Polls in New Jersey Say Bring On the Gay Marriage
Published November 19, 2009 @ 04:56AM PT
There are two states that could take a turn toward gay marriage yet this year if their state legislatures manage to get their act together. One is New York, where Gov. David Paterson is pushing strong for a vote in the State Senate to recognize marriage equality. The other is New Jersey, where the clock is seriously ticking on passing a bill that recognizes same-sex marriage.
Jersey's Gov.-Elect Chris Christie has flat out said that he will veto a gay marriage bill if it ever reaches his desk in Trenton. That's the bad news. The good news? Christie doesn't take office for another two months, and outgoing Gov. Jon Corzine has said that marriage equality is something he wants to see happen for New Jersey.
That makes for some pretty high drama, because it means that marriage equality in the Garden State will come down to a vote during a lame duck session that starts next Monday. If the state legislature passes a marriage equality bill before Corzine heads for the hills, gay marriage will have found its seventh sixth fifth state (freakin' ballot measures, lowering our numbers!).
Turns out, a new poll released today shows that residents in the state support same-sex marriage. Can this prod the legislature to act, and act fast?
The poll, conducted by Rutgers-Eagleton, shows that 46 percent of the state supports marriage equality, 42 percent would rather see the sky fall down, and 12 percent are unsure. But the poll does one better than just that. It also finds that if the New Jersey legislature passes a marriage equality bill during the next two months, 52 percent will support it, while only 40 percent will turn toward the National Organization for Marriage and the Catholic Church to yell about a constitutional amendment.
That's news that should prod Jersey's State Legislature to move on this bill. And if that news doesn't, how about this quote from the poll's director, David Redlawsk.
"New Jerseyans are more supportive of gay marriage than opposed to it, and more importantly, a majority would accept a legislative decision legalizing same-sex marriages," said Redlawsk. "While this tests opinion outside the intensity of a campaign to ban gay marriage, as occurred in California, there is more of a ‘live and let live’ attitude in New Jersey than in many other states that have dealt with this issue."
The majority of New Jerseyans want to see gay marriage. Gov.-Elect Chris Christie is not going to deliver it for them. So it's up to the state legislature to act fast to make sure that civil rights don't have to be put on hold for at least the next four years.
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
EmailRelated Posts
-
New Jersey Could Make $200 Million By Passing Gay Marriage
-
Bruce Springsteen on Why He Supports Gay Marriage
-
New Jersey Senators Say No To Gay Marriage
Comments (32)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Michael Jones is a Change.org Editor.
He is the former Communications Director for the Human Rights Program at Harvard Law School, as well as the former Director of Communications for Pax Christi USA, a national Catholic peace and justice organization. Mike is a graduate of Syracuse University's S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications and he is also a proud sketch comedy writer.
Top Gay Rights Actions
-
-
-
Don't Let Ex-Gay Propaganda in Public Schools
1160 People
-
Don't Let Ex-Gay Propaganda in Public Schools
Marriage actually hurts couples I have seen this too many times. If you get very sick and have to live in a nursing home, the nursing home will take the deed to your home for payment, if you live together and are not married they will not touch the property.
If you have children who become very sick , medicaid will take the deed to the property in order for the parents to get medicaid.
When you lose your job and need help with health care and food stamps you cannot own anything, so if you are married and one becomes sick or loses their job and the other one works they will not get help.
Posted by connie cannizzaro on 11/19/2009 @ 08:34AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Miss cannizzaro...
Dont sound to me like its marriage thats the problem so much as its the way bussinesses are run.
So instead of doing away with marriage...We oughta be demanding better ethical treatment by both private and goverment run programs.
Posted by Reverend Boony on 11/20/2009 @ 03:53AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Hi Connie is Medicaid different where you are because in NYC you can be married and receive Medicaid even if you have $109, 000 dollars in saving or checking or any instrument except Life Insurance the catch to is that ONLY one of the partners can get Medicaid the other is left in cold. This I have seen documents of, they are allowed Income of $2,700 per month of course individuals get to Receive only around 700 dollars and saving of 13,000 dollars I believe that Medicaid will pay your bills should you ever need the Assistance of a Nursing Home, this news came from a friend of mine and Social Worker and she gives me all the information that is current!
