hide behind gays if they fail.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
From the Time magazine article: “What Republicans are hoping is that they can use the issue of gay marriage and the ruling to motivate conservatives in key states like Tennessee, Missouri and Virginia, where Republicans are in danger of losing Senate seats.”
Watch for the President to issue a statement decrying the NJ decision and the RNC to run gay-slam ads in the battleground states, along the lines of the ad running in Indiana claiming that a Democrat victory will result in victory for the “homosexual agenda”.
And, as low-life as the RNC has gotten this election, I wouldn’t fall off my chair if an “independent” ad surfaces having some leather stud with a boa feather sticking out of his ass inviting Harold Ford to call him.
Well, at least “faggot, faggot” will get the RNC off race-baiting, which has been the tactic in Tennesee and Massachusetts. That’s not exactly good news, but it is something.
I agree that the amendments are tough to beat. The reason is simple enough: The Christian right, which seems to be about 25% of the population, is hard core in favor of the amendments, and turn out in high numbers when given the chance to register an anti-gay vote. Straight folks are more favorable to a “No” vote, but don’t care enough to come out in the 75%-80% numbers that the Christian right can muster by whipping up the crowd with Jesus.
Along those lines, the anti-marriage campaign is getting downright perverted in Wisconsin.
In our rural county, I’ve been getting calls this morning and last night about new signs popping up like dandelions — “Jesus says Marriage = One Man, One Woman”.
The signs are being distributed by a large local “Bible” church, which is legal under our election laws, and members have been told that church leadership will be checking to see who has, and who has not, put the signs up. Whether those that don’t will be stoned to death, or not, or merely shunned, I don’t know.
I’ll tell you one thing — the Republican party is going to have to change big time to ever get my vote in the future. I’m beyond disgust.
posted by Disenfranchised Majority on
“Watch for the President to issue a statement decrying the NJ decision and the RNC to run gay-slam ads in the battleground states, along the lines of the ad running in Indiana claiming that a Democrat victory will result in victory for the “homosexual agenda”
how funny, considering that the justice (poritz) who wrote the dissent, which went even further than the majority in the nj decision, is a republican who was appointed by republican former nj governor christine todd whitman (who by the way supports the log cabin republicans).
the current incarnation of the republican party, however, stinks.
posted by Mark on
Steve and Richard, I’m sure you realize that there is no “gay central” that can stop people filing these marriage lawsuits. Wring your hands all you want , but these cases will continue to work their way through the courts.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Mark, what hand-wringing is that? How is pointing out the likely consequences of certain actions “hand-wringing”? You are right, I am well aware that there is no “gay central,” and that people will continue to press foolish and counterproductive lawsuits, and indeed will feel quite self-righteous and proud of doing so notwithstanding the likelihood that their action will end up setting back our collective cause. But it would be completely nuts to be silent about the calamity such people are likely to cause just because they remain free to do so. And in any case, I have had more to say than that one point.
posted by Tim on
President Bush: We believe in family values. We believe values are important. And we believe marriage is a fundamental institution of civilization.
Yesterday in New Jersey, we had another activist court issue a ruling that raises doubts about the institution of marriage. I believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and I believe ? (applause) ? and I believe it\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’s a sacred institution that is critical to the health of our society and the well-being of families, and it must be defended.
posted by Mark on
Richard:
I’m just pointing out that there is nothing you can do to stop these lawsuits, and I wonder about the utility of you continuing to talk about it. You are free to comment about it as much as you like, but your comments are totally useless as a practical matter.
And really, any coming “calamity” is the responsibility of homophobes. It bothers me that you are attempting to blame gay people for homophobia. Perhaps it’s a somewhat positive thing that anti-gay bigotry is now really in the open for us all to see exactly what we have to deal with.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Mark, there is always value in speaking the truth and counseling a wise strategy. And if my sensible advocacy dissuades a single couple from filing an ill-advised lawsuit, it will have been well worth it.
