Comparing Spitzer and Corzine

As we transition from an opposition party to a governing party, we're going to have to figure out how to help push progressive governance.  One of the most exciting places this is happening is in New Jersey, where Bluejersey is using its platform as a local hub for activism to force attention onto areas where Democrats in office continue to betray progressives.  This includes the issue of gay marriage, which, while it is touchy in say Ohio, isn't a particularly big deal in a fairly metropolitan New Jersey.  

A New Yorker friend of mine told me about a diner conversation he overheard, where someone was complaining about a consumer product that had broken.  "I should just return it", said one participant.  A lady from across the diner then suddenly yelled over 'Tell Eliot Spitzahh'.  That's why I think Eliot Spitzer is going to be a great Governor of New York state.  He's a brilliant man, a fighter, and he's willing to lead.  He led on an issue that Democrats are often scared to touch, gay marriage.  He's for it.  He knows it's the right thing to do.  And as Attorney General, when Pataki asked him to issue an injunction to stop gay marriages going on in New York, he refused.

Jon Corzine, right next door, is just as liberal as Eliot Spitzer.  And he's a good Governor, with relatively high approval ratings, in a fairly liberal state.  But as of yet, he's not a great governor because unlike Spitzer he doesn't follow his instincts.  For instance, take gay marriage.  Voters in New Jersey oppose gay marriage by a relatively slim 50-44 margin, though they support civil unions by 60-35.  Democrats Dick Codey in the state Senate and Joe Roberts in the Assembly both are pushing civil unions to avoid a real marriage equality law.  Civil unions carry certain drawbacks, including confusion in times of emergency and a lack of recognition by other states.  More than that, Jon Corzine knows that marriage equality is the right thing to do.  He was for it in his 2000 campaign, and it was a point of distinction between Corzine and Florio in the primary.

Now, of course, consultants have convinced him to back off and support gays as second class citizens.  This is shameful.  The Think Equal series from Bluejersey is shining a spotlight on this travesty, garnering substantial press coverage and putting pressure on the New Jersey legislature.  Everyone in there knows that this game is up.  They know it's a matter of a few years until gay marriage is the law of the land.  And yet, Codey, Roberts, and Corzine are not showing any leadership to make this happen.  

New Jersey is a state controlled entirely by Democrats.  The Democratic Party could just make this happen, and the progressive blog Bluejersey is pushing them to do just that.  If Corzine showed strength and pushed through marriage equality, he would be respected and be on a path towards greatness in governing.  That's where Spitzer is headed.  Corzine did it earlier this year in facing down South Jersey Democrats over taxes, and this fight is much easier.  But if he doesn't, and he knows this well, he's just keeping separate drinking fountains separate for a few more years.  He shouldn't listen to scared consultants.  

Bluejersey is a good example of how individuals can change the debate for progressives in states all over the country.  Running Democrats in red states is one side of the coin, running progressive ideas in blue states so we can show that our ideas work is the other side of the 50 state strategy.  If you are a donor looking to make a difference with your money, you could do worse than giving to people really fighting for equal rights.  That includes candidates, but it also includes activists like those that put together Bluejersey and the Think Equal campaign.  Our officials, no matter how well-intentioned, will always have rasputins whispering into their ears.  So we will always need activists to push back louder. They did this on the cheap, generating lots of press and pressure with an entirely volunteer crew and skillful use of Youtube, and are about $1750 in the hole. You can give here. I'm almost ashamed to ask for this small amount considering how much money is wasted by single issue groups in DC, but there you go.

Jon Corzine has been doing the wrong thing on this clear issue of civil rights.  I'm glad Bluejersey is there to help keep on the path to greatness.

Update: The civil unions bill passed the Judiciary Committee.



Display:


Re: Good versus Great (none / 0)

My only problem with NJ pushing "marriage" over "civil unions" is that marriage would create the opportunity for a test case for DOMA.  While I hate DOMA and think it is unconstitutional, I can't say the conservative Supremes are inclined to agree.  DOMA could be legitimized by the high court.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 03:35:58 PM EST

I'm not buying it... (none / 0)

Civil unions carry certain drawbacks, including confusion in times of emergency and a lack of recognition by other states.

You just took the entire premise for this post, rather, for an entire movement, and skimmed over it in one sentence. I remain unconvinced. The non-recognition is a non-issue, as marriages already don't have to be recognized across state lines, and confusion in times of emergency is sort of a silly notion. I think they can send a memo out to the nurses to let them know about the new law.

