New Jersey lawmakers have all of 2013 to override Gov. Christie's marriage equality veto.

This week’s victories for marriage equality in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington certainly raise hopes for other states to recognize same-sex couples as well, but some of the enthusiasm for New Jersey has been misplaced. The New Jersey Star-Ledger wrote today that it’s “time for New Jersey to vote on gay marriage,” calling on the state’s legislature to “call Gov. Chris Christie’s (R) bluff” and put the question on the ballot, as Christie proposed when he vetoed a marriage equality bill earlier this year. The Advocate also entertained a similar suggestion. While the editorial board’s optimism is commendable, its approach is not in the best interest of gays and lesbians.

Regardless of recent success, voting on civil rights is still a dangerous and offensive experiment often forced by conservatives that should only be a last resort for LGBT advocates. The votes to uphold marriage equality in Maryland and Washington only took place because opponents petitioned for a challenge to laws passed by the states’ legislatures. In Maine, challengers successfully overturned the will of the legislature using that process in 2009, so a people’s vote to reverse it was the only practical avenue to equality left — hence, this year’s ballot initiative. In New Jersey, there is no people’s veto process like in those other states, and there is also no ballot initiative petition process. The only way the public can vote on a law there is if the legislature gives them the opportunity to, and there are plenty of reasons why it is not — and likely never will be — an appropriate time for that step.

First of all, it’s unrealistic to assume from this week’s results that the pursuit of marriage equality will always be successful. It was only seven months ago that North Carolina passed its amendment banning any and all legal recognition of same-sex relationships. A May poll showed 53 percent of New Jersey voters support marriage equality, a slim margin.  Garden State Equality, New Jersey’s preeminent LGBT advocacy organization, opposes the referendum process, pointing out that it’s a very expensive gamble on civil liberties:

Let’s be real about what a referendum is – it’s not just a contest of popular opinion.  A referendum is also a contest of which side can raise more millions.  A referendum puts a community’s civil rights up for sale to the highest bidder.  Would you want your civil rights to be at the mercy of the financial infestation of our political system?  Aren’t we sick of the Super PAC lies that slice our society with hate?  Can you imagine the exponential hate – and cost – that would infest a marriage equality referendum in hardball New Jersey?

Studies have also shown that state marriage referenda have many negative impacts on the gay and lesbian people living in that state, even if they do not participate at all in advocacy. Among these side effects are heightened stress — both for LGBT individuals and their children — divided families and communities, and extra psychological risk for those who engage in the hostile political campaign. Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington may have arrived at victory, but they endured millions of dollars of attack ads in the process.

New Jersey has several avenues to marriage equality that can avoid these circumstances. First, the legislature has until the end of 2013 to override Christie’s veto. Though the override does not yet have the 2/3 majority necessary, this is the solution Garden State Equality is supporting. At the same time, a lawsuit is advancing challenging the state’s civil unions law, arguing that it doesn’t offer equality for same-sex couples. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in 2006 (Lewis v. Harris) that the state’s constitution guarantees same-sex couples “every statutory right and benefit conferred to heterosexual couples.” The legislature at that time utilized the flexibility granted by the Court to pass civil unions instead of marriage, but created a review commission to ensure the ruling was upheld. That commission found in 2008 that civil unions certifiably fall short of this goal, suggesting the suit has a high potential for success.

Either the lawsuit’s success or the veto override could guarantee equality without the expensive, harmful, and risky process of a referendum. In addition, voters could elect a new legislature and governor in 2013 that won’t obstruct the progress of freedom. It’s unclear if any circumstances would ever suggest a referendum is the best option in New Jersey, but mere optimism from victories in other states is definitely not sufficient reason to abandon the other efforts.

Reverend William Owens

An interesting social experiment this week has been watching how the National Organization for Marriage responds to its massive losses in the election. Yesterday, the group’s President Brian Brown offered that nothing would change and the group was no less convinced the American public stands on the side of discrimination. NOM also sent a message to supporters espousing that its mission against marriage equality had entirely religious motivations, not societal. But what is becoming increasingly clear is that NOM is feeling the desperation, as exemplified by two of its surrogates, whose rhetoric this week has sunk to extreme claims that same-sex marriage is going to destroy not just “the family,” but all of society.

William Owens is NOM’s paid “Religious Liaison” and director of the Coalition of African-American Pastors, a small group of black anti-gay religious leaders who claim to speak on behalf of all black Christians, but who are hardly representative. More than anything, Owens’ group is a prop for NOM’s efforts to “drive a wedge between gays and blacks.” And this week, Owen’s hasn’t backed down at all, claiming that marriage discrimination is “God’s law,” and if society allows same-sex marriage and adoption, then “the whole gamut of the family is going to be destroyed and all areas of the social life will be destroyed from what has been for thousands of years.” Listen to it:

Jennifer Roback Morse, director of NOM’s Ruth Institute, also took to the airwaves this week. She has been very concerned lately about same-sex behavior, endorsing ex-gay therapy and lifetime-celibacy for gay people. Like Owens, she is worried about the fate of society, because “there really isn’t any future in sodomy.” Morse remains astonished that opponents of equality could be accused of standing on the wrong side of history because it’s like “standing reality on its head.” Listen to it (via Jeremy Hooper/Equality Matters):

It does not get more desperate than claiming society will be destroyed if people don’t take a certain position.

