National
N.J. Senate kills marriage legislation
The New Jersey State Senate on Thursday defeated legislation that would have legalized same-sex marriage in the Garden State, but plans are already brewing to obtain marriage rights for gay couples through litigation.
Senators voted down the measure, 14-20, following a 90-minute debate. After the vote was recorded, opponents of gay nuptials filled the Senate chamber with cheers and applause.
The bill’s failure almost certainly means New Jersey won’t see the legalization of same-sex marriage through legislative means anytime soon. Republican Governor-elect Chris Christie will begin his four-year term Jan. 19, and he’s pledged to veto any marriage bill that comes to his desk.
Outgoing Gov. Jon Corzine (D) in a statement Thursday expressed disappointment about the outcome of the vote, although he commended the Senate for having public debate on the issue.
“Most assuredly, this is an issue of civil rights and civil liberties, the foundation of our state and federal constitutions,” he said. “Denying any group of people a fundamental human right because of who they are, or whom they love, is wrong, plain and simple.”
Celebrating the victory was the National Organization for Marriage. In an e-mail blast, Brian Brown, the organization’s executive director, praised followers who “made phone calls, sent e-mails, and prayed” in opposition to same-sex marriage.
“Yet again, we have witnessed a tremendous victory for marriage in a state where just a few months ago, victory seemed unlikely at best,” he said.
Immediately following the vote, Kevin Cathcart, executive director of Lambda Legal, announced in a statement plans to pursue the legalization of same-sex marriage in New Jersey through court action.
“The requirement to ensure equality for same-sex couples, established by the New Jersey Supreme Court in its decision in our marriage lawsuit in 2006, has not been met,” he said. “There is enormous, heartbreaking evidence that civil unions are not equal to marriage, and we will be going back to the courts in New Jersey to fight for equality.”
New Jersey won’t ‘go all the way backwards’
In a conference call following the vote, Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality, said advocates of same-sex marriage have had “a seamless transition from our legislative phase to our court phase.”
“It’s not a situation where New Jersey will go all the way backwards,” he said. “In New Jersey, the Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that same-sex couples must receive equal treatment under the law as a state constitutional matter.”
Goldstein said he didn’t yet know details about the litigation, such as who would become plaintiff couples or when the New Jersey Supreme Court would hear the case.
Reflecting on the vote, Goldstein said the marriage bill didn’t succeed for one reason: the failure of Corzine to win re-election in November.
“We had at minimum 22 votes in the Senate … and we were going to win this clearly in the Assembly,” he said. “At some point immediately after the election, we saw the fortunes change.”
Goldstein said Corzine was “a star supporter of marriage equality” throughout most of 2009, but added “it did take him a while to get there.”
“We were very honest in our statement today in saying that this bill should never have waited until sudden death overtime — the lame duck session,” he said. “And obviously we’re disappointed in that.”
Opposition to the bill also increased, Goldstein said, because Christie visited Republican senators before the debate and urged them to vote against the legislation.
“We understand from impeccable sources that Governor-elect Christie went to the Republican Senate caucus and in the Republican Assembly caucus and told members who were going to vote for marriage equality, ‘I don’t want to see any marriage equality votes coming out of this caucus,’” Goldstein said.
Even though they thought they might not win, Goldstein said advocates held the vote in the Senate because they believed it would bolster the chances of litigation.
“We consulted and spoke with lawyers far and wide who said the New Jersey Legislature has to show its dereliction of duty affirmatively to go back to court — because they said it’s up to the Legislature to act,” he said. “Today the Legislature acted. It defaulted on its constitutional obligation to provide same-sex couples equality.”
Noting that a number of lawmakers who voted against the marriage bill also conceded on the floor civil unions aren’t working, Goldstein said the Senate record will also help persuade the courts that civil unions aren’t adequate in providing protections for same-sex couples.
Passionate flare on Senate floor
Several senators gave emotional speeches on both sides of the marriage issue on the Senate floor before the vote was taken. State Sen. Loretta Weinberg, a Democrat and sponsor of the marriage legislation, was among those who spoke in favor of the bill.
“Men and women do not have a monopoly on loving relationships,” she said. “We all know same-sex couples that enjoy the same love and trust that is shared between a man and a woman, between a husband and a wife.”
Also speaking out in favor of the legislation was State Sen. Raymond Lesniak, another Democrat who sponsored the bill.