As to blaming gay people for homophobia: no. I blame the homophobes for their homophobia. And I blame gay people who play into the homophobes’ hands for doing that. If someone takes an action that, in the prevailing climate of which he is well aware, is likely to lead to a setback rather than an advance for that cause, then he should not take that action. And if he does anyway, out of some sense that it is liberating to ignore the context of his actions, then he deserves stern criticism for it. The more voices are raised in our community against premature and ill-advised litigation, the better off we are.
posted by dr on
To every poster who thinks that these lawsuits are illadvised, and blames them for setbacks in the gay marriage fight:
Would Virginia vote to allow gays to marry if none of these decisions had been made? What about Ohio? Texas?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
dr: “To every poster who thinks that these lawsuits are illadvised, and blames them for setbacks in the gay marriage fight: Would Virginia vote to allow gays to marry if none of these decisions had been made? What about Ohio? Texas? ”
Of course not.
And would a majority of the population in Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey now support same-sex marriage if the cases hadn’t been brought and fought? The cases and the amendment battles have been the fulcrum gays and lesbians needed to get heard in this society.
The fact is that gay marriage has gained support in the last two years, not lost support. All of the polls show it.
Would we have gained nearly as much had we limped along, seeking incremental gain around the margins? I suppose that reasonable people can differ in this, but I think not. We made the gains because we had the ability to make our case when folks were listening.
The cases created a backlash among the social conservatives. Of course. So did the desegregation and bussing cases. But just as is the case with the desegregation and bussing cases, the backlash would not have had nearly the effect it has had, in terms of mobilizing social conservatives, if the flames hadn’t been fanned, and fanned hard, by cynical, self-seeking politicians.
And does anyone actually think that the creation-science crowd wouldn’t have nuclear been delayed five years? Or ten years?
The marriage cases began in 1974 — that is 32 years ago — and folks within the beltline have been telling the rest of us that we are “premature” in pushing this issue ever since.
I disagree. I’m glad that the battle is engaged, and that the country is being forced to look at core question of legal equality. We’ll have to fight this for a decade or more, but we are winning.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
It’s interesting to see that a “liberal” Democratic Party court would advance a “solution” which is over six months old and which will probably involve the creation of an entirely new “civil unions” bureaucracy which exists parallel to marriage.
Meanwhile, the federal government policies — which are the primary problem — won’t change. And duplicitous Democrats will insist that they support DOMA but also full civil union rights for gays on a federal level, which is an impossibility because DOMA specifically forbids such benefits.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Sorry, make that “over six YEARS old.”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I am well aware that there is no “gay central,” and that people will continue to press foolish and counterproductive lawsuits
Yes, let’s get the grassroots out of the equation and put all the power back in the centralized Washington power wanna-be-elite’s hands. After all, look at all that was accomplished when this was done in the 1990s!
It’s not like the gay marriage and civil unions progress being enjoyed is due to lawsuits and grassroots action, after all. I mean, the Washington gay wanna-be-power-brokers did such a good job stopping DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, didn’t they?
We need more of their productivity and less of this anti-productive “make decisions for our own lives which are most important to us, rather than let the politicos set an agenda for us” stuff. Yeah, like we need a hole in the head.
posted by dr on
“It’s interesting to see that a “liberal” Democratic Party court would advance a “solution” which is over six months old and which will probably involve the creation of an entirely new “civil unions” bureaucracy which exists parallel to marriage. ”
Interesting in what way? To be honest, I have a feeling that Civil Unions will end up being the term for all state-sanctioned benefits for couples, which will be the same as marriage grants now, just under different semantics.
I expect that the term ‘marriage’ will move into the private realm, and will fall out of use in any official capacity.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I expect that the term ‘marriage’ will move into the private realm, and will fall out of use in any official capacity.
That would be 1/2 of the solution (the other half being getting the government out of bestowing special rights on couples and instead opening up the “rights of marriage” to all people).
Incidentally (no surprise here), Governor Corzine has announced he’s backing out of his campaign promise to back full marriage equality and will recommend the state legislature introduce the segregated alternative instead of opening up the existing institution to everyone.
If Democrats cannot be counted on to support equality in a state as gay friendly as New Jersey — where a majority support marriage equality, and they have a mandate from the court which gives them an option to do the right thing — what use will they be in states where gay rights are an ongoing battle, like Wisconsin, etc.?
