FOX News Channel is reporting via Associated Press that aides to Governor Schwarzenegger say he will veto the same-sex marriage legislation passed by the California Assembly yesterday.
UPDATE: Yahoo News is now reporting the story.
Schwarzenegger said the legislation, given final approval Tuesday by lawmakers, would conflict with the intent of voters when they approved a ballot initiative five years ago. Proposition 22 prevents California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.
“We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote,” the governor’s press secretary, Margita Thompson, said in a statement. “Out of respect for the will of the people, the governor will veto (the bill).”
Despite his promised veto, Schwarzenegger “believes gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationship,” the statement said.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Off topic here, but remember the thread we had about linking to the footage of 9/11 to “remind” people about the day?
What are people’s reaction to the White House trying to keep reporters from filming dead bodies floating around NoLa? The same? Do you think people should be filming dead bodies floating around to remind the people of the devastation there?
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/09/call-white-house-tell-them-to-stop.html
I’ve been hearing this for over an hour now. My first instinct was “that FUCKER!”
I’m calmer now.
It’s how our system works. Has ALWAYS worked!
The majority voted 5 years ago in a free election.
I’m in a gay relationship 21 years now with a 16 year old son. (WATCH IT, U perverts!) I am completely comfortable with Domestic Partnership/Civil Union.
Arnold did the right thing. I can only hope that the legislatures come to thier senses and resubmit the bill as a domestic partnership/civil union senerio!
Let the Bigots/Homophobes have “Marriage” I just want the legal protections for “MY” family!
Nobody asked ME if I didn’t want slaves. Nobody asked me if I wanted to extend civil rights.
I wish Republicans would grow some spine ove issues and stick to them. When the legislature votes for something and the governor wants to leave it up to the courts, that amazes me. He WANTS and activist court, according to the definition Rebublicans frame the issue with.
You people never cease to amaze me.
Hollywood, get a grip. Who really needs all that marriage crap? You ever been married? No, I dind’nt think so. Take it from somebody who’s been there. Once you’ve had it, you ain’t going to go back.
Free love boys. And keep it free.
Jesus, what is that (above)?
Anyway. I’m not at all surprised that the Cal. Gov is going to veto the marriage equality bill. I’ve been saying to you Patsies all along that this is what you get for your dedication to the GOP. When will you wise up? You’re collaborating with the enemy.
When will you wise up? You’re collaborating with the enemy.
Shall we show an example of who you consider to be our “friends”?
First:
Presidential candidate John F. Kerry said yesterday that he supports amending the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage and provide for civil unions for gay couples.
Note that that was AFTER gay couples in Massachusetts had already received the right of marriage.
Second:
Sen. John Kerry said in an interview published yesterday that he would have voted for the gay-marriage ban passed overwhelmingly this week by Missouri voters.
The Democratic presidential nominee, who spent parts of two days stumping across the state, told The Kansas City Star the ballot measure was the same as one his home state of Massachusetts passed a few years ago. Kerry supported that measure.
In a separate interview with Kansas City’s NBC affiliate, Kerry reiterated that he and Sen. John Edwards oppose gay marriage, although they favor civil unions.
“We’ve always argued the states will be capable of taking care of this by themselves,” Kerry said. “… We didn’t need a [federal] constitutional amendment in order to do what’s right.”
Of course, this is spun by folks like you, Reader, to be “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”. Just like you and Mike Rogers rationalize protecting from your outing campaigns those Democrats who vote for the FMA and MPA while attacking wrongly Republicans who vote against both.
Why is sticking solely with the Democratic Party a benefit to the gay community? I say it’s better to work with both parties.
BTW the “Patsies” thing is a gratuitous insult and just plain silly. Anyone in a group that represents perhaps 4 or 5% of the population who labels half of the American people as “the enemy” is making a big mistake. We’re heavily outnumbered, remember?