Posted by Peter S. T. on 11/20/2009 @ 06:08PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
New Marriage Strategy Needed
Same-sex marriage has never won an election. Maine was our 33rd loss. On the other hand, domestic partnerships have never, on its own, lost an election. Washington State continued that winning streak....barely. The attempt to repeal comprehensive domestic partnerships was too close for liberal Washington State, 47%. This means trouble for us. Our enemies, undoubtedly, are already planning domestic partnership repeals in more conservative areas. Even in California, instead of fighting for the rites of marriage, we may be force to defend the rights of marriage we have already won through domestic partnerships. (California law says that all laws, regulations and court decisions which apply to spouses in a marriage equally applies to registered domestic partners.) Even if California's domestic partnership law is not in jeopardy, certainly other states with domestic partnerships or other forms of recognition are at risk.
National polls say 55-60% of Americans support marriage equality, all of the federal and state rights of marriage, just as long as it is not called "marriage." These polls also say that only about 40% support same-sex marriage. However, that does not necessarily translate into who shows up to vote, particularly in special or off-year elections. Washington State's polls initially said 66% supported domestic partnerships but only 50% of registered voters bothered to vote.
Our marriage-only strategy created a tsunami of reaction: the federal Defense of Marriage Act, 45 states passing same-sex marriage bans, 18 of those bans extending to civil unions and domestic partnerships, and 30 of the bans are by constitutional amendments. What a mess! However, before our marriage-only strategy we had a different strategy for achieving marital rights. It worked well, made remarkably steady progress and had little opposition. Comprehensive domestic partnerships, which are legally indistinguishable from marriage, have rarely faced a significant challenge. And it has never lost. Unfortunately, our enemies, having won every same-sex marriage election, now have domestic partnerships in their sights also. Our only chance of success is to stick to our values but create a new strategy.
Our original long term strategy for achieving marital rights was to create a parallel and legally equal category, domestic partnerships. Eventually people would say, "It is stupid having two categories doing the same thing! Let's combine them." No tears, just a housekeeping measure. Much less flashy than the current marriage-only strategy but it was working. More important, comparing the trajectory domestic partnerships was on when the strategy was halted with the continuous defeats and heart ache the marriage-only strategy has given us, it is clear that the domestic partnership strategy would have brought us to one, unified category of marital rights for both heterosexuals and LGBT folk much, much sooner. Unfortunately, like the previous presidential administration which left the country in a mess, our current marriage-only strategy has left our community in an electoral mess. Our community's unquestioning devotion to the marriage-only strategy, which is only a strategy, not a cause or an ideal, has given our enemies the opportunity to undo our progress. Our enemies attacked Washington's domestic partnership law as if it was marriage, which it is not, but it almost worked! We must have new strategy.
One of the saddest effects of the marriage-only strategy has been the devaluation of one of our community's significant accomplishments. Domestic partnerships bring tangible benefits and security to ten of thousands of LGBT families, but now, it has been denigrated in the eyes of our community. The marriage-only strategy has, in reality, become a marriage-or-nothing strategy. Well, the LGBT community of Washington State proved by their hard work that is wrong!
The term, "separate but equal," was always a lie. The racist who promoted it never really wanted African-Americans treated equally. Everyone, with a wink and nod, knew that. But its opposite, that "separate can never be equal," is also a lie. If that were true then men and women would share the same public toilets and affirmative action would not exist. Domestic partnerships were invented by LGBT folk to obtain the benefits of marriage when most of us viewed marriage as a discredited patriarchal institution. Comprehensive domestic partnerships and civil unions are now specifically designed to avoid any inequalities. This painstaking legislative word-smithing gives lie to the notion that separate cannot be equal.