New Hampshire state Rep-elect Stacie Laughton (D). (Photo credit: William Wrobel, Nashua Telegraph.)

It’s fair to say that the 2012 elections were a big victory for the LGBT community, in terms of both issues and candidates, but that is much more true for the LGB than it is the T. Certainly the transgender community can benefit from same-sex marriage laws; some states will recognize their gender identity and others won’t, confusing who they can legally marry based on their identity documentation. Ideally, lawmakers who claim to be allies will also support transgender issues, but there is no guarantee. Vice President Joe Biden told a constituent recently that transgender justice is the “civil rights issue of our time,” but progress can only be made with visibility.

One important victory took place this week in New Hampshire: the state elected its first openly transgender lawmaker. Stacie Laughton (D) easily beat two Republican candidates for an open seat in Ward 4. She told the Nashua Telegraph that she believes the LGBT community “will hopefully be inspired,” but in her campaign she also advocated for the homeless, people with disabilities, and strengthening public schools. A seat in the huge New Hampshire House of Representatives is not the highest profile position, but Laughton’s election is a notable milestone for trans visibility.

The primary struggle facing trans people remains discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. The federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) has languished in Congress for decades, and with Republicans maintaining control of the House, its status is not likely to change. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is the perfect example of a Republican who opposed ENDA specifically because it included transgender protections. President Obama could still issue an executive order protecting employees of federal contractors, but he has been reluctant to do so because it’s not a permanent solution. In 34 states, a person can still be legally fired just for being transgender. For example, though New York and Maryland have both advanced same-sex marriage, gender identity protections (bills known as GENDA and GIADA, respectively) struggle to advance.

Having a basic understanding of transgender identities continues to be a huge obstacle in discussing these issues. In Washington state, which also just passed marriage equality, controversy is erupting over a supposed “incident” where a 17-year-old girl saw a transgender woman changing in the locker room at Evergreen College. Even ABC News offensively felt the need to explain that this transgender student “identifies as a woman but has male genitalia.” It’s become a story because the Alliance Defending Freedom has threatened the college with ambiguous legal action, all because of the visibility of a person’s genitals in a space designated for changing clothes. Evergreen, admirably, is standing by its nondiscrimination protections, pointing out that there are privacy curtains available — for hiding one’s body or one’s eyes, as the need may arise. The controversy is a simple example of the everyday stigmatization trans people experience and how that stigma is used to justify discrimination.

Kerry Eleveld argues this week that President Obama will be a “better progressive” in his second term, and standing up for transgender people is the perfect opportunity to do just that. From ending the military’s exclusion of transgender servicemembers to protecting trans people from the discrimination that inhibits their basic life needs to ensuring they have access to proper medical care, there is plenty of room for progress.

FRC's Tom McClusky calling for 'civil disobedience.'

The Family Research Council hosted a post-election special Wednesday where various religious leaders contemplated how they will approach their anti-equality positions moving forward after their losses on Tuesday. The common theme, as captured in this RightWingWatch highlight reel, seemed to be a shift toward more demonstrative action, with what even seemed to be suggestions of violence.

FRC’s Tom McClusky told Tony Perkins that “civil disobedience” will now be necessary for people who refuse to recognize same-sex marriages. Jim Garlow suggested that silent Christians will realize they’re being persecuted and “our ranks are going to increase dramatically.” Rep-elect Mark Meadows (R-NC) even suggested that Gideon’s army must serve as a model to oppose enemies because “our God will not be mocked.” Watch the clip:

This sentiment mirrors the Manhattan Declaration drafted in 2009, speciously invoking Martin Luther King, Jr. to urge conservative Christians to defy the law if faced with a situation in which they must recognize a same-sex marriage. Ultimately, this serves as a more extreme attempt to paint opponents of equality as victims, a battle they are already losing. The campaigns against marriage equality in this election relied heavily on claims that people who want to discriminate are the true victims, a strategy that failed as the LGBT community did more to highlight same-sex couples’ families and commitment to communities.

Yesterday, the New York Times editorial board called conservatives to task:

It is a moment for the opponents of civil rights for all Americans — including Congressional Republicans, who are still defending the marriage act in court — to decide whether they want to continue to stand against justice to court a dwindling share of voters.

If the Family Research Council and National Organization for Marriage are any indication, these groups will go down fighting, but go down they will.