A good deal of criticism against generic "Democrats" has begun in the aftermath of the loss over marriage equality in New Jersey. Yesterday, Garden State Equality launched a push poll on its website:
Which Senators who voted "no" or abstained on marriage equality bother you more?
Conservative anti-LGBT Republicans who were never with us to begin with.
OR
Democrats and moderate Republicans who didn't have the guts to stand for equality.
Not surprisingly, as of this post, 98% of the 1,325 votes were for the latter option. The poll follows a trend by the organization to warn Democrats that the LGBT community is not a one-party community, as Steven Goldstein said:
In an effort to stay in front of rising anger in the New Jersey LGBT Community, GSE president Steven Goldstein dropped his long-time dedication to the Democratic Party, threatening that gays would "cross the aisle to support independent candidates" in future elections.
I think making threats like this is generally fine. When the Newsweek piece came out a few weeks ago predicting the Obama Administration wouldn't take action on LGBT issues in 2010 for fear of mobilizing an angry conservative base, I told a lot of LGBT friends that now was the time to push back against that. We had to put the fear of God into Village Democrats that a pissed-off LGBT base would stay home if no activism was taken. That's how the game is played.
But what I find amazing is people who have fallen for promises that simply electing a Democratic majority would bring about LGBT utopia. Quite a few LGBT donors and activist friends have told me personally they were sick and tired of helping committees to elect Democratic majorities in NY and NJ and being told that, in return, Democratic leadership would ensure marriage equality becomes law, when it did not.
If I may chide for a minute, you certainly got played on that one, my friends.
We're talking about LGBT issues here, people. You, know, G-A-Y. Homosexuality. Trannies. I'm mentioning these terms because to many members of legislative bodies, these issues are anathema to them and their constituents, so I would never believe that any Democratic leader is going to go out and actually pressure members on marriage equality or make it a "party loyalty" vote like they would on other bills. Why would you expect that just because potential Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith promises you he'll "deliver" marriage equality, it would be so? I laugh at people who tell me marriage equality is a "core plank of the Democratic platform" and so are outraged when things like this happen. No, it's not. In what fantasyland are you living? In an ideal world, sure. And you should keep going after Democrats for "not acting like true Democrats/not having guts" so we can get there. But we're not operating in that ideal world.
So there's a big difference between believing what Democratic leaders promise and having realistic political expectations. Realistic political expectations means that just because a politician says a Democratic majority will deliver marriage equality doesn't mean the votes are actually there or that members are going to be threatened into line. In fact, while Malcolm Smith was making these promises to LGBT activists, he was cutting a side deal with Ruben Diaz to not have a vote. Realistic political expectations means that LGBT victories are coalition-built, not Party-built. You have to go out and find Democrats and Republicans and Independents, one by one, who swear on their mother's life they will vote for marriage equality, and put the fear of God into them if they even consider screwing you.
Instead, what we've done is taken the easy route and elected a Democratic majority and expected all would be well, then became shell-shocked when marriage equality did not pass. Exhibit A is Garden State Equality, which contributed tens of thousands to the Senate Democratic Leadership Fund, the Assembly Leadership Fund, and the New Jersey Democratic State Committee- money that is doled out to Democratic candidates to elect and retain majorities without regard to positions on marriage equality. The day after the vote, Goldstein said "The gay ATM is done." It's the same argument that progressives shouldn't bother contributing to the DSCC. Find progressive candidates, one by one, and help them individually. I myself become incredibly frustrated when people blame "The Democrats" for our woes. Which Democrats, I ask? Specifics matter. Find the ones who screwed you and beat them. A Democratic majority is important, but it only provided the opportunity for a vote. It did not provide the votes. You have to go get those yourself.
Now, will individual politicians lie to you on issues, just as Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu lied over the public option? Absolutely. There are always a few bad apples who operate in bad faith. But I can assure you that building your marriage equality coalition one by one is a hell of a lot smarter than simply electing a Democratic majority and then being all infuriated when "The Democrats" didn't "deliver" marriage equality.
You win by building coalitions, not by building parties.
Just now, the New Jersey Senate defeated marriage equality by a vote of 14-20. The defeat was not a surprise, but it is disappointing.
There are two things I want to get at before they start. The first is the likely chorus of "the Democrats have failed us! Primary them all!" that will come from advocates, since Democrats controlled both houses of the legislature and the governor's mansion. The same thing occurred after the New York State vote in which 75% of the Democratic caucus supported the bill and 0% of the Republican caucus didn't. In truth, we would have never gotten as far as we did in either state without Democratic support. Republicans wouldn't have even brought up the bill. In New York, the Democratic-controlled Assembly passed the bill not once, but twice, by similar margins in terms of caucus support. In NY and NJ, the Democratic-controlled Senate leadership kept their promise for a vote. Saying "The Democrats" failed us is self-defeating for three reasons. First, it causes activists and voters to think there is no difference between the two parties on this issue. That is false and unhelpful. Second, it will help hand over control to the Republicans and destroy chances of another vote for some time. Third, it leads to a misuse of resources in thinking the solution to this problem is just to primary all the Democrats. There is a target-rich environment of Republicans, too.
That's not to say you can't go after Democrats. If you want to assign blame and draw up a list of targets, be specific in naming the people responsible, and then go after them. Legislative wins are coalition-based, not Party-based. Build a coalition.
The second thing is that no doubt, the "time to shift to domestic partnerships!" folks (whose arguments I debunk here and here) will add this to their misleading count of states which have defeated marriage equality in some form, and use it as evidence that marriage equality as a movement has failed. However, I believe it was dealt a significant blow when Corzine, who campaigned heavily on the issue, lost in November. A defeat in New York State (which actually is also part of the media market in New Jersey) also hurt prospects. We also had a pro-equality Governor and very likely had the votes in the Assembly- same as in New York State. Garden State Equality failed to effectively organize, but we were also dealt a bad hand, and came close anyway. As with California, Maine and New York State, this is not some resounding defeat that prompts a major shift. We lost by a field goal, not five touchdowns, and it is a stumble on the road to full equality.
The good news is that I spoke today to Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, who told me Lambda Legal will announce it is going back to courts in New Jersey. As you may know, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in 2006, 7-0, that legislators must either amend marriage laws to give same-sex couples full equality, or create a "parallel structure", which led to the New Jersey legislature legalizing civil unions. As has been demonstrated by the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission set up to study how the new law was working, civil unions do not work.
Best of luck to Lambda Legal, and let's keep the fight up.
STATE BLOGS
