MULSHINE SHOCK: Harris Supports Gay Marriage (Duh?)

Our favorite “conservative” writer at the Star Ledger is at it again Save Jerseyans. Paul Mulshine is hard at work attempting to get the Loneganites worked up over what any normal person would consider an obvious truth. What is the big gripe today? That Christie’s latest Supreme Court nominee, Mayor Bruce Harris, who is openly gay, is for gay marriage. All I can say is thank heavens we have Paul Mulshine to point out the obvious on a fairly regular basis. I am not sure what we would do otherwise.

This revelation ranks up there with Canadians supporting hockey, pot heads supporting legalized marijuana, and Democrats supporting corruption. There is nothing shocking about this information in any way. In fact, if anyone thought that just because Harris is a Republican that he would be against gay marriage, I would venture that you either lack any remote capacity for reasoning and comprehension, or you are simply so blinded by your own views on gay marriage that you subject yourself to the most opaque form of denial.

Either way, you should get your head checked…

The only mildly interesting part of Mulshine’s article is an email, sent from Harris to GOP legislators asking them to reconsider their operation to the gay marriage bill the last time it was introduced in the Senate. The email mentions the documented failures of the civil union laws in New Jersey and uses the phrase “equal protection.” This is mainly what has Mulshine and his ilk up in arms. The phrase “equal protection” never occurs in the New Jersey State Constitution, that is true. However, reading the entire email in context, the usage seems conversational. It would not be too far fetched to hear someone, even with an intense legal background and education, use the phrase equal protection when referring to what he clearly considers a civil rights issue. He did not capitalize the phrase, which would indicate that he meant to refer to a specific clause (that again, does not exist). This is not the smoking gun that Christie detractors are looking for. It gives no indication on how Harris would vote in cases of true importance, like the Abbott cases.

What’s that you say, Save Jerseyan? Harris’s vote on a gay marriage case would also be important? Well actually it won’t be. Harris has informed the administration, and they have publicly stated that Harris will recuse himself from any case on the issue.

Mulshine and other “conservatives” want us to fight this nomination, they want to rally Republicans against Harris for whatever reasons they can come up with. The fact of the matter is, Governor Christie has to nominate individuals who can make it through a Democrat Senate. If you were expecting the second coming of Scalia, you need to come back to reality. That is simply not happening in New Jersey at this time, if ever. What is important is that nominee’s with strong views on important issues like education funding make it to the bench and remain there for a long time. One Justice’s view on an issue that is clearly personal, but which he has signaled he will recuse himself from, should be left out of the analysis entirely. Pick you battles and win where it counts. The Republicans in the Senate should give Harris an incredibly hard time on the issues during his nomination hearings, as they should with any nominee with no previous judicial background. They should get to the bottom of the crucial issues in our state and vote rationally, not necessarily by party.

Speaking of legislators, the article also talks to Senator Joe Pennacchio (R-26). Jersey Joe was one of the recipients of the Harris email on gay marriage a few years back. While there is no direct quote stating the fact, the article makes it seem as though Pennacchio is strongly opposed to gay marriage and took a firm stance against it with Harris after receiving the email. Keep in mind, Loneganites, in New Jersey we have this arcane practice known as Senatorial Courtesy, where Senators can block gubernatorial nominations from within their counties before they even make it to the Senate floor. If Pennacchio truly stands for this issue, then why is he likely to support the Harris nomination? Do not direct your anger at Chris Christie for nominating someone he sees as qualified. Instead point it at those who knew about this “issue” and did nothing while demagoguing it in the papers.

In conclusion, this article was as much news as someone saying that Al Gore supports Cap and Trade, or George W. Bush supported invading Iraq. Nothing to see here folks.

Brian McGovern
About Brian McGovern 748 Articles
Brian McGovern wears many hats these days including Voorhees Township GOP Municipal Chairman, South Jersey attorney, and co-owner of the Republican campaign consulting firm Exit 3 Strategies, Inc.