All civil rights struggles have had a series of steps and compromises along the way. Our struggle is no different. But, what if I am wrong and separate is not equal? What if comprehensive domestic partnerships are only "almost" equal? At this point in time, I would still love to be "almost" equal because, as of today, we are nowhere near equal! Let us get to equality (or almost equality) first. Once we have achieved that, we can start to worry about possible inequalities. We may not find any! Until then, it is just academic ruminations. (Commissions in New Jersey and Vermont "proving" that civil unions were not equal to marriage were cleverly stacked with marriage-only advocates whose conclusions had been decided upon before each commission met.)
The questions I have for our community's leaders (you know to whom I refer, the alphabet soup of NCLR, HRC, NGLTF, GLAD, EQCA, Lambda, etc.):
"Are we so used to losing that we now want to add domestic partnerships and civil unions to the list, or, are we going to wake up and realize we need a new strategy?" The clarion call of "marriage, marriage, only marriage" has not worked and seems unlikely to in the near future. We need a new strategy (possibly, our old one) which will, first, defend the rights we already have won and, second, create a strategy which expands our rights. A new strategy might also spare us from our new annual ritual of having a gut wrenching cry when we have lost another election. This year we were lucky. We only lost Maine. Last year we lost California, Arizona, and Florida. Our losses will not stop if we keep repeating our failures without changing our strategy. Sadly, I see many in our community clinging to the marriage-only strategy with the same irrational religious zeal of a born-again Christian. I understand such zeal for our goal, which is equality. But I do not understand why so many in our community are wedded to a strategy which has repeatedly failed us. We need a new strategy.
Posted by Leland Traiman on 11/19/2009 @ 10:52AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You've got your "facts" wrong. Gays have competed in 2 elections for support of gay marriage--California and Maine. In both of these, we barely lost. In California, the gay marriage campaign was run by 2 incompetents who had no idea what they were doing. In Maine, gay marriage was run by competent people, and we barely lost. How do you account for the fact that a majority of people in California now support gay marriage? How do you account for the fact that more people in New Jersey support gay marriage than oppose it. Don't forget--nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Posted by Prof. Donald Gaudard on 11/19/2009 @ 05:20PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Professor, you have not done your homework! The Human Rights Campaign has a state by state list of anti-same-sex marriage laws passed.
http://www.hrc.org/issues/marriage/marriage_laws.asp
Almost all state constitutional amendments have to be passed by the voters. So, we did not have 30 constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage without losing that many elections. Additionally, we lost 2 elections in California alone. One in 2000, which was just a law, the second in 2008 which was a constitutional amendment. In 2008, on the same date as California, Florida and Arizona passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.
HRC also has a quick map you can refer to:
http://www.hrc.org/documents/marriage_prohibitions_2009.pdf
Professor, I am the first to admit when my facts are wrong, no one is perfect. But if you are going to tell me my fact are wrong about marital rights for same-sex couples, which I have been fighting for since 1983, please do your homework.
PS- I have been in discussions with someone today who claims we have only lost 32 elections, I said 33. We are still trying to put our fingers on the exact number. (But Professor, 2 it ain't!)
Posted by Leland Traiman on 11/19/2009 @ 07:40PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Depends on what you're fighting for. I had a California Domestic Partnership, it was pretty damned nice. All the (state) legal benefits of marriage, none of the heteronormative baggage, seemed like the ideal solution for me and my partner.
Then gay marriage was legalised. Being the giant geek I am, I couldn't pass up the chance to get married next to the Harvey Milk statue in SF city hall the Friday before Pride Weekend. So I made an appointment, grabbed my partner, and headed over. Nothing changed about our relationship, we didn't even have time to have a "proper" ceremony. People looked at us differently though. All of a sudden we were a "real" couple, we were "grown up" and "responsible". That stupid piece of paper is what made people finally recognise our relationship.
If all we care about are the legal rights then yes, domestic partnerships are fine. If what we want is true equality -- both legally and socially -- then a separate document just for us is not going to work. Society places a ridiculous amount of weight on the term "marriage", if we didn't there wouldn't be anything to fight over. It's ridiculous and illogical, but without the name we will continue to be relegated to something slightly less than equal, even if the law is designed to work otherwise.