Susan Rains, who posted here the other day (on the “Rooms/Housing for Katrina Victims” thread), said she wouldn’t entrust her children to gay people. Susan was being candid, and I appreciate the fact that she signed her post with her real name!. You can call her a bigot all you want, but there are a lot of honest (and IMHO misinformed) people like her out there with whom we absolutely need to conduct a civilized discourse. Otherwise, we’ll keep losing, just like we did by a 60-to-40% margin with Prop. 22 in liberal, Blue-state California.
I’m predicting Andrew Sullivan’s head just exploded.
ND30 – the same position you use to condemn John Kerry, you use to excuse Arnold Schwarzenegger. Governor Schwarzenegger has failed to lead. Republicans have failed families.
And to all you apologists who say civil rights and civil marriage must wait until a majority approves, my Black ass says: “Oh yessa, Massa! Sho nuff right!”
Get a grip, and a history lesson. Civil rights have never been left to a mob majority. Maybe some of us just remember that better than you.
““We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote,”
Poor stupid foreigner; he was so close to understanding how democracy works.
The point someone above made about the reliance on judicial activism is very much to the point. What is important to watch is not what Schwarzenegger says or does but what Californians do. There’s the will of the poeple.
Gregg:
Let’s try to look at it this way.
You’re in a battle, 3 people on your side and 97 people on their side.
(Get it, 3% gay population 97% heterosexual population. If that’s the current soup de jour % breakdown the experts are spouting.)
You ARE NOT going to win the battle. You have to figure out a way to save your ASS!
We are WAY outnumbered.
(I don’t like it ANY more than you!)
You can be pissed off and idealistic all you want. I might even say delusional. But if our self appointed leaders keep pushing the hetro’s nose’s in our shit we are going to have 50 states with passed constitutional amendments and a federal constitutional amendment banning not only “marriage” but civil unions/domestic partnerships and any other possible form of protections we might think up. Take a hard look at Virginia’s Marriage Amendment.
Me, I’m getting older and maybe tired. I don’t personally need or want the moniker “Marriage”.
My time is running out. I’ve got 20-30 years left at best, AND I live in S.C. I’m willing to settle for Civil Unions/Domestic Partnership at some point before my or my partners time is up. You can fight for THE WORD Marriage after I’m gone.
And what’s so special about “marriage” that it needs reserved for heterosexuals anyway?
I love good people that have been attacked here.
Clinton,
Gore,
Carter,
but I really think that this nation took a huge wrong turn when it didn’t elect
HUBRERT HUMPHREY.
God rest him!
Oh, and Civil Unions ARE Civil Marriage.
Domestic partnerships are piecemeal bullshit.
Chandler, that has got to be THE funniest thing I’ve seen all day! You are truly a breath of…air.
ND30 – the same position you use to condemn John Kerry, you use to excuse Arnold Schwarzenegger. Governor Schwarzenegger has failed to lead. Republicans have failed families.
I make no excuses for Schwarzenegger. He did indeed fail to lead, and he failed families.
Now say the same for John Kerry. You can do that, right, Gregg? Or are you just going to spin more excuses about how he’s “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” for wanting to ban gay marriage?
As I’ve said before, under other circumstances — I’m disappointed, but not surprised.
We need to get another proposition on the ballot — I’m pretty sure the electorate has shifted significantly since 2000, and a well-worded prop. could pass.
Reader- Get a grip. Democrats have full control over the legislatures in nineteen states, and in eight of these there is a Democratic governor. Of these eight, only one has even a basic domestic partnership law (that’s my birth state of NJ). The other four states with such protections (California, Vermont, Massachussetts and Connecticut) all have Republican governors. In the case of Connecticut, the Republican governor signed the law establishing civil unions. Only in the case of Massachussetts does a Republican governor IN ANY STATE support taking away partnership rights we’ve already fought for and won. (And I don’t believe I’ve ever risen to defend Mitt Romney…)
Even by the standards of Democratic Party governors, Governor Schwarzenegger has been very supportive of gay rights. As far as I know, no governor of either party has said that he or she would sign a same-sex marriage law. Most have gone out of their way to say that they would not.