Now I know this isn't a popular opinion on the blogs, but I don't think gay "marriage" is the best way forward. Marriage itself is an establishment of religion, and any law specifically regarding marriage is unconstitutional under the first amendment. The way to get around this whole issue -- and all subsequent political battles about family structure, like when three men and a woman want to adopt a child and share custody -- is for our government not to have anything to do with incentivizing and disincentivizing certain forms of family structure.

I've done quite a bit of feminist political theory, family political theory, queer theory, and all the rest that goes along with it, and I am convinced that the way forward is to detach the state's material benefits from the "marriage" or the "union" and focus on the caretaker-dependent relationship, rendering the social disagreement moot simply by focusing the material benefits where they were originally intended to assist.

People will still be able to draw up contracts sharing assets and power of attorney, and we can keep "marriage contracts" around as just a particular version of these sorts of agreements. The answer is a country in which all people are treated equally regardless of their family structure, and government has no coercive power to dictate how you should choose to organize your family life. It's not just politically expedient, it's the right thing.

When you respond angrily, respond with political theory. Don't think of your support for gay marriage in terms of opposition to those who would unjustly deny family rights to gay Americans, find an argument for why a) the institution of marriage should be validated as an (only-slightly-less) exclusionary system of discrimination on the basis of family structure, and b) it's absolutely necessary that we force our superior worldview down the throats of Christianist bigots, rather than merely removing all traces of material injustice and letting them rot in hell by themselves.


Progress is Personal | PCCC
by msnook on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 03:59:53 PM EST

Re: I'm not buying it... (none / 0)

MsNook,

I agree that the government just shouldn't be in the marriage business, but if you think its hard for the country to adopt gay marriage, can you please just sit back and think about the fight to ELIMINATE marriage all together.  That fight is impossible, the gay marriage fight is not.


by JAmbro on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 04:04:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not buying it... (none / 0)

Thanks for the reasoned response.

The thing is, this way of approaching the problem allows you to tackle one step at a time, and the first step (full rights under civil unions) removes all immediate material inequalities -- at least as pertains to gay couples.

You never have to advocate for abolishing marriage (and I'm not). Once the immediate injustice is taken care of, you can take your sweet time re-allocating family subsidies (maybe next time we overhaul welfare, or as soon as polyamorous couple start asking for rights).

Marriage laws wouldn't be changed, just the tax code and the social welfare programs.


Progress is Personal | PCCC
by msnook on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 05:14:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not buying it... (none / 0)

This is the equivalent of supporting the Iraq War but not the way that Bush fought the Iraq War.  This is not an option in current political debates, it's just wankery.


by Matt Stoller on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 04:04:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not buying it... (none / 0)

You don't have to explain political theory to the masses, but you do have a responsibility to use it to figure out what policy you're going to support. In terms of contemporary political debates, it is absolutely an option to advocate for full rights under civil unions. In fact it's a hell of a lot more feasible than your preferred approach, which legitimizes theocracy by picking a pointless and divisive fight.

The process of re-allocating family subsidies to the caretaker-dependent relationship can happen at any pace once the material inequality has been dealt with.

And no, it's not like that. If you really want to use an Iraq analogy, (although I think it's a bit like Godwin's law,) then what you are suggesting is like attacking Iraq because al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. You're picking a fight, hoping to secure an unjust result, when a much simpler and less controversial option would resolve all the material injustices.

The question here isn't one of political expedience (and if it were, I would certainly win). It's one of justice, an issue you didn't address.


Progress is Personal | PCCC
by msnook on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 05:06:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not buying it... (none / 0)

Good luck abolishing marriage.


by Matt Stoller on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 05:44:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not buying it... (none / 0)

That's cute. Try reading next time. I guess straw men make it easier to post two whole comments of snide disagreement without actually considering the merits of the argument you're dismissing out of hand.


Progress is Personal | PCCC
by msnook on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 05:50:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not buying it... (none / 0)

Corzine has already gone head to head with the Democratic legislature over taxes and the budget. He isn't nearly as strong with his own party as is Spitzer. The machine can't simply be ignored on every decision, as much as we would like it.

Civil unions has strong majority support. Gay marriage is not what the majority of New Jersey residents want. If we were talking about all or nothing I'd be in favor of all. But we're talking about 100% with significant backlash or 90% with a collective yawn.