26 Comments

  1. On this one, Paul Mulshine is obviously right and Brian McGovern is embarrassingly wrong.

    The email, in Harris's own words, speaks volumes about Harris's overall philosophy and policy orientation — activist, liberal, and dismissive.

    If Mr. McGovern can't see that, he probably should move on to another line of work.

  2. I don't really understand Mayor Harris's "church 'n' state" comment.

    The Establishment Clause prevents the state from "establishing" a religion, i.e. forcing everyone to be Mormon (for those of you who are needlessly concerned about the future Romney Administration).

    It does not, however, establish that religion/faith/morals are inapplicable to matters of state. We're a Judeo-Christian country. It's impossible to divorce morality and law. This is not a utilitarian society! And I don't think most people (even young "libertarian Paulbots) would want it to be if they were aware of the full ramifications.

  3. I'm with Raygun on this one.

    Harris is not disqualified, but his approach to the law, at least as evidenced by his email to the legislators, activist.

    To save jersey, Christie needs to keep his promise to transform the Court by nominated originalist justices, not activists.

    http://www.moremonmouthmusings.net/2012/01/29/chr

    Also, Brian's assumption that all homosexuals support same sex marriage is a gross and dangerous generalization.

    To assume that all homosexual judges would support the constitutionality of same sex marriage is analagous to assuming that all Catholic judges would oppose it.

    Hopefully our leaders are appointing judges who can distinguish between their personal values and preferences and the law.

  4. I knew Matt Rooney would get it. Exactly right, Matt. And there are so many more negative implications in Harris's email that it's hard to know where to start. You have integrity and principles, Matt.

    As opposed to McGovern's knee-jerk opposition to Mulshine, an honest analysis of Harris's email shows the bigger biases he'd take to the bench. And Harris is supposed to fill one of the Republican seats!!

  5. Excellent points, Art.

    My guess is that Harris never disclosed this email to people who vetted the nomination for Christie before the announcement of the nomination.

  6. I understand Brian's point. I do know a couple gay individuals who are 100% opposed to gay marriage but it's safe to assume that a large majority want the option to marry. Mulshine's "shock" is feigned and obscures the real issue…

    I'm much more concerned re: the Mayor's gross misapplication of the tired old liberal "church/state" principle!

    The Governor made a political decision in making these appointments. Does anyone NOT recognize it? He wants to advance his economic/school choice agenda, but he also needs to get his nominees past a very liberal state senate. He tried something outside-of-the-box to keep the ball moving forward.

    Right? Wrong? We'll see what else comes out during the confirmation process. This is one situation where we need the "Lonegans" of the world to respectfully but aggressively vet these nominees.

  7. I do not mean to suggest that all homosexuals support same sex marriage. But I am suggesting that when it turns out an openly gay elected official does support gay marriage, no one should be surprised.

    For conservatives in NJ this should not disqualify Harris. To avoid even the appearance of bias he has pledged to recuse himself on the issue. There is a hearing process for a reason, and as I said in the post, I believe that the GOP should be hard, if not harder, on Harris than the Democrats are if they are truly concerned about his stances. The GOP needs to make sure there is a conservative court in this state going forward if the key changes to save the state will be allowed to move forward. If he is wrong on those issues, then they should go against the governor and vote no.

    But to claim he is a liberal or an activist based on a personal email sent to his local legislators lobbying them to support a personal issue removes any meaning from the word liberal or activist. Its just not worthy of the slam.

  8. See and that is what I am talking about in the last paragraph. Pennacchio and other Senators received this email, and due to Senatorial Courtesy there is no way they were not aware of the nomination going through. It should not be Harris's job to to disclose every private email he ever sent out, especially on an issue that he probably told the administration he was for in the first place. But if its such a problem among people in our party, then those Senators should have put a stop to it. Otherwise they are just as "guilty."

