Connect with us

National

Clock is ticking for N.J. marriage bill

Published

on

The only out lawmaker in the New Jersey Legislature said the state’s pending marriage legislation “could go either way” and cautioned against bringing the bill to a vote if supporters don’t think they have sufficient support.

Reed Gusciora, a gay Democrat and sponsor of the marriage bill in the Assembly, said in an interview with DC Agenda that prospects of passing the legislation dimmed after Gov. Jon Corzine (D) failed in his bid for re-election last month and following losses for same-sex marriage in Maine and New York.

“It could go either way,” he said. “A lot of legislators, unfortunately, are taking a second look at the issue. … There’s always an argument not to do it and to fall in line with these other states.”

Even so, Gusciora, who’s also deputy majority leader of the Assembly, said New Jersey has a chance of passing same-sex marriage because of the Garden State’s liberal leanings.

“It still has a shot because New Jersey, at the end of the day, is a fairly progressive state,” he said. “It’s just a matter of my colleagues voting for the bill, which otherwise they should have.”

Supporters of gay nuptials are under the gun to pass same-sex marriage. Corzine has said he’d sign marriage legislation if it reaches his desk, but his failure to win re-election means he’ll soon leave the governor’s mansion. On Jan. 19, his successor, Republican Chris Christie will take office, and he’s pledged to veto any same-sex marriage bill that passes the legislature.

On Monday, Christie reiterated his opposition to the marriage bill in response to criticism from rock star and New Jersey-native Bruce Springsteen, according to Newark’s Star-Ledger, although Christie’s opposition wasn’t as emphatic as it has been in the past.

“This is where the people of New Jersey obviously have differences of opinion,” Christie was quoted as saying. “There are lots of people who feel very strongly about same-sex marriage and believe it should be the law of the state, and there are lots of folks like me who believe that it shouldn’t.”

Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality, declined to describe his organization’s efforts to pass the marriage legislation in the weeks before Christie takes office, saying he didn’t want to tip off opponents to his activities.

“I can inform your audience, which is mostly outside of New Jersey, or I could do what we’re doing, which is continue to work hard to win marriage equality and keep our strategy close to the vest, and that’s what I prefer to do,” he said.

Still, he said he would agree with Gusciora’s assessment that the marriage bill “could go either way,” calling it “an innocuous enough statement.”

“That can be interpreted as anything, so why not agree?” he said.

Gusciora said he thinks the legislature will take up the marriage bill in January when lawmakers return from the holiday recess. He noted that he’s expecting the Assembly to consider the legislation first, followed by action in the Senate.

The State Senate Judiciary Committee last week approved the marriage legislation, 7-6. A Senate floor vote on the bill was initially scheduled for last week, but postponed after supporters said they wanted to wait until the Assembly had public hearings.

Mike BeLoreto, Gusciora’s chief of staff, said he thinks the bill has “a good chance” of passing the Assembly, but in the Senate the situation is “still very close to call.”

“We obviously have more Democratic votes in the Assembly than they do in the Senate, so it gives us a wider margin if some members need to jump off for their own political or personal reasons,” BeLoreto said.

As for the Senate, BeLoreto said a favorable vote in the Assembly “will end up spurring some progress on the Senate side.”

Democrats hold a majority in the State Senate, 23-17. Senate President Richard Codey has said the bill lacks unanimous support among the Democratic caucus and Republican votes are needed to pass the legislation.

Charles Moran, a Log Cabin Republicans spokesperson, said his organization isn’t formally lobbying for the marriage bill because his group doesn’t have a chapter in New Jersey.

Nonetheless, he said he plans to send out an action alert to his group’s members in the state to encourage them to lobby their officials.

“We’re going to start sending out some blasts to all our internal lists of Republicans and say, ‘Contact these state senators and identify yourself as a Republican in support marriage equality,’” he said.

Moran said his group has identified five Senate Republicans that could vote to pass the bill. One is Bill Baroni, the Republican Judiciary Committee member who voted in favor of the legislation, and another is Jennifer Beck, who voted against the legislation in committee but said she’d consider voting for it on the Senate floor.

Gusciora said the bill should be enacted into law as a matter of fairness.

“We recognize Newt Gingrich’s three wives, Rudy Giuliani’s three wives and Britney Spears’ 72 hours of nuptials — and there are plenty of same-sex couples that have been together a lot longer,” Gusciora said. “They pay taxes like everyone else, they raise families, they’re allowed to adopt in this state, so it’s a matter of fairness.”