Posted by Tobias Fangor on 11/20/2009 @ 06:18AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This is kind of an aside but, what jumped out at me in the original post was that "separate can never be equal," is also a lie. If that were true then men and women would share the same public toilets and affirmative action would not exist."
This is just ignorant. Separate toilets and affirmative action are NOT at all any example of "separate but equal." The need for separate men's and women's toilets is for safety issues, duh, rather than valuing one over another. If I were a woman I would sure as hell not want any random man intruding on me in that most private space. Mixed-sex bathrooms would only be a sign of women's equality if men could ever be trusted. We still have a long long way to go for that.
And the term "Affirmative Action" is used in different ways but it sounds like you are using it in the way that implies unfairness and inequality, which is a common attitude but totally backward.
In the parlance of "separate but equal" it is obvious that it is a boldface lie. Separate is never equal in Civil Rights matters. Just on a psychological level, if it has to be separate, how is it equal? And when the "separate but equal" doctrine was tried - you can still find photo documentation of the gross inferiority of conditions in the facilities marked for blacks.
Posted by Al Falafool on 11/20/2009 @ 07:43AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Well, Im sure that neither men nor women feel unequaly treated just because they have separate potty facilities BUT thats way different from them not being equal.
Seperate but equal aint never gonna be equal when it comes to civil rights and equality as mr. fangor illustrates perfectly with his story about how he and his husband were treated differently when actually married versus when they were domestic partnered.
Posted by Reverend Boony on 11/21/2009 @ 03:09AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You can reach me at my blog
www.NationalMarriageEquality.blogspot.com
Posted by Leland Traiman on 11/19/2009 @ 11:12AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Tell ya what mr. traiman...
I'll read and comment on your blog IF you'll return the favor in kind.
Deal ?
Posted by Reverend Boony on 11/21/2009 @ 03:14AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The New Jersey legislature and Jon Corzine must pass a bill which would recognize the important right of same-sex marriage. Chris Christie is an intolerant conservative with an incorrect view of LGBT rights, thus New Jersey must pass the necessary bill before Jon Corzine leaves office. The New York legislature and David Paterson must pass a bill which would recognize same-sex marriage in New York. Although both governors support LGBT rights, their support is very important in advancing the bills.
Posted by Edwin Bonilla on 11/19/2009 @ 02:20PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Connie, then the solution is to work at putting those sorts of protections into marriage. All people should, however, be able to marry if they wish.
Posted by Ioan Lightoller on 11/19/2009 @ 11:31PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I would love it if folks actually began to vote in favor of equality in a larger amount than the bible thumpers who vote against it BUT untill I actually see it happening...I aint gonna hold my breath.
Posted by Reverend Boony on 11/20/2009 @ 03:59AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I've seen two major problems in the Maine and California campaigns. First, we can't seem to get enough people from our side out to vote. We'll poll great, but come election day it all falls apart. Second, we've done absolutely nothing to combat the ridiculous claims laid out by the opposition. I know their arguments are stupid, you know their arguments are stupid, but the few swing voters don't necessarily know. If they did they'd already have picked a side. Rather than putting out more commercials with a vague "equality" or "family" message we need to be pointing out the logical fallacies in the opposition arguments. This means actually using the words "gay marriage", something almost every pro-marriage group has failed to do.
I absolutely LOVED the Courage Campaign's work in California. They entered the game too late to make a real impact (because the idiots in charge thought they were too divisive), but what they did put out was framed in exactly the right way to appeal to those who haven't quite made up their minds. How on earth are you meant to say no to a cute little girl asking you not to divorce her dads?
Posted by Tobias Fangor on 11/20/2009 @ 06:30AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Good points, Tobias. We need to get more pro-equality voters to get to the polls and vote. I, too, think that we have to combat the arguments of the anti-equality people. We need to expose them and call them exactly what they are--at best stupid and at worst lies.