Recall that only five years ago, the Democratic governor of California vetoed expansions of DOMESTIC PARTNER benefits (though he signed quite a few others, and in 2003 effectively signed what he’d vetoed in 2000, if I have the details right).
If you want to attack a Republican governor for his track record on marital rights, and get my support, let’s go back to bashing Bob Ehrlich for vetoing a strong domestic partnership bill in Maryland a few months ago.
Chandler-
“Oh, and Civil Unions ARE Civil Marriage.
Domestic partnerships are piecemeal bullshit.”
AFAIK, two states have DP laws — NJ and Cali.
In California the DP’s have been slowly expanded to be identical to marriage for all state purposes, so they are no longer “piecemeal bullsh*t”.
NJ’s DP’s, and most other proposed DP’s are indeed piecemeal, but in California that’s how we got to where we are now. And NJ’s law covers quite a few of the pieces.
#9 Errrrrrrrrrr……no……Civil rights advances have always been up to voting majorities.
Heard of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? They required ratification by 9 out of 13 states. That’s a voting majority.
Heard of the Civil War? The population of the North, which bled and died profusely to abolish slavery, outnumbered the population of the South by 3-to-1. That’s a voting (and fighting) majority.
Heard of the civil rights bills of the 1960s? (Voting Rights act, etc.) They were legislative bills, passed by elected majorities. They wouldn’t have happened / could not have worked, otherwise.
So please, you get the history lesson and the grip.
Heard of the civil rights bills of the 1960s? (Voting Rights act, etc.) They were legislative bills, passed by elected majorities. They wouldn’t have happened / could not have worked, otherwise.
So please, you get the history lesson and the grip.
Comment by joe
===========================
So you are saying that the California bill WAS passed by elected majorities. Then you go on to contradict yourself again by infering that the majority of the population was not for the civil rights bills of the 1960s? (Voting Rights act, etc.) as “They wouldn’t have happened / could not have worked, otherwise”.
I like a guy that can talk out of both sides of his mouth.
It must be a purty mouth.
Well he is a stupid Republican, go figure.
The votes, my friends, the votes. They’re below. You guys are ignoring the ONLY evidence available to any of us. You’re voting for and championing bigots who hold us back; Democrats are pushing ahead — and as usual, without you. You vote Republican and in doing so, you are actively (and even aggressively) working against the interests of all gay people in the United States. That is collaboration at its worst.
In Vermont, April 2000:
Senate – FOR = 19 (17 DEMS, 2 Gop)
Senate – AGAINST = 11 (GOP all)
House – FOR = 79 (59 DEMS, 15 Gop, 4 Prog, 1 Ind)
House – AGAINST = 68 (51 GOP, 16 Dems, 1 Ind)
Dem Gov signs bill.
In Connecticut, April 2005:
Senate – FOR = 27 (21 DEMS, 6 Gop)
Senate – AGAINST = 9 (6 GOP, 3 Dems)
House – FOR = 85 (71 DEMS, 14 Gop)
House – AGAINST = 63 (37 GOP, 26 Dems)
Liberal GOP Governor signs bill.
In Oregon, July ‘05
Senate – FOR = 19 (17 DEMS, 2 Gop)
Senate – AGAINST = 10 (9 GOP, 1 Dem)
The GOP-controlled House refused to allow a vote there.
And now in California:
Senate – FOR = 21 (ALL 21 DEMS)
Senate – AGAINST = 15 (14 GOP, 1 Dem)
Assembly – FOR = 41 (ALL 41 DEMS)
Assembly – AGAINST = 35 (31 GOP, 4 Dems)
GOP Gov hoping for Constitutional oppty. will veto bill.
The issue to me is simple…the people voted and that is the basis for the veto….Like it or not, what Schwarzenegger did was to follow the vote of the people…If the public changes its mind then that will be another story but one thing I have little patience for is a state legislature overturning a vote by the people.
