Largest NJ GAY Rights Group Will NO LONGER Give To Democrats

[Segami]

I applaud them for standing up and taking action against half-baked Democratic non-actions. This is something ALL Democrats should do when their party reps start acting like Republicans. Hit them in the pocket book first followed by the vote!



" The largest gay-rights advocacy group in New Jersey has announced it will no longer give money to the Democratic Party.


The move follows the state legislature's failure last month to legalize gay marriage and amid growing signs that the effort to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is already faltering.


"No political party has a record good enough on LGBT civil rights that it can rightfully claim to be entitled to our money on a party-wide basis," said the chairman of Garden State Equality, Steven Goldstein, as quoted at PolitickerNJ.com.


“No longer will we let any political party take our money and volunteers with one hand, and slap us in the face with the other when we seek full equality," Goldstein added.


Garden State Equality's declaration comes amid mounting frustration in the gay community over President Barack Obama's approach to gay-rights issues. While the president has repeatedly promised to repeal the gay military ban and has opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, activists are growing disillusioned with the administration's slow-paced approach to enacting legislation that would advance gay rights.


The change in policy is not officially targeted at the Democrats, as the group says it plans to stop donating to all political parties. But since Demcorats received the vast majority of donations, the ban will mostly affect the Democratic Party.


"Is this a broadside at the Democratic Party?" asked Goldstein. "Of course it is."


From now on, Garden State Equality will only donate to individual candidates who support gay rights, and to organizations that support gay marriage and other gay-rights initiatives.


more

<http://rawstory.com/2010/02/nj-gay-rights-abandons-democrats/>

[WillParkinson]

1. My sentiments exactly!

Thank you for posting this.

[Walk away]

2. It's not as if they aren't going to vote for Democrats...

but paying for the the big tent while you're sitting outside in the rain is dysfunctional.

[JackBeck]

27. There are quite a few gay Republicans in NJ that have found a hero in Bill Baroni.

Too bad the Democrats that voted against us in NJ couldn't muster as much courage as the lone Republican who voted in favor of equality.

[Walk away]

28. Well, who can argue with folks voting in their own best interest. n/t

[dsc]

3. your title is slightly misleading

they will no longer give to the party, but will give to particular candidates.

[Segami]

6. Thats The Article's Header. The Last Paragraph States Which Candidates They Plan to Donate to.

" From now on, Garden State Equality will only donate to individual candidates who support gay rights, and to organizations that support gay marriage and other gay-rights initiatives.

[Toots]

4. Let's hope this is a beginning.

If every major group would do exactly this we might actually see some real Change. As long as "they have no where else to go" is the mindset of the Administration then I say support candidates and issues but do not support Parties..Screw them and their back stabbing..

[Segami]

7. Stern action is what's needed. One needs to look no further than the state of the promised HCR.

When Democrats begin withholding party/candidate donations or begin promising them that they will stay home on election day ( as it happened in Massachusetts ), maybe someone will begin to take note and start listening to the very people who paid and elected them into office. Something so frequently forgotten once these turncoats are elected.

[GinaMaria]

11. I'd like to see women's groups do the same n/t

[Segami]

26. The collective more, the better.

[Echo In Light]

5. K&R

[struggle4progress]

8. Republican Party Platform of 2004 (August 30, 2004)

... Protecting Marriage

We strongly support President Bush's call for a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges nor bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. We believe, and the social science confirms, that the well-being of children is best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.

After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization, the union of a man and a woman in marriage. Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country, and anything less than a Constitutional amendment, passed by the Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by activist judges. On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. The Constitutional amendment process guarantees that the final decision will rest with the American people and their elected representatives. President Bush will also vigorously defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was supported by both parties and passed by 85 votes in the Senate. This common sense law reaffirms the right of states not to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states.

President Bush said, "We will not stand for judges who undermine democracy by legislating from the bench and try to remake America by court order." The Republican House of Representatives has responded to this challenge by passing H.R. 3313, a bill to withdraw jurisdiction from the federal courts over the Defense of Marriage Act. We urge Congress to use its Article III power to enact this into law, so that activist federal judges ...

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25850

[struggle4progress]

9. 2008 Republican Party Platform (September 1, 2008)

... Preserving Traditional Marriage

Because our children's future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives.

Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married. The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character. Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems. We support the courageous efforts of single-parent families to provide a stable home for their children. Children are our nation's most precious resource. We also salute and support the efforts of foster and adoptive families.

Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex "marriages" licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage ...

