Hank Kalet

California uber alles

The California courts have weighed in on the side of equality.

There is no other way to view the decision handed down today granting same-sex couples the right to marry — not just to join in civil unions or some other form of domestic partnership.

This quote from a story on The New York Times’ Web site sums the issue up:

“It’s just amazing to feel like I am a full citizen — I am not a second-class citizen,” said Christmas Laubrile, a nurse, who was with her partner, Alice Heimsoth. “I don’t have to sit in the back of the bus, and I don’t have to take second best.”

Civil rights groups have balked at connecting the struggles of black Americans to gays and lesbians or even to undocumented immigrants, but the parallel is apt. Gays and lesbians across the country are prohibited from entering into state-sanctioned marriages because of what essentially amounts to a religious objection.

The court today minced few words in its 4-3 decision. The San Francisco Chronicle offered this report:

In a 4-3 decision, the justices said the state’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship.” The ruling is likely to flood county courthouses with applications from couples newly eligible to marry when the decision takes effect in 30 days.

“The California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples,” Chief Justice Ronald George wrote in the majority opinion.

Allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry “will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage,” George said.

In addition, he said, the current state law, enacted in 1977 and reaffirmed by the voters in 2000, discriminates against same-sex couples on the basis of their sexual orientation – discrimination that the court, for the first time, put in the same legal category as racial or gender bias.

The ruling affects the entire state, but also shines a spotlight on New Jersey, where the courts forced the state Legislature to address the issue in 2006. The Legislature, however, crafted a civil-union law that provided to gays and lesbians most of the rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples, but refused to go all the way and call it marriage.

But words matter, as retired state Supreme Court Chief Justice Deborah Poritz said, and the civil union law has failed to meet the court’s requirements. Same-sex couples

Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts, D-Camden, thinks that could change soon:

“As I have said before, the granting of full marriage equality to New Jersey’s same-sex couples is simply a question of ‘when,’ not ‘if.’

“In the year since New Jersey’s civil union law took effect the sky has
not fallen in and the meaning of marriage for opposite-sex couples has not been
eroded.

“Those realizations make it all the more likely that New Jersey will
ultimately be the first state to legislatively reach the inevitable conclusion
that marriage is a right that should be enjoyed by all residents.”

Could it come this year? Steven Goldstein of Garden State Equality hopes so. His group has been pushing for a same-sex marriage bill by the end of the year and he sees the California ruling as an important prod, according to The Star-Ledger. He said

“What happens in California does not stay in California, and that is a great thing for equality.”

I hope he’s right, though I think this comment from Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, D-Mercer, the only openly gay member of the state Legislature, maybe the most instructive — especially since Senate Bill 112, sponsored by Sens. Loretta Weinberg, D-Bergen, Raymond Lesniak, D-Union, and Barbara Buono, D-Middlesex, is languishing in the Senate without being assigned to a committee:

“I don’t see the Legislature taking it up anytime soon,” Gusciora said. “I think the political will is still not there.”

It is time for the governor to show some leadership on this and for the handful of Republicans who say they support equality — Bill Baroni, for one — to step up and add their name to the sponsor list, taking partisan politics out of the mix.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me clicking here.

Roaring with anger

Keith Olbermann was nearly spitting, he was so mad during last night’s special comment. The trigger for his outburst was a thoughtless remark from President George W. Bush that fairly sums up the way he has handled the war and treated American soldiers and the rest of the world.

Then came Mr. Bush’s final blow to our nation’s solar plexus, his last reopening of our common wounds, his last remark that makes the rest of us question not merely his leadership or his judgment but his very suitably to remain in office.

“Mr. President,” he was asked, “you haven’t been golfing in recent years. Is that related to Iraq?”

“Yes,” began perhaps the most startling reply of this nightmarish blight on our lives as Americans on our history. “It really is. I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the Commander in Chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be as — to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.”

Golf, sir? Golf sends the wrong signal to the grieving families of our men and women butchered in Iraq? Do you think these families, Mr. Bush, their lives blighted forever, care about you playing golf? Do you think, sir, they care about you?

You, Mr. Bush, let their sons and daughters be killed. Sir, to show your solidarity with them you gave up golf? Sir, to show your solidarity with them you didn’t give up your pursuit of this insurance-scam, profiteering, morally and financially bankrupting war.

It is worth viewing.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me clicking here.

Cleaning up the process

The Asbury Park Press takes the same position as we do on an important issue, the extension and possible expansion of the clean elections program.

The Press says

Money for Clean Elections must be included in the budget due July 1 so the program can be expanded to cover the June 2009 primaries — one of the steps needed to improve the program, which last year covered three legislative districts. Funding primaries would encourage newcomers, women and members of minority groups to seek their party’s nomination. That would help break the stranglehold political party bosses have on primaries, which leads to too many uncontested elections with too many familiar faces.

Clean Elections enable candidates to focus on issues rather than fundraising or currying favor with benefactors who expect a return on their investment, either as no-bid government contracts or favorable legislation. That inflates the cost of government and gives undue influence to moneyed interests.

As we explain in our editorial, the program was tried in three districts, including the 14th, and

the program leveled the funding playing field and allowed the seven candidates who qualified to forgo hat-in-hand fundraising and focus on the kind of retail politics that allows them to connect directly with voters.

The program, which the participants said was an important change in the way elections function, was not perfect. But the flaws

should be simple to fix:

Third-party candidates should be funded at the same level as their major-party counterparts. Libertarian candidate Jason Scheurer could have received a maximum of $50,000 for his 14th District race, had he qualified for full funding. His major-party opponents all qualified for the maximum of $534,375. If the program is to expand opportunities for third parties, the program has to level the funding.

Expand it to the primaries. In many legislative districts — those around Newark, for instance — there is only one functioning party, which means challenges to the status quo tend to occur during the primaries. Challengers, however, rarely have the financial backing of the party’s anointed candidates. Clean elections can help level the funding disparity.

Funding levels were set too high and should be reduced. The program under its current format would require a minimum of $24 million just to provide $100,000 in funding to major party candidates during years when senate and assembly seats are on the ballot. That does not take into account the extra funding given to split districts, rescue funds and the potential expansion of the program to the primaries.

But

The Legislature must act quickly, however, because expansion to the primaries will be difficult if the program is not in place before a state budget is approved. A small amount of money could be included in the proposed budget, offset by the elimination of business tax loopholes and other giveaways to industry, to fund the primary portion of the program while a longer-term solution could be put in place beginning with the 2009-2010 budget. A clean elections program is our best chance to break the connection between campaign contributions and public policy and restore the confidence of the people whom our elected officials are supposed to serve.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me clicking here.