Having been born during the 1960’s-70’s radical feminist movement in which females were stripped of our identity and radicalised to become basically male, I, as one who experienced or rather lived the first generation of a radicalized movement of ideas have to offer a word based upon experience:
“Radicalized Movements” will do nothing but wash away your identity.
All of my life I was told by The Sisterhood that equal rights meant I should abandon all that I am, metaphorically speaking ‘grow a penis’, that happiness and fullfilment meant rejecting the institution of Motherhood since being barefoot and preggers stuck in the kitchen will only cause misery while my equal rights are being destroyed and that vacumn womb cleaners serve as a tool for equalizing my weaknesses to a male.
All of my life I was told to forget my innate female abilities, I was told my womb was irrelevant to my body, that my vagina served my happiness. All of my life I was told these things would bring me happiness and fulfillment, equality, fairness and justice. I fought for and believed in these things, even advocated.
When I reached the age of 40, the realilty of this experiment driven by a “movement” hit me hard, awoke me to the truth that my own innate natural tendencies had been washed away by radicalized ideas whose only purpose was to undermine society’s structure, females were simply used as a tool for radical success.
All I am saying it that just because a ‘movement’ leads you to believe in idea’s which are in direct opposition to you natural tendencies think long and hard as to the results of such action.
Over the past thirty years femininity has been effectively neutralized, stripped of purpose and innate identity. Thirty years from now homosexuals make awaken to a reality that they too have been effectively neutralized, washed away by a radicalized movement of ideas which are contrary to homosexual’s innate identity.
I believe it is too late for females to retain what is left of our innate purpose and identity…our PC speech now overwhelms us. I hope the failures of the radicalized feminist movement can provide perspective for homosexual identity.
Two truths about politics are univerally recognized: (1) All politics is local, and (2) timing is everything.
In 2000, the people of California voted on a referendum that passed by 60% of the voters. It declared that marriage was exclusively between a man and a woman. The voters of California are very proud of their referendum system: One only has to marvel at the success of Proposition 13, the 1970s referendum that controlled state spending, a victory that has been repeated in numerous other States. Californians are also very protective of their will expressed in these referenda. Try to bypass or override the public’s will, and everyone involved pays.
Still, Californians are generally a fair, empathetic, and equitable people. They have generally responded favorably to very recent legislation by Democrat legislatures and Governor Schwarzenegger that provides Domestic Partnerships for gays. It’s the broadest piece of pro-gay legislation written to date. Only ultra-right wing politicians and the religious right opposed the legislation.
The opponents of Domestic Partners vowed to take the matter to the voters. Led by the homophobe zealot Lou Sheldon and the operatives of James Dobson and Pat Robertson, these zealots claimed that Domestic Partners was really just a ploy by “liberals” to sneak gay-inclusive marriage under the radar by a different name. They will collect enough signatures to place a constitutional amendment banning support for all things gay: Not just gay-inclusive marriage, but Domestic Partners as well, and some versions go so far as to deny equal housing and employment. Before the gay-inclusive marriage, few people thought it would pass.
Then comes Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), my representive from the Castro district, who’s also gay. No sooner does he and other gay representatives succeed in passing domestic partnership, which the Governor signs, that he decides one good turn deserves another. Even before DP is a year old, he attaches gay-inclusive marriage bills to all sorts of omnibus bills, and it succeeds against considerable odds solely with Democrats’ support in passing the bicameral legislature. The Governor claims the bill is counter to Proposition 22, which is the fullest expression of the will of the people, and he vetos the legislation.
The maxims raise their usual heads: The local gay activism of San Francisco, Berkeley, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood is now poised to be opposed by much of the rest of the State. Plus, the timing illustrates the opponents’ contention that gay-inclusive marriage was the real homosexual agenda all along; that domestic partnership was a ruse; and one can no longer discriminate against GLBT in housing and employment. But if the opponents’ referendum passes, all this will be gone. Ironically, public opinion polls show support for domestic partners, but opposes gay-inclusive marriage. But the opponents will wrap the whole thing into one package, and it is likely to pass.