Posted by Ioan Lightoller on 11/20/2009 @ 07:00AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Indeed...
Posted by Reverend Boony on 11/21/2009 @ 03:18AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
When I told people my husband and I were married most responded that they did not know two men could marry. When I told people in the hospital that my husband and I were registered domestic partners with all of the same rights as a married couple most responded tha they did not know that was possible. Same reaction either way. WHY? Because all of this is new to most people. All people in both situations treated us appropriately. However, as a nurse practitioner (I specialize in fertility and run the only sperm bank for lesbians & gay men) I know of situations where same-sex couples, both as registered domestic partners and being married, were not treated appropriately because they were same-sex couple. It seems that bigots are bigots and they did not respect us regardless of what legal label are relationships were categorized under.
Anecdotal reports are proof of that situation only. As I have said, I know of married lesbians who were ill treated and lesbian domestic partners who were treated well. My conclusion is that same-sex couples, regardless of legal category, are still not treated equally. I wish it were as simple as changing categories but it is not.
Finally, I am arguing for a strategy not a goal. Marriage-only activist do not seem to be able to tell the difference between the two. What I see as an irrational religious type devotion to a strategy is mystifying given the objective evidence that the strategy has made the goal, equality, much more difficult to obtain.
Posted by Leland Traiman on 11/21/2009 @ 09:37AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Separate but equal is a lie. Separate can never be equal is also a lie. It would be nice if life and human interaction were all good or all bad. It just does not work that way.
I agree that saying, "separate can never be equal" is a powerful slogan. But many powerful slogans are lies. ("Drill, Baby, Drill" is also a powerful slogan but drilling will not solve our energy problems.) Separate can never be equal is a very powerful slogan and it is also a lie.
All of this is beside the point. The marriage-only strategy is not achieving its goal. If we do not change strategy the goal will be much, much further into the future. I want our goal achieved sooner. Our strategy has failed. We need a new strategy, one that succeeds. It is that simple. Our strategy is not our goal. But it seems to me that Ron and other marriage-only activists cannot tell the difference between a goal and a strategy.
Posted by Leland Traiman on 11/21/2009 @ 09:54AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
From what I have seen and heard, the religious wingnuts don't want us to have have either. They may say they would vote for civil unions or DPs but they campaign against those as furiously against marriage. I still believe that in the end, the courts will have to settle this. I am tired of Christianist fanatics holding our lives hostage.
I have already told my spouse I would prefer not to go to a hospital because I don't know if they will let her in to visit me. Why the hell am I and my spouse being treated like legal minors (by a miracle, when my spouse was in hospital in Indiana, I was permitted to visit, but out here with the Morons and other religious fanatics, I just don't know)?
More and more we are thinking of moving to Canada--they are light years ahead of the US where LGBTQ rights are concerned.
Posted by Ioan Lightoller on 11/21/2009 @ 03:45PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yes, the bigot campaign just as hard against DP as they do marriage. However, the difference is that we WIN with DP and we lose with marriage.
Posted by Leland Traiman on 11/21/2009 @ 05:30PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Mr. traiman...
If the bigots refuse to recognise a domestic partnership/civil union as legitimate and said bigots are in a position to be able to deny you certain rights SUPPOSEDLY given by those two states then how is it better than marriage which would seem to convey a subconcious sense of equality even to some who would otherwise be bigoted ?
Posted by Reverend Boony on 11/21/2009 @ 05:39PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I never said that DP was better than marriage. What I am saying is that, at the present time, it is possible and marriage is not.
It is very possible to get DP in many places as 55-60% of the public supports it while marriage is not as only about 35-40% of the public supports it.
Please do not go on about how one should not have to wait for civil right nor it should not be voted on. I agree with all that. Unfortunately, that is not the reality of the situation.
If we want our rights we have to deal with what IS, NOT with what we would like it to be.
If we are smart we can eventually turn what is into what we would like it to be. Unfortunately, we have not been smart as we keep using a strategy which fails.