Noting that 120 religious leaders sent a letter to the New Jersey Senate in support of same-sex marriage, Lesniak said the failure of the chamber to pass the legislation would amount to religious discrimination.
“Unless we vote for marriage equality, we will be interfering with the religious beliefs of many of our citizens,” he said. “Government is wrong to interfere with religious beliefs. Today, we can right that wrong.”
State Sen. Bill Baroni, the lone Republican to vote in favor of the marriage legislation, said New Jersey’s current system of offering civil unions to same-sex couples amounted to discrimination perpetuated by the government.
“Government says [these couples] are different and segregates from the married couples, and that is textbook, old-fashioned discrimination — where government looks at people and discriminates against them,” he said.
Equally emotional were speeches against same-sex marriage. State Sen. Michael Doherty, a Republican, criticized the process that advocates had chosen to legalize same-sex marriage and called instead for a referendum on the issue.
“Suddenly today, you’re somehow crazy if you want the people of New Jersey to decide this issue like they have in 31 other states,” he said. “This is about the process; this is about letting the residents of New Jersey decide a major redefinition that has been recognized for thousands and thousands of years.”
Also opposed to the legislation was State Sen. Sean Kean, another Republican who said he voted against same-sex marriage even though he had “the gayest senate district in New Jersey” because it has a significant number of LGBT residents.
“Guess … to those proponents of this bill that I am unfortunately going to disagree with today,” he said. “Sometimes people just disagree with you. Maybe they don’t share your perspective, maybe they don’t share your values, maybe they just disagree with you.”
One senator who spoke in favor of the marriage bill and gave a particularly well-received speech among advocates was State Sen. Nia Gill. A black woman, Gill compared to lack of marriage rights for gay couples to previous laws forbidding interracial marriage and suffrage for women.
“This body cannot advocate its responsibility,” she said. “Once we have taken state action, that state action must be constitutional in its protection.”
The Comings & Goings column is about sharing the professional successes of our community. We want to recognize those landing new jobs, new clients for their business, joining boards of organizations and other achievements. Please share your successes with us at [email protected].
Congratulations to Gil Pontes III on his recent appointment to the Financial Advisory Board for the City of Wilton Manors, Fla. Upon being appointed he said, “I’m honored to join the Financial Advisory Board for the City of Wilton Manors at such an important moment for our community. In my role as Executive Director of the NextGen Chamber of Commerce, I spend much of my time focused on economic growth, fiscal sustainability, and the long-term competitiveness of emerging business leaders. I look forward to bringing that perspective to Wilton Manors — helping ensure responsible stewardship of public resources while supporting a vibrant, inclusive local economy.”
Pontes is a nonprofit executive with years of development, operations, budget, management, and strategic planning experience in 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), and political organizations. Pontes is currently executive director of NextGen, Chamber of Commerce. NextGen Chamber’s mission is to “empower emerging business leaders by generating insights, encouraging engagement, and nurturing leadership development to shape the future economy.” Prior to that he served as managing director of The Nora Project, and director of development also at The Nora Project. He has held a number of other positions including Major Gifts Officer, Thundermist Health Center, and has worked in both real estate and banking including as Business Solutions Adviser, Ironwood Financial. For three years he was a Selectman, Town of Berkley, Mass. In that role, he managed HR and general governance for town government. There were 200+ staff and 6,500 constituents. He balanced a $20,000,000 budget annually, established an Economic Development Committee, and hired the first town administrator.
Pontes earned his bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth.
Kansas
ACLU sues Kansas over law invalidating trans residents’ IDs
A new Kansas bill requires transgender residents to have their driver’s licenses reflect their sex assigned at birth, invalidating current licenses.
Transgender people across Kansas received letters in the mail on Wednesday demanding the immediate surrender of their driver’s licenses following passage of one of the harshest transgender bathroom bans in the nation. Now the American Civil Liberties Union is filing a lawsuit to block the ban and protect transgender residents from what advocates describe as “sweeping” and “punitive” consequences.
Independent journalist Erin Reed broke the story Wednesday after lawmakers approved House Substitute for Senate Bill 244. In her reporting, Reed included a photo of the letter sent to transgender Kansans, requiring them to obtain a driver’s license that reflects their sex assigned at birth rather than the gender with which they identify.
According to the reporting, transgender Kansans must surrender their driver’s licenses and that their current credentials — regardless of expiration date — will be considered invalid upon the law’s publication. The move effectively nullifies previously issued identification documents, creating immediate uncertainty for those impacted.