Still, Gusciora urged advocates not to hold a vote on the bill if support is uncertain.

The wide margin of failure of the marriage bill in the New York State Senate earlier this month, 24-38, spurred some people to question why a vote was taken if there wasn’t an assurance of greater support.

“I’m not into taking names,” Gusciora said. “We already know who’s against it, so I don’t think we have to take the vote. The other thing is that if there isn’t a vote, there’s always an opportunity to revisit the issue, so I would rather us not take the vote.”

Gusciora said the New Jersey state courts could take up the matter should lawmakers fail to act. While no marriage litigation is pending in New Jersey, Gusciora noted that someone could bring the issue before judges.

In 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the legislature needed to create some form of relationship recognition for same-sex couples in New Jersey. In response, civil unions were enacted.

“[You] wouldn’t want conservatives to get to say, ‘You had your shot in the legislature, so why are you taking it to the courts?’” Gusciora said. “The court can always revisit the issue and say, ‘You didn’t go far enough — it should indeed be called marriage.’”

But if lawmakers fail to approve the marriage legislation before Jan. 19, Gusciora said it would be “unlikely” that same-sex marriage will happen in New Jersey legislatively before Christie leaves office.

“He said that he would veto the bill if it ever came to his desk, so it’s unlikely in the four or eight years he’ll be governor that he would sign it,” he said. “Things always change with everybody, but he was pretty emphatic.”

Goldstein said he didn’t want to comment on whether the marriage bill could pass during the Christie administration if lawmakers in the upcoming weeks don’t approve the legislation.

“We’re working day and night to pass marriage equality while Jon Corzine is governor,” Goldstein said.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

U.S. Supreme Court

LGBTQ activists alarmed over concurring opinion in abortion ruling

Justice Thomas calls for ‘reconsideration’ of marriage, sodomy rulings

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (Photo public domain)

LGBTQ activists have expressed alarm over a concurring opinion issued on Friday by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas calling for the high court to “reconsider” previous decisions overturning state sodomy laws and legalizing same-sex marriage as a follow-up to the court’s controversial ruling on Friday to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion rights.

In an action that drew expressions of outrage from abortion rights advocates and strong support by right-to-life advocates, the Supreme Court handed down a 6-3 ruling on Friday overturning the fundamental right to an abortion that the court established nearly 50 years ago in its landmark decision known as Roe v. Wade.

In his concurring opinion, Thomas said he supports the high court’s majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. He states that he agrees with the ruling that nothing in the majority opinion “should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

But he also states that in potential future cases, “we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”

He was referring to the past Supreme Court Griswold ruling that overturned state laws banning or restricting birth control such as contraceptives; the high court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling that overturned state laws banning sodomy between consenting adults; and the 2015 Obergefell ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

“Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion is obviously concerning, but it is important to note that not one other justice agreed with him,” said Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBTQ rights advocacy group. “In fact, the majority took pains to disagree with him and clarify that this opinion relates only to abortion. Justice Thomas stands alone,” Warbelow told the Washington Blade in a statement.

“With that said, we know that if the court was willing to overturn 50 years of precedent with this case, that all of our constitutional rights are on the line,” Warbelow said. “Lawmakers will be further emboldened to come after our progress. So, we must be vigilant in protecting our hard-won rights — we’re ready.”

Paul Kawata, executive director of the National Minority AIDS Council (NMAC), said the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade would have a “disastrous effect” on healthcare for women, especially women of color. He said the ruling could also lead to future rulings that adversely impact LGBTQ people and other minorities.

“We have no doubt that the conservative supermajority on the court will not stop with Roe,” Kawata said in a statement. “Justice Thomas’s chilling concurring opinion makes it very clear that the court could target other rights provided by the court — marriage equality, contraception access, and LGBTQ+ intimacy in private to name a few,” he said.

Continue Reading

The White House

Biden labels Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade ‘a sad day for court’

“Imagine, woman having to carry a child that’s a consequence of incest, with no option” to terminate the pregnancy, Biden said

Published

on

President Biden speaks to Americans after Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade (Screenshot/YouTube)

WASHINGTON – Just after the Supreme Court’s conservative majority moved to overturn the constitutional right to abortion on Friday in a 6-3 ruling, President Joe Biden vowed to protect American women from prosecution for traveling to other states to terminate their pregnancies. 

Thirteen states have made or will soon make abortion illegal, some without exceptions for rape and incest, following today’s ruling. After a draft of that ruling was leaked in May, some state legislatures considered bills to prevent women from circumventing their restrictions on abortion. 