To recap, I never said domestic partnerships are better or worse than marriage only that they are possible on a massive scale while, since 45 state have passed same-sex marriage bans, marriage is not.
Posted by Leland Traiman on 11/21/2009 @ 06:17PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Not sure where people are getting their numbers from. NJ would be the sixth state to legalize it, not the fifth (remember New Hampshire, anyone?).
It's banned in 30 states, not 31. Maine did not ban it outright, it just wasn't legalized yet.
Posted by Kevin K on 11/21/2009 @ 05:17PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Hey Kevin -- you're right about that. But New Hampshire's marriage equality legislation doesn't take effect until Jan. 1. So after 1/1/10, we'll have Mass, Conn, Iowa, Vermont, and NH. Hopefully jersey and/or NY will be on that list, too :)
Posted by Michael Jones on 11/22/2009 @ 04:51AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Michael,
The states you mentioned have legislation allowing same-sex marriage, none are "marriage equality." It is impossible to have marriage equality in the US because we are denied federal benefits.
The President's suggestion for granting marital right to all states that had any form of "legally-recognized unions," which would have covered 14 states, was pushed aside because the marriage-only activists only wanted it to cover same-sex marriage, covering only 5 states(Congressmand Nadler's bill).
The President's LRU's would have had a better chance of passage (still slim) because it appeared more like domestic partnerships even though it would also have covered the 5 states with marriage. The Nadler Bill has zero chance of passage because it is all about the "M" word and will not get the support it needs to pass because, sadly, only about 35-40% of American voters support same-sex marriage.
This is the most tragic example of how marriage-only activists have slowed the progress of "marriage equality" by sinking DOMA repeal this year and next year. Given the fact that there will, probably, be more Republicans in the House and Senate after the next election, the marriage-only activists have probably sunk DOMA repeal for 10-20 years.
Sincerely,
Leland Traiman
Posted by Leland Traiman on 11/22/2009 @ 10:00AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The last I checked, support for marriage equality was at around 48% nationally.
Posted by Kevin K on 11/22/2009 @ 11:13AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Incorrect. If that were true in the US, in liberal Maine we would have won big!
Posted by Leland Traiman on 11/22/2009 @ 12:32PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Er, no...you're incorrect. According to an ABC poll done in March, national support was around 48%.
In statewide polls in both California and in Maine, the majority support equal marriage.
Remember, it's the diehard crazies who will always drag themselves to polls, even if there's a tornado over their house. The word "gay" is on the ballot, and they've convinced themselves that they're doing "God's work". That's always a great motivational tool for these people.
Meanwhile, the more socially liberal, younger crowd tend not to vote so much. They'll support equal rights, sure, but they won't take the time to go to the polls.
Posted by Kevin K on 11/22/2009 @ 04:05PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
That was an outlying poll. None of the other polls were even close, even the ABC polls done before and after that. When one poll is so out of step with the others (and out of step with electoral reality) one should not bet the farm on it. To look at many poll go to
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
And it is important to look at trends and not be mesmerized by one or two that agrees with one's own outlook. Lookat them all, look at the trends, try to observe the flaws in the polling, and try to match them against the reality of what actually happened in various elections.
As for your comment as to who shows up at the polls, I cover that in my editorial, New Marriage Strategy Needed
http://ebar.com/openforum/opforum.php?sec=guest_op
Posted by Leland Traiman on 11/22/2009 @ 07:06PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Therefore, if you only want to look at one poll, I guess you are correct. But if one wants to look at what the polls have found out, collectively, you are absolutely incorrect. SSM has about 35-40% support in the US.
Posted by Leland Traiman on 11/22/2009 @ 07:10PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I sure hope that New Jersey gets an equal marriage rights bill passed before Governor Corzine is out of office! I'm so sorry that Corzine didn't win re-election, especially because Chris Christie has already said outright that he would vote down an equal marriage rights bill.
Why? What is it to him? You know? How is anyone else's happiness or home life any of his business if what they choose to do harms nobody else?
Posted by Christine Clarke on 11/23/2009 @ 11:53AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.