  9. Are you kidding, Mr. McGovern? A personal lengthy email may very well be among the BEST ways to get a sense of who Harris is and would be on the bench. You think we'll get a better idea when Harris goes into an artificial confirmation-conversion and defaults into the "I can't offer an opinion because I don't want to pre-judge the matter" mode? Puuuhleeeeze.

  10. Stop with the red-herring arguments, Brian. Who said Harris had an obligation to disclose every email? Harris did have an obligation to disclose RELEVANT and MATERIAL statements/information, and no one can dispute that this email is that.

    Also, contrary to your continued incorrect contention, this is NOT just about Harris's position on same-sex marriage. The email IS about his world-view, his philosophy, his dismissive of those little things called the "traditions" of western civilization, his obvious hostility to religion, his sympathy toward activism, his extraordinary statement that it is effectively illegitimate for mere "morality" to undergird policy positions, and so much more. All of those things we must measure in a judge-wannabe.

    Your tortured effort to confine this email to "so what, a gay guy favors same-sex marriage" is as dismissive and deliberately blind as Harris is.

    Fine, fault Pennacchio as well if he fails to exercise courtesy over Harris or votes yes for Harris, since Pennacchio clearly knew about the email going back to 2009. But don't stop there.

  11. Matt said,

    I understand Brian’s point. I do know a couple gay individuals who are 100% opposed to gay marriage but it’s safe to assume that a large majority want the option to marry

    That's not a safe assumption Matt.

    Only 5790 couples have joined in New Jersey civil unions since 2007 when they came into existence, per Daniel Emmer, spokesman for DOH, in a piece I wrote last week; http://www.moremonmouthmusings.net/2012/01/27/why

    Half of those couples united in 2007, the first year. The number has been dropping off every year since. Only 689 couples last year.

    I don't know what the % of the population is gay. I've

    seen it estimated as low as 1.8% and as high as 10%. Either way, the number is a lot more than the 11,580 people who have entered into civil unions.

  12. I don't think Harris's email disqualifies him. It does raise concerns.

    He probably never imagined he would be a judge, never mind a State Supreme Court Justice.

    In the email he was advocating for a bill that would impact him personally, not writing a legal opinion.

    Unfortunately, there is probably very little in the way of legal writing to evaluate Harris's philosophy, given his commericial law career. That's a major problem with these political and/or cronyistic appointments.

  13. Valid point, Art, but a lot of gay couples consider civil unions to be inequitable and an insult. I don't necessarily agree with this assessment. But that's a common argument for gay marriage.

    However, you can't assume that failure to file for a civil union is indicative of a lack of desire to get married!

    I also think support for gay marriage is distinguishable from a personal desire to make it happen. A lot of gay New Jerseyans grew up in a time when families/friends/coworkers treated the topic very differently. I suspect (but don't have the data) that there is much more interest in enacting gay marriage among younger gay folks than older gay citizens as a direct result.

  14. I agree, Matt, my argument is not perfect. But there is not perfect data available, that I know of.

    Any couple that aren't legally committing because they find civil unions insulting or inequitable would probably find other reasons not to committ if they were able to marry.

    I guess those rights and benefits they complain about not having, but that civil unions grant them, are not as important as their pride and fairness.

  15. Who is this liberal and what have you done with Brian McGovern?

    Paging Matt Rooney! Keep Save Jersey conservative!

  16. McGovern is a lot of things, but liberal is not one of them. If gay marriage has become the liberal/conservative litmus test then our party is in more trouble than I thought.

  17. Hank R, it's a real shame you get such simple things so wrong. As had to be explained to Mr. McGovern, this is NOT just about Harris's position on same-sex marriage. It IS about the activist philosophy he would be taking to the bench, and the email reveals all about that.

    Look at the Harris email again. If you still don't get it, then you either can't read or you can't comprehend. You pick it.