“If any state or local official high or low tries to interfere with a woman exercising her basic right to travel, I will do everything in my power to fight that unamerican attack,” Biden said. 

Delivering his remarks from the Great Cross Hall of the White House, the President looked visibly upset, particularly when discussing the extreme abortion bans in some states that will now be allowed to go into effect. 

“They are so extreme that women can be punished for protecting their health; that some women and girls will be forced to bear their rapists’ child,” Biden said. It was at this point that he appeared to go off-script to share his personal feelings on the ruling and its implications. “It just stuns me,” he said. “Imagine, woman having to carry a child that’s a consequence of incest, with no option” to terminate the pregnancy.

Biden called for those who share his anger and outrage – many who gathered on the steps of the Supreme Court in protest – to remain peaceful. He urged Americans to vote to give Democrats in Congress the majority that will be necessary for them to codify the constitutional right to abortion first established by the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade and overturned today with the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health.

Biden warned of the “dangerous path the court is taking us on,” pointing to Justice Thomas’s comments in the decision that “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” 

Should the court revisit the precedents established by those cases, it could mean constitutional protections for the return of laws banning birth control, sodomy and same-sex marriage. 

Biden noted Americans’ constitutional right to abortion was affirmed in multiple decisions by the Supreme Court, endorsed by justices who were appointed by presidents from both parties. 

“It was three justices named by one president, Donald Trump, who were the core of today’s decision to upend the scales of justice and eliminate a fundamental right for women in this country,” Biden said.

President Biden speaks on Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade:

Full transcript:

REMARKS BY PRESIDENT BIDEN
ON THE SUPREME COURT DECISION
TO OVERTURN ROE V. WADE

Today is a — it’s not hyperbole to suggest a very solemn moment.  Today, the Supreme Court of the United States expressly took away a constitutional right from the American people that it had already recognized.

They didn’t limit it.  They simply took it away.  That’s never been done to a right so important to so many Americans.

But they did it.  And it’s a sad day for the Court and for the country.

Fifty years ago, Roe v. Wade was decided and has been the law of the land since then.

This landmark case protected a woman’s right to choose, her right to make intensely personal decisions with her doctor, free from the inter- — from interference of politics.

It reaffirmed basic principles of equality — that women have the power to control their own destiny.  And it reinforced the fundamental right of privacy — the right of each of us to choose how to live our lives.

Now, with Roe gone, let’s be very clear: The health and life of women in this nation are now at risk.

As Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, as Vice President and now as President of the United States, I’ve studied this case carefully.  I’ve overseen more Supreme Court confirmations than anyone today, where this case was always discussed.

I believe Roe v. Wade was the correct decision as a matter of constitutional law, an application of the fundamental right to privacy and liberty in matters of family and personal autonomy.

It was a decision on a complex matter that drew a careful balance between a woman’s right to choose earlier in her pregnancy and the state’s ability to regulate later in her pregnancy.  A decision with broad national consensus that most Americans of faiths and backgrounds found acceptable and that had been the law of the land for most of the lifetime of Americans today.

And it was a constitutional principle upheld by justices appointed by Democrat and Republican Presidents alike. 

Roe v. Wade was a 7 to 2 decision written by a justice appointed by a Republican President, Richard Nixon.  In the five decades that followed Roe v. Wade, justices appointed by Republican Presidents — from Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, George W. [H.W.] Bush — were among the justices who voted to uphold the principles set forth in Roe v. Wade.

It was three justices named by one President — Donald Trump — who were the core of today’s decision to upend the scales of justice and eliminate a fundamental right for women in this country.

Make no mistake: This decision is the culmination of a deliberate effort over decades to upset the balance of our law.  It’s a realization of an extreme ideology and a tragic error by the Supreme Court, in my view.

The Court has done what it has never done before: expressly take away a constitutional right that is so fundamental to so many Americans that had already been recognized.

The Court’s decision to do so will have real and immediate consequences.  State laws banning abortion are automatically taking effect today, jeopardizing the health of millions of women, some without exceptions. 

So extreme that women could be punished for protecting their health.

So extreme that women and girls who are forced to bear their rapist’s child — of the child of consequence. 

It’s a — it just — it just stuns me. 

So extreme that doctors will be criminalized for fulfilling their duty to care.

Imagine having — a young woman having to ch- — carry the child of incest — as a consequence of incest.  No option. 

