A little over a month ago, I wrote a piece that was kindly published here on The HuffPost entitled, "Marriage Equality - What Are We So Afraid Of?"
There's been an ongoing and increasingly contentious battle in New Jersey over S1967, marriage equality legislation that would grant gays the right to legally marry in the state. My wife and I went to the Capitol Building in Trenton to demonstrate our support for the bill and to listen and participate in hearings. It was quite the experience indeed. The Senate Judiciary Committee had passed the legislation and onto the Assembly, which was then bounced to the full Senate for a vote yesterday.
Needless to say, after my initial blog post on the subject was published, a "rainbow" of comments flooded in.
Proponents of gay marriage expressed that marriage equality is a basic constitutional and human right. Alternatively, opponents levied their religious leanings and their ties to a heterosexual tradition.
I wrote my initial blog post with a fair dose of satire and sarcasm. I thought it might be a bit more, well, bearable to discuss the issue in that way. This time around, I write armed with unbridled transparency. (OK, and a bit of sarcasm.) In the spirit of this transparency, let me begin by saying I actually wrote most of this before yesterday's Senate vote even took place. Why? Because I knew what the outcome would be. You could be a four-year-old in Iceland living in a fishing village that has no contact with the outside world and still have predicted what the outcome would be.
Anyway, we begin with the most basic of facts. 20 New Jersey Senators appear to be afraid of gay people. In case you did not hear me, let me see that again. 20 New Jersey Senators appear to be afraid of gay people. Oh, and by the way, there were 5 abstentions that, quite frankly, don't say much either. Literally.
Final Vote: 20 Nay, 14 Yea, 5 Abstain, 1 Vacant.
Anyone know a guy named John Locke? Believe it or not, the 17th century English philosopher is alive and well and living in Trenton, NJ. In fact, he has a home in every county of America. Locke devised the "social contract" arguing that government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control."
Thomas Jefferson "adopted" the idea, and proclaimed:
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
And thus was the first Amendment to the United States Constitution. Well, that and freedom of speech and the freedom of the press.
Oddly enough, the Supreme Court never ruled on the constitutionality of any federal law regarding the Free Speech clause until the 20th century. Lawmakers are still given the freedom to decide which speech could constitute a danger. In fact, constitutional free speech provides that an authority figure can censor their subordinate's speech or discriminate on the basis of speech without legal consequence.
Guess what? I'm "self-employed," so screw it.
Religion is not the miter in this matter. "Church and State" guarantees every religious institution their god-given right to deny gay people the acknowledgement they deserve. (Hey, and by the way, there are plenty of religious folks and politicians in this country who would gladly shake hands with Uganda's gay killers too. God bless 'em.)
That being said, it is important to note that 115+ congregations representing all of New Jersey's districts sent letters pleading FOR marriage equality. At the end of the day, however, "Church and State" was rarely the central battleground in the argument for equality here in New Jersey. The bottom line is that this state offers the strongest protections for religious institutions under its current civil unions pact. So why not just offer up that remaining little thing called right to marriage? Really, what's the difference, people?
Maybe we can find the answer in one's right to freedom of speech.
Let's take the words of Republican Senator, Sean Kean of Monmouth County, NJ, my district. A few days ago, on Kean's very own website, his landing page cited:
Five Republican senators today said that it's unlikely that a bill redefining marriage can pass the Senate and asked their Democratic colleagues to join them in a bipartisan effort to strengthen New Jersey's civil union law.
Kean himself chimed in:
Moving testimony in Senate hearings suggests that New Jersey's civil union law is not always understood or followed. We need to educate the public about the law, and enhance it if necessary so that no civil union partner is turned away from the hospital bed of a loved one.
Bravo. Bravo, Senator. (Yes, that was sarcasm steeped in utter sarcasm.)
OK, if you truly understand the cowardly subtext of Mr. Kean's statement, then you understand what he really said was, "I will not allow gay people to marry in my state, but I will throw them a bone."
Then we have the Senator's tender and affecting argument before the full Senate today during which he talked about how much time he has afforded gay advocates during this process and how open his heart has been and how he even celebrated his election at a restaurant in Ocean Grove (known for its significant gay population) with gay friends.
And how did he end his diatribe? By saying he takes offense to the characterizations the bill's proponents have made of the opponents. I kid you not. In fact, Mr. Kean got married but a year ago at the tender age of 45. I'm sure he invited all his gay friends to the ceremony.
Then you have Senator Bill Baroni, a 38 year old Republican of the 14th District in South Jersey and one that is pretty damn conservative to boot. Baroni took the floor today and wielded his humanity and dignity with such aplomb that I actually wound up in tears. Yes, I admit it. I said I would be transparent, like it or not.
Baroni wasn't crossing party lines or angling for constituencies or blathering rancor. He merely stood up, literally and figuratively, for what, as he said, "everyone deserves."
In one of the most eloquent speeches I've heard in ages, the Senator talked about love being borderless. He paired two moving stories... One told of two women in his district who have been partners for 20 years but who sadly lost their child to illness. The other was of the Senator's very own father holding the hand of his beloved wife of 63 years and watching her succumb to death before his very eyes.
He concluded, "Separate but equal was wrong in 1954, it is wrong today."
In what might or should be one the most ironic twists in history, the first country to give women the right to vote in national elections was the Isle of Man in 1880. Three weeks before my birthday in 1964, a little piece of legislation called The Civil Rights Act extended voting rights and outlawed racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public.
But what if suffrage and civil rights were not extended? Democratic Senator Cunningham, an African American woman, had the answer today. She said that she might still be in that Senate chamber, but she would likely be sweeping the floors or fanning the foreheads of her white male counterparts.
Republican Senator Cardinale literally asked us what a "guy on the street" would say thousands of years ago if asked what marriage was. "He would say marriage is between a man and a woman." Doesn't that depend who that guy was? What if it were a Pharoah intent on accumulating supreme art for his Middle Kingdom digs? Or what if it were some dude from the 2000 B.C. Oxus civilization who was otherwise preoccupied with his sedentary life irrigating and harvesting wheat and barley so he could throw down a couple brews while watching the ball game?
Republican Senator Doherty looked like his head was going to explode and spoke about, well, nothing I can really remember. Well, except for his rant about letting this matter go to a ballot and why is Garden State Equality so afraid to let that happen? Actually, why is he so afraid to say why he is too afraid to deal with it himself?
Kean, Cardinale, Doherty and other nay votes love when females or conservative African Americans show up at the polls and cast their votes for them. But do they really not see even an ounce of bloody irony in this?
Sometimes people just disagree with you. Maybe they don't share your perspective. Maybe they don't share their values. ... Maybe I'm wrong. When you lay down at night and go to sleep, and you do a heart check, that's really when you get the courage to make decisions like the decisions we're going to make today.
That was part of Senator Kean's freely spoken final statement. Listen, I'm Kean's age. I've heard a lot. I've said a lot. And I've seen a lot. And I've been disagreed with a lot. And I'm wrong a lot. But when I lay down at night and go to sleep I don't need to gather up courage or do a heart check. Because I know I have both.
Free speech. Church and state. Man and woman. Yucky gay people. I still don't quite get how marriage equality will adversely affect one iota of our people or our country. Except for the better. That's why I have come up with only one explanation: New Jersey Senators are simply afraid of these pesky gays.
After the bill died yesterday afternoon, I told my wife that maybe we should consider getting a divorce until our beloved neighbors, Kevin and Tom can get married. While the vote is still out on that decision, at least it's on the table.
To all who battled for equality with every last ounce of their hearts and minds, remember this: never go to bed mad, stay up and fight.