So the short-term gain by Leno may set back long-term gay rights for years to come. What Leno and others failed to realize is that the public opinion is shifting, but not enough time has passed for opinions to become more favorably settled. The timing could not have been worse nor the provincialism more obvious. To paraphrase: One small step forward, one giant step backward. Thanks Leno.
The almost-always oblivious Joe writes: Heard of the civil rights bills of the 1960s? Yes, Joe, but its constituionality is in grave doubt. Tell me under what authority of the constitution permits this kind of legislation? Some people, and a lot of the comments regarding this event, fail to see there’s more to it than being pro-gay. But hold on to your britches, change is coming.
Reader-
You’ve cut-and-pasted those same votes before.
A few carefully selected party-line votes don’t tell the full story. It’s still a tiny minority of Democratic party elected officials who actually support same-sex marriage. Granted, there are considerably more of them than of Republican party elected officials. But how does that help us?
Find me a Democratic governor who has publicly stated that he or she would sign a same-sex marriage law, and you might have an argument that Governor Schwarzenegger is on the wrong side of at least one of his Democratic colleagues.
Otherwise, give us a break.
Yes, thats why the good people of Alabama voted in majority to desegregate our schools. Oh wait, that was Brown v. Board of Education. Governor Schwarzenegger is the new Governor Wallace.
—“Find me a Democratic governor who has publicly stated that he or she would sign a same-sex marriage law.” (Clint)
Fair enough, Clint. Democratic Governor Ted Kongloski of Oregon campaigned and won on the promise to sign a marriage bill. Although Oregon has a constitutional amendment banning marriage equality, he publicly advocates the passage of an amendment that would overturn that. In the meantime, he has been pressuring the Republican legislature to send him a civil unions bill to sign. THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP KILLED IT.
Democratic Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania has said he would sign a marriage bill if it came to his desk, as has Democrat Governor Ruth Miner of Deleware. Democratic Governor John Lynch of New Hampshire initiated a commission to investigate the possibility of marriage equality in the Granite State. Republicans hit the roof when he nominated gay residents to join the commission. Lynch has said he would be open to marriage equality.
As for potential candidates: Democrat Elliot Spitzer has vowed to sign a marriage bill if elected Governor of New York (Republican William Weld has now flip-flopped and would oppose it). Democrat Phil Angelides and the other Democratic candidates for California Governor have vowed to sign the marriage bill, and each issued statements condeming Schwarzenegger for his threatened veto.
Oh, and although he admits that passage is unlikely, Democratic Governor John Balducci of Maine has said he would sign marriage or civil union legislation if it crossed his desk.
Ya know if The Movement would stop re-defining the word Marriage like they redefined Motherhood homosexual civil unions might actually be accepted by an overwhelming majority of that ‘97%’ of the population.
Perhaps ‘the majority’ are not protesting against homosexuals, but rather are defending definitions of institutions which, in essences, provides necessary social structure.
Today, Motherhood has been neutralized to mean ‘clump of cells which have no relevance, meaning or purpose until the first actual breath is taken’. Today, Motherhood has also defined as ‘one who is a victim of parasites which oppress the freewill and civil rights of the female’. All other defintions of Motherhood have been washed into PC speech indicating that males are also Mothers because females have grown a metaphorical penis. Popular culture does everything to support a successful destruction of Marriage as it has so successfully decimated Motherhood.
(Words have the power to erode purpose and meaning which is why PC thought is so very dangerous, be careful what you are asking for)
#19 – Poor Chandler can’t understand what I said! Poor guy!! 🙂 Yes, CA gay marriage was passed by a legislative majority, as I said here: http://gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=513#comment-2809 – As explained there, the “contradiction” with CA gay marriage comes from the fact that the voters expressed their will one way in an initiative in 2000, but then, (a) in 2005, an elected legislative majority chose to override it, and (b) we have not seen yet if the voters of 2005 will agree or disagree with those legislators.