The answer, of course, is that they’re useless, just like their Republican “opponents.”
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
NL writes, “Yes, let’s get the grassroots out of the equation and put all the power back in the centralized Washington power wanna-be-elite’s hands. After all, look at all that was accomplished when this was done in the 1990s!”
Since you were responding to me, let me point out that I have never been part of your bogeyman centralized Washington power-whatever. I do live in DC because I am from here, but my activism has been entirely of the local, hometown-DC variety. My dealings with Congress as an activist have been in defense of DC’s appropriations bill against anti-gay congressional depredations. And because HRC has consistently devoted resources to defending DC in this regard, I have always given them due credit even when I have critized them for other things.
As with so many people, you portray criticism as an attempt to silence or remove people. But really, it is only criticism. You also act like any such criticism is coming from some monolithic establishmentarian source, when in fact I have pissed off so many of the partisan hack types on both sides of the aisle that few people other than you (with your axe to grind) would ever try to portray me as being in the pocket of the power elites.
In a separate posting you endorse privatizing marriage and getting government out of the business of bestowing special rights on couples. Your first suggestion is a common libertarian suggestion, which is so remote from reality that I see no point in arguing it, and your second suggestion echoes the “Beyond Marriage” manifesto, which I discussed in an IGF-posted article here:
http://www.indegayforum.com/news/show/31027.html
As to our not being able to count on Democrats, my column in yesterday’s Bay Windows, which is soon to be posted on IGF, mentions the same thing. But I make that point as a nonpartisan activist and political pragmatist, while you do so as merely another salvo from your anti-“Republicrat” armchair, with no practical alternative that I can detect.
posted by Randy R. on
I don\\’t believe the NJ ruling will have much impact on the elections in Nov. Sure, it gives wind to those states that have a gay marriage amendment on the ballot, but that\\’s only a handful of states.
Every poll I\\’ve seen says that \\’cultural issues\\’ figure near the bottom of voters\\’ concerns. Top concerns are the war in Iraq, the economy and so on. And when they are concerned about cultural issues, those issues revolve things like the worry parents have for their kids after school when both parents are at work. Gay marriage has been at the bottom.
So despite the press breathlessly stating that this will boost the repubican prospects across the board in Nov., I think it will have at most a mild effect.
And even that might be countered by the fact that the people who want the Dems to win will realize that nothing is a shoo-in, and that every vote counts. Some people have been getting complacent recently, with big wins predicted. this should prove that the race is still a lively one, and that it would be foolish to sit it out if you really care about the outcome.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
you portray criticism as an attempt to silence or remove people
No I don’t. I get to the bottom of the criticism.
When I see your posts, and read your articles, I see the insights of someone who posts from the seat of centralized power.
You boast regularly of your contacts with high-level Republicans and Democrats. You defend the “moral principles” of closeted Republicans who, as Kip noted, built a career on selling out their own people to gain power for themselves. You shill for the various institutional powers which are, for various reasons, in decline.
You pooh-pooh the outside-the-beltway people who made civil unions and gay marriage happen through their own resources, time and courage (yet then criticize those who disagree with you as being “ineffective,” when it’s been their activity — and their activity alone — which has delivered the gains of the last eight years).
You trumpet your status as a published author in a couple of gay media sources as, apparently, evidence of your superior relevance — ignoring, of course, the fact that others on this forum, including me, are published as well.
You bristle with indignation when the corruption of the Democratic and Republican parties (and their gay enablers who benefit from institutional access) is discussed in this forum by people across the political spectrum.
Those are my observations, frankly.
I make that point as a nonpartisan activist and political pragmatist
Richard, you are certainly a partisan activist — you’re one of the most reliable apologists for the old-party politicos as anyone on this forum. Any criticism of the Foleys or Franks of the world can be expected to be met with your swift and derisive rejoinders. You’re not fooling a soul.
As for pragmatism, what has your “stick with the Democrats and Republicans” line delivered?
Nothing.
Yet you attack the people who have delivered gay marriage and civil unions through their own legal action.