  18. Point taken, but I wasn't referring to the email or the post, just sticking up for Brian. He clearly doesn't really have a problem with a Republican having a pro-gay marriage stance, but I don't think that warrants calling him a liberal.

    being a liberal used to be a serious charge, but throwing the word around like that basically removes any meaning. Gay marriage should not be the trigger.

    But re: the email. I agree with Matt, the statement at the end about religion is far worse than anything else in there. Brian did not mention it in the post, if he ignored it on purpose then shame on him.

  19. Don't blame this on Loneganites. The people who fund AFP support gay marriage.

    http://blogs.app.com/capitolquickies/2011/06/06/n

    New Jersey is not Zimbabwe, but

    Posted on June 6, 2011 by Jason Method

    A professor who wrote a report by a libertarian think tank said today that New Jersey is one of the least free of the 50 states, but qualified his remarks by saying, “We’re not talking about Zimbabwe here.”

    The report by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University described New Jersey as having the second-worst record for personal and economic freedoms, second only to New York.

    The report rated states based not only taxes and business regulation, but also by what the authors called intrusion into personal lives through licensing of professions, motorcycle and bicycle helmet laws, smoking bans and regulation of same-sex marriage.

    The report’s co-author, William Ruger, assistant professor of political science at Texas State University – San Marcos, criticized the Garden State for requiring licenses for contractors, claims adjusters, librarians and others.

    But Ruger did note that home schooling regulations were fairly light, an example, he said, of why New Jersey could not really be compared with a country in Africa, like Zimbabwe, with an extended history of poor governance.

    Jason Sorens, assistant professor of political science, University of Buffalo (SUNY), said California, New Jersey and New York qualified as “nanny states” because of such regulations as a ban on trans fats in restaurants, public smoking and high tobacco taxes.

    Sorens cited New Jersey’s spending on low-income school districts and said it was part of an “an extensive redistributive pattern” of wealth. He did not mention that such spending falls under a long-running series of state Supreme Court decisions.

    The report, and its authors, said New Jersey should adopt a more widespread public school choice program and trim licensing requirements. New Jersey should also roll back spending on low-income school districts and use the savings to turn back income, property and cigarette taxes, the report said.

    Industrialist Charles G. Koch, who press reports have connected to the financing of the Tea Party and other arch-conservative or libertarian efforts, sits on the board of the center, according to the nonprofit’s tax filing. Richard Fink, executive vice president of Koch Industries, also sits on the board.

  20. I understand Brian's point. I do know a cuploe gay individuals who are 100% opposed to gay marriage but it's safe to assume that a large majority want the option to marry. Mulshine's shock is feigned and obscures the real issue I'm much more concerned re: the Mayor's gross misapplication of the tired old liberal church/state principle!The Governor made a political decision in making these appointments. Does anyone NOT recognize it? He wants to advance his economic/school choice agenda, but he also needs to get his nominees past a very liberal state senate. He tried something outside-of-the-box to keep the ball moving forward.Right? Wrong? We'll see what else comes out during the confirmation process. This is one situation where we need the Lonegans of the world to respectfully but aggressively vet these nominees.

  21. It's not the first time I've seen it argued that the covanrestive hostility towards progressive ideas on sex and gender is actually based on a very clear understanding of exactly what the battleground is and just a different conclusion as to which side should win the battle. It is the first time I've seen it argued using Foucault though :)It is worth remembering that these people are not illogical, they're just operating off premises that we do not accept (and vice versa). This is where the analysis needed to peel back those premises tends to become quite radical which is in itself offputting to traditionalists they tend to feel insulted by having any of their premises questioned at all, whereas progressives might not much like it either but we are at least accustomed to it.

  22. I cannot supply you with the best response regarding any time to be able to improve
    the Community Area, You might be the sole individual that assaults each and every time and also recognizes your entire shielding replays.
    There are a ton of different options, however you will find
    a lot of online resources that advise players to do
    things a certain way. ‘ One cannot help yet agree when faced with clash of clans hack tool no survey, that this highlights an important problem.

Comments are closed.