House Substitute for Senate Bill 244 also stipulates that any transgender person caught driving without a valid license could face a class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. That potential penalty adds a criminal dimension to what began as an administrative action. It also compounds the legal risks for transgender Kansans, as the state already requires county jails to house inmates according to sex assigned at birth — a policy that advocates say can place transgender detainees at heightened risk.
Beyond identification issues, SB 244 not only bans transgender people from using restrooms that match their gender identity in government buildings — including libraries, courthouses, state parks, hospitals, and interstate rest stops — with the possibility for criminal penalties, but also allows for what critics have described as a “bathroom bounty hunter” provision. The measure permits anyone who encounters a transgender person in a restroom — including potentially in private businesses — to sue them for large sums of money, dramatically expanding the scope of enforcement beyond government authorities.
The lawsuit challenging SB 244 was filed today in the District Court of Douglas County on behalf of anonymous plaintiffs Daniel Doe and Matthew Moe by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Kansas, and Ballard Spahr LLP. The complaint argues that SB 244 violates the Kansas Constitution’s protections for personal autonomy, privacy, equality under the law, due process, and freedom of speech.
Additionally, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a temporary restraining order on behalf of the anonymous plaintiffs, arguing that the order — followed by a temporary injunction — is necessary to prevent the “irreparable harm” that would result from SB 244.
State Rep. Abi Boatman, a Wichita Democrat and the only transgender member of the Kansas Legislature, told the Kansas City Star on Wednesday that “persecution is the point.”
“This legislation is a direct attack on the dignity and humanity of transgender Kansans,” said Monica Bennett, legal director of the ACLU of Kansas. “It undermines our state’s strong constitutional protections against government overreach and persecution.”
“SB 244 is a cruel and craven threat to public safety all in the name of fostering fear, division, and paranoia,” said Harper Seldin, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project. “The invalidation of state-issued IDs threatens to out transgender people against their will every time they apply for a job, rent an apartment, or interact with police. Taken as a whole, SB 244 is a transparent attempt to deny transgender people autonomy over their own identities and push them out of public life altogether.”
“SB 244 presents a state-sanctioned attack on transgender people aimed at silencing, dehumanizing, and alienating Kansans whose gender identity does not conform to the state legislature’s preferences,” said Heather St. Clair, a Ballard Spahr litigator working on the case. “Ballard Spahr is committed to standing with the ACLU and the plaintiffs in fighting on behalf of transgender Kansans for a remedy against the injustices presented by SB 244, and is dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights jeopardized by this new law.”
National
After layoffs at Advocate, parent company acquires ‘Them’ from Conde Nast
Top editorial staff let go last week
Former staff members at the Advocate and Out magazines revealed that parent company Equalpride laid off a number of employees late last week.
Those let go included Advocate editor-in-chief Alex Cooper, Pride.com editor-in-chief Rachel Shatto, brand partnerships manager Erin Manley, community editor Marie-Adélina de la Ferriére, and Out magazine staff writers Moises Mendez and Bernardo Sim, according to a report in Hollywood Reporter.
Cooper, who joined the company in 2021, posted to social media that, “Few people have had the privilege of leading this legendary LGBTQ+ news outlet, and I’m deeply honored to have been one of them. To my team: thank you for the last four years. You’ve been the best. For those also affected today, please let me know how I can support you.”
The Advocate’s PR firm when reached by the Blade said it no longer represents the company. Emails to the Advocate went unanswered.
Equalpride on Friday announced it acquired “Them,” a digital LGBTQ outlet founded in 2017 by Conde Nast.
“Equalpride exists to elevate, celebrate and protect LGBTQ+ storytelling at scale,” Equalpride CEO Mark Berryhill said according to Hollywood Reporter. “By combining the strengths of our brands with this respected digital platform, we’re creating a unified ecosystem that delivers even more impact for our audiences, advertisers, and community partners.”
It’s not clear if “Them” staff would take over editorial responsibilities for the Advocate and Out.
Love or fear flying you’ll devour ‘Why Fly’
Out actor Kevin Cahoon on starring role in ‘Chez Joey’
PHOTOS: Pride Reveal
Comings & Goings
Kansas passes bathroom bounty hunter bill
Two very different views of the State of the Union
The global cost of Trump’s foreign aid ideology
Criteria for supporting a candidate in D.C.
Moving doc ‘Come See Me’ is more than Oscar worthy