Thanks to people you relentlessly attack, like GLAD and the Goodridge plaintiffs with their “ill advised” lawsuit, tens of thousands of gay people now have marriage and civil union licenses in numerous states.
Thanks to your efforts, we have. . . self-important puffery in Bay Windows and impassioned defenses of the Karl Rove wannabes of Washington, who are now claiming they’re oppressed when the homophobic tiger they rode into power is now turning against them.
Which do you honestly believe is higher impact and more important? I know where I stand.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
NL, as most readers can probably figure out for themselves, your characterizations of me are entirely off-base. Your determination, not merely to disagree or refute, but to put everything about your interlocutor in the worst possible light, is illustrated by your claim that I “trumpet” something just because I mention it.
I have not slammed all litigation. I have criticized ill-advised and premature litigation. I specifically stated that the notion that the courts are somehow illegitimate is absurd, and in response to someone who talked about enumerated rights I pointed out the the right to equal protection of the law is one of the constitution’s enumerated rights. I also pointed out that we are nowhere close to achieving that in the Supreme Court. As I believe I said, ripeness is all. It is simply dishonest for you to portray that as an attack against all the couples who have gone to court.
I am too tired to bother refuting every single false assertion you have made, but I would love to see you cite specifics on my alleged regular boasts of my high-level contacts. I do not regularly do any such thing. And I would love to see you explain how my latest column, which is highly critical of Democrats, can possibly have been written by an apologist for those in power. Oh, by the way, how on earth could anyone know that you yourself are a published writer when you hide behind a pseudonym? Yes, anyone here, myself included, can assert anything, but the evidence shows who is in the habit of attempting serious discussion of the issues and who is over-the-top dishonest, sitting back taking potshots while seldom contributing anything constructive.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I have not slammed all litigation. I have criticized ill-advised and premature litigation.
Which is translated as any litigation which Richard doesn’t like.
I am too tired to bother refuting every single false assertion you have made, but I would love to see you cite specifics on my alleged regular boasts of my high-level contacts.
Every time you try to assert your professional activist qualifications on the forum, Richard, you tout your links to various partisan groups in Washington and cite them as something which provides you with a degree of expertise.
how on earth could anyone know that you yourself are a published writer when you hide behind a pseudonym
Richard, if you bothered reading my posts, rather than quickly skimming them before pontificating, you’d have seen that I’ve mentioned my actual name at least twice in replies to you — with a web link to some of my work.
I’m not surprised that you don’t read what I write. It’s obvious you think you have all the answers and are more interested in speaking than in listening. The problem is, the self-appointed professional gay leadership is full of such folks, and as the grassroots gay marriage revolution illustrates, what’s needed is more listening to what the grass roots across the country are doing and saying.
That is why I am saying that they get it, and you don’t. And that is why I’m encouraging you to step down from the pedestal and let some people who live outside the Beltway have a turn or two at the microphone. Your continued refusal to do so is simply eroding the legitimacy of your bully pulpit — you’ll soon find there are precious few people in the choir you’re preaching to.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
NL, given your persistent bad faith, gratuitous hostility, endless personalizing of everything, and determined refusal to deal with reality, I have paid far more attention to your postings than you deserve.
posted by raj on
Richard J. Rosendall | October 28, 2006, 10:55am |
I am not going to get into the pissing contest between you and NEL, but I wonder about your comment I have not slammed all litigation. I have criticized ill-advised and premature litigation. Just which litigation is that? The litigation in VT and MA have brought about a change in the law there, for the better for equal rights for gay people in those states. And the litigation in NJ appears to be on the way of doing the same there. Why do you apparently disapprove of the litigation there? Those cases don’t appear to have brought about a change in the law in other states.
So, which litigation do you consider “ill-advised and premature.”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I wouldn’t expect a fact-based reply. Apparently, disagreeing with Richard and his friends, and asking pointed questions, constitutes not only a collapse of logical comprehension but also an egregious personal attack.
posted by Bobdilan on
Hi
Jymmy Hendrix
tramadol
http://tramadol-moza.blogspot.com/
http://www.jymyhendrix.com
G’night