#20 – Don’t know if this tries to refer to me or not: but as a supporter of drug legalization, first-semester abortion and gay marriage, and a strong critic of so-called “compassionate conservatism” (which is just Big Government), I’m a registered Independent, as I’ve said before.
#25 – DSH: Don’t shoot the choir. I agree. (By the way – Are you the Stephen who has been posting in these threads earlier? And/or D. Stephen Heersink? Just curious.) Goldwater didn’t think the 1960s civil rights bills were constitutional, and I also have doubts. But that is all a separate issue. Whatever the bills’ constitutionality or lack thereof, they provided a vehicle or an occasion for millions of people to vote who had been excluded before. Most people see that as a big civil rights advance, and I was responding to a poster, #9, who claimed that such advances never come about through political or elected majorities. He was wrong.
What I find particularly amusing about Gregg’s attempt to spin Democrats is viewing it in this light:
And to all you apologists who say civil rights and civil marriage must wait until a majority approves, my Black ass says: “Oh yessa, Massa! Sho nuff right!”
But what does Gregg call promoting it? Democratic governors saying they would sign a marriage bill if it came across their desks — which means that they want a majority to approve it first.
It becomes positively hilarious when you see Gregg start to spin as to why Massa Kerry’s support of states banning gay marriage also falls into his mantra of “all Dems support gay equality”.
No, its hillarious to see ND30 twist himself into knots.
NDT-
I actually did ask specifically for that list of governors.
Gregg-
Re: comparison to Wallace… Perhaps my history of the civil rights movement is a bit rusty — can you point me to all of the equal rights bills that Wallace signed? Or perhaps the pro-gay Court orders that Schwarzenegger has refused to enforce? Or the gay-pride parades in San Francisco and L.A. that have been met with fire hoses and dogs?
Re: list of governors.
Excellent information to think about. I’m still interested by the fact that the most vocal support for same-sex marriage comes from the (Democratic) governors with the least chance of actually receiving such a bill from their legislatures. But I’m definitely impressed that there are some governors out there who are openly supporting us on this.
I’ll be eager to see what happens in New York, Oregon and Washington over the next couple of years, as well as in New Jersey.
Re: New York… with a split legislature, it seems unlikely that either candidate will receive a full marriage bill, but I’ll be very interested to see how the debate plays out through the campaign. Because my sense is that a Connecticut-like Civil Union compromise could pass (and certainly Weld has stated his support for such a bill — so either candidate would sign it).
Oh, I know you did, Clint. 😉 I just thought it was interesting how paying lip service to civil rights and saying you would support something if a majority of people voted for it is OK in Gregg’s eyes if a Democrat says it.
And as for knots, Gregg, let’s see you criticize John Kerry’s support of state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage — and especially in Massachusetts, where it would strip gays of their existing right to marry.
Well, Mr. North Dallas Thirtee: I do love it when YOU talk about paying lip service. Just what did you have in mind, sister mary?
I so sorry, but miss glisteny is having wine again.
But… I thought you were so… RUGGED, Glisteny. 🙂
Muscles of steel, heels of helium…
I am Frank. You should see me wax those queens at the gym. I am woman, hear me roar. I am…WOMANNNNN!
Whee. What you up to tonight Frankie? Having any fun? Want miss glisteny to come help you out with that????
I AM SO BAD tonight!
Thats one drunk bitch there.
Why is it that you frequently see shaving as part of an S&M ritual, but you never see bodywaxing in that context?
RRRRRRRIIIIIPPPP!!!!
Thank you sir may I have another!!!
RRRRRIIIIIIPPPPP!!!!
Thank you sir may I have another!!!!
RRRRRIIIIIPPPPP!!!!
Hi again Frankie! Tonight was more fun than I’ve had in years. And I’ve enjoyed spending some of it … with YOU.. With you… with you, no with you.