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=78545

[msongs]

10. at least repubs are upfront instead of acting like cowards when it comes to the issue nt

[struggle4progress]

12. Art of War by Sun Tzu

http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html

The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory
-- Sun Tzu, Art of War IV:15

When the fight has been decisively won at the social level, a lasting political victory will be possible

He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight
-- Sun Tzu, Art of War III:17(ii)

Before the fight has been won decisively at the social level, a political victory may not be possible and (if it is possible) is likely to be only temporary, with a well-orchestrated backlash; attempting a political victory prematurely and failing to obtain it, or obtaining it only temporarily, will delay prospects for a lasting victory by a decade or two

To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting
-- Sun Tzu, Art of War III:2

When the fight has been decisively won at the social level, some of our opponents may impotently rant and rave without effect for a time, but most will quickly fall silent

One may know how to conquer without being able to do it
-- Sun Tzu, Art of War IV:4

If you have a strategy for winning this struggle and can put it into effect, you should do so. If you have a strategy for winning this struggle and cannot put it into effect, then circumstances may still be unfavorable

According as circumstances are favorable, one should modify one's plans
-- Sun Tzu, Art of War I:17

What could be clearer?

[Toasterlad]

20. Art of Bullshit by Barack Obama - "I Will Repeal DADT and DOMA"

[readmoreoften]

22. You're assuming that the Democratic Party and LGBT people are on the same time.

They're not waiting. They just don't give a shit--those who aren't anti-LGBT to begin with.

[Toasterlad]

19. 2008 Democratic Platform - Lie To the Gays, Then Ignore Them Once In Office.

Won't get fooled again, thanks. When I see results, they'll see my cash.

[QC]

13. Kick!

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. RawStory's headline is very misleading

The group will still give to Democrats, it just won't give to Democratic groups. That is a big difference.

[Uzybone]

16. Its typical of so called lefty blogs and websites nowadays

Highly inflammatory headlines that completely distort the story. They are learning too well from Fox News and the like.

[readmoreoften]

23. It's hardly "misleading". It's a headline, you can't fit the name of every prevaricating

group of Democratic bullshit artists one would need to cover. It clearly goes on to explain its point.

[Mari333]

15. sadly, those Dem coffers are brimming with corporate money

knr

[Hell Hath No Fury]

17. Good.

I plan on doing the same. Money only to candidates who allign with liberal/progressive values -- no $$$ to fund candidates who would knife me and mine in the back.

[Toasterlad]

18. No Gay Person Should EVER Give to a Political GROUP, Especially One That Constantly Lies

Give to individual progressive candidates, or directly to gay groups (NOT the Human Rights Campaign).

[JackBeck]

21. Democratic State Chairman Wisniewski responds:

Wisniewski says Goldstein and GSE 'throwing baby out with the bath water'

By Max Pizarro

Confronted with Garden State Equality's decision to close the fundraising gates on the Democratic Party, State Party Chairman John Wisniewski tonight said he believes the organization is being unfair.

"Some very good Democrats stood up and supported this issue on the floor of the senate," said Wisniewski. "To hurl a broadside against the one party that stood up for this and say the effort wasn't good enough is throwing the baby out with the bath water."

Wisniewski wouldn't reveal whether he intends to try to corral Garden State Equality or encourage a cooling off period. The organization's executive director Steven Goldstein told PolitickerNJ.com earlier today that the group's members are steamed over the Democratic majority's failure last year to advance marriage equality.

"They certainly run their politics anyway they see fit, but the Democratic Party historically has supported issues important to Steve Goldstein," Wisniewski said.

http://www.politickernj.com/max/36691/wisniewski-says-goldstein-and-gse-throwing-baby-out-bath-water

And the first one to make a comment on the article? Steven Goldstein:

Hey, John, did you actually read our new policy?

Submitted by Steven Goldstein on February 8, 2010 - 11:42pm.

Chairman Wisniewski, your reaction misses the point completely. Per our new policy - it's right in the statement we released today - Garden State Equality will still contribute money to pro-equality individual candidates of whatever party. We will not contribute to political parties and their affiliated committees. How is that throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Just the opposite.

Best, Steven (PS return a call, will ya?)

Watching Wisniewski squirm like this, unable to show a shred of leadership in his new position, makes my vote approving this amendment to GSE's by laws that much more rewarding.

Like I said in Bluebear's thread, http://www.freedomtomarry.org/press_center/new_study_shows_pro-marriage_legislators_win.php">pro-marriage legislators win elections.

But come this next election cycle, we will see whether or not those who voted against our full equality survive their re-election campaigns.

[readmoreoften]

24. "The one party" that stands by LGBT people, my ass.

I couldn't tell you want the Democratic Party stands for if my life depended on it--outside of rejecting the worst aspects of the rotten proto-Fascist elements of the Right.

[JackBeck]

25. The silver lining is that we got both Democrats and Republicans

to admit on the floor of the NJ Senate that Civil Unions don't work and need to be fixed. Meaning, when we go back to court, we can show that BOTH parties failed at what the Supreme Court of New Jersey tasked them to do back in 2006.

The Democratic Party, both on a local and national level, continue to show an abject failure in leadership when in comes to civil justice. Unfortunately, it appears completely institutionalized, which Democrats spin as being "big tent" politics.

From here on out, whenever I hear the phrase "big tent" thrown around, I won't be able to stop myself from thinking that it is bigotry they are readily trying to dismiss.