Too often the case that poor women are going to be hit the hardest.  It’s cruel.

In fact, the Court laid out state laws criminalizing abortion that go back to the 1800s as rationale — the Court literally taking America back 150 years. 

This a sad day for the country, in my view, but it doesn’t mean the fight is over.

Let me be very clear and unambiguous: The only way we can secure a woman’s right to choose and the balance that existed is for Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade as federal law.

No executive action from the President can do that.  And if Congress, as it appears, lacks the vote — votes to do that now, voters need to make their voices heard.

This fall, we must elect more senators and representatives who will codify a woman’s right to choose into federal law once again, elect more state leaders to protect this right at the local level.

We need to restore the protections of Roe as law of the land.  We need to elect officials who will do that.

This fall, Roe is on the ballot.  Personal freedoms are on the ballot.  The right to privacy, liberty, equality, they’re all on the ballot. 

Until then, I will do all in my power to protect a woman’s right in states where they will face the consequences of today’s decision.

While the Court’s decision casts a dark shadow over a large swath of the land, many states in this country still recognize a woman’s right to choose.

So if a woman lives in a state that restricts abortion, the Supreme Court’s decision does not prevent her from traveling from her home state to the state that allows it.  It does not prevent a doctor in that state — in that state from treating her.

As the Attorney General has made clear, women must remain free to travel safely to another state to seek the care they need.  And my administration will defend that bedrock right. 

If any state or local official, high or low, tries to interfere with a woman’s ex- — exercising her basic right to travel, I will do everything in my power to fight that deeply un-American attack.

My administration will also protect a woman’s access to medications that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration — the FDA — like contraception, which is essential for preventative healthcare; mifepristone, which the FDA approved 20 years ago to safely end early pregnancies and is commonly used to treat miscarriages.

Some states are saying that they’ll try to ban or severely restrict access to these medications. 

But extremist governors and state legislators who are looking to block the mail or search a person’s medicine cabinet or control a woman’s actions by tracking data on her apps she uses are wrong and extreme and out of touch with the majority of Americans.

The American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists wrote to me and Vice President Harris stressing that these laws are not based on — are not based on evidence and asking us to act to protect access to care.  They say by limiting access to these medicines, maternal mortality will climb in America.  That’s what they say.

Today, I’m directing the Department of Health and Human Services to take steps to ensure that these critical medications are available to the fullest extent possible and that politicians cannot interfere in the decisions that should be made between a woman and her doctor.  And my administration will remain vigilant as the implications of this decision play out.

I’ve warned about how this decision risks the broader right to privacy for everyone.  That’s because Roe recognized the fundamental right to privacy that has served as the basis for so many more rights that we have come to take — we’ve come to take for granted that are ingrained in the fabric of this country: the right to make the best decisions for your health; the right to use birth control — a married couple — in the privacy of their bedroom, for God’s sake; the right to marry the person you love. 

Now, Justice Thomas said as much today.  He explicitly called to reconsider the right of marriage equality, the right of couples to make their choices on contraception.  This is an extreme and dangerous path the Court is now taking us on. 

Let me close with two points. 

First, I call on everyone, no matter how deeply they care about this decision, to keep all protests peaceful.  Peaceful, peaceful, peaceful.  No intimidation.  Violence is never acceptable.  Threats and intimidation are not speech.  We must stand against violence in any form regardless of your rationale.

Second, I know so many of us are frustrated and disillusioned that the Court has taken something away that’s so fundamental.  I know so many women are now going to face incredibly difficult situations.  I hear you.  I support you.  I stand with you. 

The consequences and the consensus of the American people — core principles of equality, liberty, dignity, and the stability of the rule of law — demand that Roe should not have been overturned.

With this decision, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court shows how extreme it is, how far removed they are from the majority of this country.  They have made the United States an outlier among developed nations in the world.  But this decision must not be the final word.

My administration will use all of its appropriate lawful powers.  But Congress must act.  And with your vote, you can act.  You can have the final word.  This is not over.

Thank you very much.  I’ll have more to say on this in weeks to come.  Thank you.

Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court

U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade

Justices issued 6-3 ruling

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court on June 24, 2022.. (Washington Blade photo by Josh Alburtus)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday in a 6-3 ruling overturned Roe v. Wade.

Justice Clarence Thomas in the decision said the Supreme Court should also reconsider the decisions in the Obergefell and Lawrence cases that extended marriage equality to same-sex couples and the right to private, consensual sex.

LGBTQ rights groups were quick to condemn the ruling.