But oh Mary, am I going to pay for it tomorrow. I feel the hangover coming on already. And christ Heloise, I’ve been looking back at some of the things I’ve said here tonight and I smell Bruce on my trail or tail already. Well, glad at least somebody is on my tail. Got to go.
Er, at least I thought that’s what he meant by “wax those queens”…
“Madam, I am drunk, but you are ugly. And I shall be sober tomorrow morning.” – Winston Churchill
“I’m prettier and I don’t have a hangover this morning.”-Frank IBC
🙂
SOONER OR LATER…
In Vermont, April 2000:
Senate – FOR = 19 (17 DEMS, 2 Gop)
Senate – AGAINST = 11 (GOP all)
House – FOR = 79 (59 DEMS, 15 Gop, 4 Prog, 1 Ind)
House – AGAINST = 68 (51 GOP, 16 Dems, 1 Ind)
Dem Gov signs bill.
In Connecticut, April 2005:
Senate – FOR = 27 (21 DEMS, 6 Gop)
Senate – AGAINST = 9 (6 GOP, 3 Dems)
House – FOR = 85 (71 DEMS, 14 Gop)
House – AGAINST = 63 (37 GOP, 26 Dems)
Liberal GOP Governor signs bill.
In Oregon, July ‘05
Senate – FOR = 19 (17 DEMS, 2 Gop)
Senate – AGAINST = 10 (9 GOP, 1 Dem)
The GOP-controlled House refused to allow a vote there.
And now in California:
Senate – FOR = 21 (ALL 21 DEMS)
Senate – AGAINST = 15 (14 GOP, 1 Dem)
Assembly – FOR = 41 (ALL 41 DEMS)
Assembly – AGAINST = 35 (31 GOP, 4 Dems)
GOP Gov has vetoed marriage equality bill, some Gay Patsies make the usual excuses, while others just plain cheer the team on.
There’ll be another day on this of course, and sooner or later, we’ll be home on this issue — without an ounce of help from the same Patsies who’ll be lining up for vows and equality. They’ll be so pro-marriage-equality then that it’ll make your head spin.
Reader-
Sooner or later we will be home on this issue.
Thanks in large part to Democratic politicians who are willing to vote for marriage equality (and D.P. and C.U.) laws — and also to some Republican politicians who are willing to do likewise.
There hasn’t been a single example that I know of (or that you cite in your cut-and-paste above) where our marriage rights have actually been advanced without the help of Republicans being needed.
The overwhelmingly partisan-line votes in Oregon and California are put in perspective when you realize that Democrats who have consistently voted against gay-rights laws that Governor Schwarzenegger signed flipped over when they knew the law wasn’t actually going to pass. Let’s look at the ones that did pass–
In Vermont in 2000, if those 15 GOP reps hadn’t voted for it, the measure would not have passed, and there would be no Civil Unions in Vermont.
In Connecticut in 2005, if those 14 GOP reps hadn’t voted for it, the measure would not have passed, and there would be no Civil Unions in Connecticut.
In Connecticut in 2005, if the Republican Governor hadn’t signed it, the measure couldn’t have overridden a veto, and there would be no Civil Unions in Connecticut.
I’m not saying the Republican Party deserves credit for these measures passing — I’m saying that our rights are routinely advanced by a BIPARTISAN consensus.
State legislators, thanks to gerrymanderring, represent narrow slices of their party. In any state, you’ll find Democratic legislators (from minority districts, or Union districts, or FDR-democrat retiree districts) who are staunch opponents of gay rights. In most states, you’ll find Republican legislators (from wealthy (sub)urban districts, or libertarian rural areas (e.g. Arizona)) who are consistently allies of gay rights.
The two groups quite often cancel each other out (look at the numbers of Dems voting against in Vermont and Connecticut) — but they are both quite real. Trying to collapse the two parties into black-and-white good-and-evil caricatures doesn’t help further the debate.
Gay and gay-friendly conservatives will continue to be an essential part of our advancing legal recognition whether you recognize it or not — and no matter how much you hate them for it.