The courts are already on the side of homosexual couples in NJ. Any tax form issues etc can be settled through them. The Federal IRS is not bound to acknowledge gay marriages in NJ even if there were enshrined in state law. So there is no effective difference.

Corzine is going to make the smart political play here, no doubt about it. He still comes off as one of the most progressive governors in the country without further alienating his own party.


by Windowdog on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 09:13:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not buying it... (none / 0)

Marriage licences are granted by the state not by the church. You can get married just as easily in a city or town hall as you can in a church. Common sense says you simply pass a law that says clearly all people are equal and that same sex marriage is legal, but that no church or other equivalent religious institution would be required to perform same-sex marriages. Religious institutions that welcomed gay people could choose to perform the ceremonies and those that didn't support it would not have to.

Same-sex couples would have marriage equality under the law and could be married either in an open minded religious institution of their choice or in the town or city hall. Religious institutions would be forced to perform the ceremonies if they did not want to so it would not be thrust upon their place of worship.

This is a perfectly reasonable solution that would respect everyone. I believe it would appeal to those in the mainstream and the rest aren't going to come around on the issue and aren't likely to vote Democratic anyway.


by Quinton on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 05:52:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not buying it... (none / 0)

I'm not talking about interfering with the rights of religious institutions to hold religious ceremonies. I'm talking about more separation between church and state, not less.

I think gay marriage sounds reasonable, but it doesn't approach the problem of favoring 2-parent families over single-parent families that need and deserve the assistance at least as much, and it means you have to have the same old fight next time some unconventional family wants to be recognized by the state.

And I want a pony too, but apparently your proposal doesn't "appeal to those in the mainstream" in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.


Progress is Personal | PCCC
by msnook on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:18:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Comparing Spitzer and Corzine (none / 0)

I am not sure about your concerns.  Fisrt of all the DOMA is legit until a court strikes it down, so far every court has refsed to but the DOMA does not ban gay marriages it just allows the states to right not allow them and not to recognize other states.  New Jersey can pass a gay marriage law and it will not affect other states laws.  I beleive the state of New Jersey will chose the CU route at this time for practical and pragmatic reasons it is just the easier thing to do at this time as for the future who knows I am just do not see the Democrats fighting for gay marriage anytime soon.


by THE MODERATE on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 04:03:43 PM EST

Re: Comparing Spitzer and Corzine (none / 0)

But at the same time, if NJ passes gay marriage will residents in NJ be able to fill out a joint tax return?  What are the implications of this nationally?


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 04:10:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Comparing Spitzer and Corzine (none / 0)

Geeze, every time I hear somebody talk about Eliot Spitzer it sounds like he's nine feet tall, eats two-by-fours for breakfast and washes them down with a corporate executive smoothie.


by fwiffo on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 04:24:24 PM EST

Re: Comparing Spitzer and Corzine (none / 0)

Interesting that they're both running for president, Spitzer thinks he can be for gay marriage and still win in 2016, Corzine thinks he can't.  Given where the debate on this issue will likely stand TEN YEARS FROM NOW, I can't help but think that Spitzer has it right.  Gay marriage is going to popular among Democrats and Independents by then, it'll be an advantage in a presidential primary, and Spitzer will look principled by having been right early.  Consider how the debate shifted between 1996 and 2006.  Consider ten years of die-off at the older end of the voting population, and ten years added at the younger end, with the current 20-30 cohort now being 30-40 and a whole new 20-30 cohort in its place.  Not sure Corzine has the politics right on this one, unless he's worried about re-election in 2009.


by texas dem on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 05:35:47 PM EST

Re: Comparing Spitzer and Corzine (none / 0)

I disagree I think that the institution of marriage should be preserved and that it is a societal instutition that should be safkept by goverment and that religion should largly be kept out of the marriage buisness. If it marriage was decided by religion who would decide in the fates of atheist unions, or things about a marriage that their religion doesn't approve of. Not to mention different religions  dispting the validiy of other couples marriages.


by rtaycher1987 on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 08:08:57 PM EST

Hmmm (none / 0)

Marriage looks really cute. Way more appealing than  civil union. Wonder if that was on purpose...


TAKE BACK OUR PARTY: Democracy Bonds
by LiberalFromPA on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 10:54:56 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.