“Today the Supreme Court issued a devastating ruling in Jackson Women’s Health Organization v. Dobbs — a huge setback to our long-standing fundamental right to bodily autonomy,” said National LGBTQ Task Force Executive Director Kierra Johnson. “This decision by the conservative majority on the bench also marks the beginning of the vital work to re-establish our constitutional foundation for reproductive justice and freedom. We must redouble our work to protect access to abortion and reproductive justice at the state and national levels. We will never give up.”

“When the Supreme Court is willing to throw 50 years of precedent out the window, it proves that we are at an exceedingly dangerous, unprecedented moment. The court’s majority opinion does not reflect the will of our nation — two thirds of whom support Roe v. Wade but instead fulfills an extreme, out of step, ideological agenda. And it shows that all of our rights are on the line right now, as state lawmakers will be further emboldened to test the limits of our hard-won civil rights,” added interim Human Rights Campaign President Joni Madison. “Women are under attack, LGBTQ+ people are under attack, BIPOC people are under attack, and we are justifiably outraged. We cannot relent — we must fight back.”

Jim Obergefell, a candidate for the Ohio House and the lead plaintiff in the landmark Supreme Court case that affirmed marriage equality as the law of the land, issued the following statement today following news that the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

“It’s a sad day for womens’ rights. This U.S. Supreme Court continues to erode the rights of citizens at an alarming rate. We are facing a health and human rights crisis in this country and as a result countless lives will be at risk. Women deserve responsive leaders who support reproductive justice. Leaders who respect their basic right to have control over their own body. The reality is that women today will have less rights than their own mothers. We are going backwards and it’s both enraging and terrifying to see the excessive government overreach that this court is imposing on our country.”

In his remarks on the Supreme Court ruling, President Joe Biden speaking live from the Great Cross Hall in the White House said at one point, “It just stuns me,” adding that poor women would be hit the hardest by the decision. “This is a sad day for the country in my view but it does not mean the fight is over.”

He called on Congress to restore abortion protections into law and pointed to the November midterm elections, saying, “this fall, Roe is on the ballot.”

He urged protests to be conducted peacefully and said violence is never acceptable.

“This decision must not be the final word,” Biden said.

Biden’s remarks ended at 12:49 p.m. EST after speaking for nearly 12 minutes. He did not respond to shouted questions from reporters about the ruling and the future of the Supreme Court. 

Screenshot/YouTube NBC News

U. S. Attorney General Merrick Garland released a statement condemning the high court’s ruling.

“The Supreme Court has eliminated an established right that has been an essential component of women’s liberty for half a century — a right that has safeguarded women’s ability to participate fully and equally in society. And in renouncing this fundamental right, which it had repeatedly recognized and reaffirmed, the court has upended the doctrine of stare decisis, a key pillar of the rule of law.

“The Justice Department strongly disagrees with the court’s decision. This decision deals a devastating blow to reproductive freedom in the United States. It will have an immediate and irreversible impact on the lives of people across the country. And it will be greatly disproportionate in its effect — with the greatest burdens felt by people of color and those of limited financial means. “

The attorney general went on to warn that acts of violence in the wake of today’s ruling will not be tolerated.

“Advocates with different views on this issue have the right to, and will, voice their opinions. Peacefully expressing a view is protected by the First Amendment. But we must be clear that violence and threats of violence are not. The Justice Department will not tolerate such acts.”

Shannon Minter, the legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights told the Washington Blade in an email that “Justice Thomas’s concurrence is an open assault on the landmark precedents that have transformed the place of LGBTQ people in our society. Historically, the Supreme Court has relied on substantive due process to protect essential liberties such as the freedom to decide whether to conceive a child, to marry or be in an intimate relationship with the person of one’s choice, to raise children as one sees fit, and to travel or move anywhere in the country.”

“These are among our most basic and cherished freedoms, and Justice Thomas is urging the court to scrap them all. While the majority opinion does not go that far, it is full of landmines that appear to lay a foundation for future decisions that may cast these fundamental rights into question or eliminate them altogether. Today’s decision is even more alarming than the leaked opinion and strongly suggests that this is only the beginning of a radical campaign to undo decades of precedent.  The question is no longer if this court is willing to jettison other fundamental freedoms, but how quickly they are likely to do so, and which ones are likely to be on the chopping block first,” Minter added.

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Read the Supreme Court’s opinion:

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Follow Us @washblade

Sign Up for Blade eBlasts

Popular