by Doctor Science
N.J. Senate committee advances gay marriage bill. Sprog the Elder and I did *not* make it down to Trenton, as we had hoped, but despite the lack of testimony from me the bill advanced out of committee on an 8-4 party line vote.
If I had gotten my head and act together, I would have said that I support same-sex marriage because things that are equal to the same thing are equal to each other. Traditional marriage is between legally unequal persons, man and wife. My heterosexual marriage will be only *proven* to be between equals if there are other marriages around between people who are patently, obviously, legal equals. Until then, my civil, egalitarian, heterosexual marriage is under threat from those who think marriage is necessarily religious, traditional, and unequal, and that I'm just pretending to be otherwise.
Chris Christie has said he will veto the bill ... probably ... and that it should be put to a referendum. The latest polling shows 52% of NJ voters support marriage equality. In other words, the Republicans don't want to have to choose between what their national party wants and what NJ voters want.
I don't know what the schedule on the next step is, but I hope we can get ourselves in gear this time to make a public stand. At least the NJ Democratic Party has made equal marriage a priority issue: the bill in question is S1 for this session.
Christie won't sign the bill because he knows if he does he will forfeit any chance at a national GOP nomination until at least 2020, if not longer. So, he will sacrifice equality for his own personal gain, in the best American tradition.
Posted by: Ugh | January 24, 2012 at 04:52 PM
Ugh--you are correct, but note that Obama did the same thing in the 2008 debates. Christie is fine with gay marriage, so is Obama. It's crappy, but fair minded candidates with national aspirations have to be behind the curve on this, at least for a while longer. To Christie's limited credit, defaulting to a plebiscite gives everyone cover and undercuts any grouching about the results.
Posted by: McKinneyTexas | January 24, 2012 at 06:13 PM
The real question is whether he will insist other Republicans toe his line or not. And since Christie just nominated an out gay man for the state Supreme Court, he may already be on shaky ground as far as the national GOP is concerned.
Posted by: Doctor Science | January 24, 2012 at 06:21 PM
he may already be on shaky ground as far as the national GOP is concerned
Today's GOP may not and hopefully will not be the GOP 8 years hence. Christie would not be at home with today's hard line social conservatives. If the hard liners lose three elections in a row, assuming they lose in '16 in addition to '12, they could find themselves on the way out.
Posted by: McKinneyTexas | January 24, 2012 at 06:31 PM
Washington state is headed toward marriage equality. I hope we make it this year. I think our out-going governor decided to make it an issue this year to boost turn out for the Demos in the next election. Juat a guess.
Posted by: Laura Koerbeer | January 24, 2012 at 08:29 PM
Mctx - that's a fair point.
Posted by: Ugh | January 24, 2012 at 08:50 PM
Fight, fight, fight, for Washington State. Win a victoryyyeeeee....(hapless Wa. St. Cougars fight song).
The 48th soviet of Washington strikes again. In all fairness, Gregoire waited until the last year of her office to step up and take the lead on this issue. Politically, she has nothing to lose. But good for her anyway.
Posted by: bobbyp | January 24, 2012 at 11:34 PM
Interesting how in Washington state, any sufficiently controversial law leads to a referendum. I guess it's better than having people try to strike it down with a constitutional amendment. And there's a fair chance that the "gay marriage has never passed a popular vote" attack will finally die.
I remember when Democrats dreaded a referendum on same-sex marriage in a presidential election year!
Posted by: Matt McIrvin | January 25, 2012 at 12:14 AM
I find myself hoping that we don't end up with a Supreme Court decision on this. At least not for a while yet. The reason that abortion has poisoned our polticis for four decades is that the Court intruded while local political action was still in its early stages.
Similarly in this case. The states are moving, gradually (and rather faster than anyone would have guessed not very long ago) but steadily. Another 3-4 years and we can expect gay marriage to be legal in states including a majority of the nation's population. At that point, a Court decision would still outrage some people, but they would know (whether they could bring themselves to admit it or not) that they had lost the political argument, not just the court case.
On the other hand, if the Court moves too soon, we could have yet another grievance poisoning our politics at all levels. And, much as I personally would like to see the day that any two consenting adults can marry each other, I don't want to see more of what we have had.
Posted by: wj | January 25, 2012 at 01:46 AM
And there's a fair chance that the "gay marriage has never passed a popular vote" attack will finally die.
Though, come to think of it, it's actually likely that people will just keep using it when it's no longer true.
Posted by: Matt McIrvin | January 25, 2012 at 07:50 AM
I remember when Democrats dreaded a referendum on same-sex marriage in a presidential election year!
Yep, Rove's 2004 rash of state ballot initiatives are looking worse and worse in the rear view mirror. Referendums are slower and harder than judicial fiat, but as they accumulate, the anti-gay rationale compares even less favorably with good old, traditional democracy.
Note: I am not saying the right to equal treatment should be a matter of the electorate's say-so. I am saying that, after several electorates have their say-so, the counter argument is increasingly diminished.
Posted by: McKinneyTexas | January 25, 2012 at 09:49 AM
Well, it's still a close enough thing in WA that the referendum might actually kill it if there's a sufficiently strong scare campaign. I'm hoping gay-marriage supporters are capable of putting on a better show than in California in 2008.
I do get the impression that the LDS church feels burned by the Prop. 8 fight and probably won't attempt anything on that scale again, but that doesn't mean somebody else won't.
Posted by: Matt McIrvin | January 26, 2012 at 08:54 AM
but that doesn't mean somebody else won't.
There is a finite, and shrinking, number of well-heeled opponents. They shot their wad on Prop 8. They don't have the wherewithal to repeat that over and over again.
Posted by: McKinneyTexas | January 26, 2012 at 10:13 AM
The situation in Maryland this year may be similar to that in Washington State. Marriage equality has a fair chance of passing the legislature, and the governor would sign it, but opponents are then likely to get a referendum put on the November ballot to block the law, and that's going to be an ugly fight and a close vote.
Posted by: KCinDC | January 27, 2012 at 01:14 AM