Clint – You do know Reader isn’t going to read/understand a word of that, right?
But I appreciate it – it taught me some stuff 🙂
Joe-
I mostly did it because I was curious to see how the numbers would actually come out. It’s probably my professional training showing — throw a stack of data at me and I can’t help but try to think of interesting questions to ask it.
I’d bet that the data holds up for the voting in Massachusetts to not amend the state Constitution, since it’s so close (passed in 2004, not brought up for a vote this year because it can’t pass anymore — i.e. the voters spoke — process requires that it be passed in two consecutive legislatures (i.e. with a vote in between) and then in a referendum at the next legislative elections). But there’s no formal data on how close the vote is now, though the whips certainly know. But since I’m thinking legislative votes now I went and looked this up. By my count, the vote in 2004, when they passed an amendment to the state Constitution to overturn same-sex marriage, the Republicans were irrelevant, unsurprisingly as there are so few — Dems voted: 85-82 to pass the amendment, GOP voted: 18-10 to pass. (Net 105-92 with 2 independents, if you’re checking my arithmatic — you’ll see reports of it passing by 129-69 if you look around, but that was a procedural vote that allowed it to get to the point of being voted on two weeks later.) Interestingly, it’s still the case that the Dems needed GOP support to swing what they wanted to do — it’s just that they wanted to restrict our rights in this case.
For the New Jersey domestic partnership law, this appears to be the only case where the Republicans who supported us weren’t actually necessary. Though in both houses, it took the GOP votes to put the support over an actual majority, all that was needed to pass was a plurality.
Senate: D:17-0(3 abs),R:6-9(5 abs)
Assembly: D: 37-2(2 abs),R:3-26(9 abs)
I’m surprised by two things in the NJ data — (1) The Assembly vote is far more party-line than I would have expected. (2) The law passed so strongly, but wasn’t strengthened. In other words, I would have expected they could have added a few more rights to the bill and still passed it, if with fewer votes. Remember this one is a hodgepodge of some marital rights but not others.
Now that some order has been restored on at least this thread, thanks mainly to Clint…
Clint, I agree with much of what you say in #43 and in #45 and, yes, I know I paint this too black and white here on GP (for rhetorical purposes, you understand). And yes, there IS credit due that minority of Republicans who vote with us on this issue and, no, marriage equality will not be achieved without some Republicans — and in most states, we’ll need a lot more than “some”.
Like you (apparently), I do a bit of bean counting in “real life” and I am sensitized both to underlying motivation and to the presence of patterns. I get very frustrated with the very clear, consistent pattern in those numbers I repeat-post — that is, one party (Dems) are willing to step out in front on this issue while the other party (GOP) resists – thus the rhetoric. But, I believe the resistance will naturally (through now fast-changing public opinion) subside enough over the next 5-7 years to get us to our goal. But it would not have happened in 50 years without the (largely) Democratic activists and their push-push-push (and occasional setbacks) and without that one party stepping out in front and being willing to take the cheap hits from the other side that they get for doing so.
Where will all this go from here? I get the sense that the legislature here in NJ will be next (moving beyond its DP law), with a couple of other Blues to follow in ’06 (Oregon and then NY or Washington State, maybe both). Then, after Arnold is dumped in California, we get that story completed, to be followed by one more big Blue (Pennsylvania) before the ’08 election season, during which all progress will stop because the GOP will be grandstanding the issue. But, let’s see, that will give us VT, MA, CT, NJ, CA, OR, WA, PA, and NY (and maybe even RI and MD) – enough to reach a tipping point that the next Dem President can ride to the finish line (and maybe even in his/her first term).
BTW, those #s are a bit more than cut & paste — I couldn’t find them summarized in any of the places you’d expect and had to actually do a little work to find them (on legislative sites mainly, working with bland bill numbers). I was amazed there’s no such summary at HRC, LCR, Task Force, etc., or if there is, I couldn’t find it.
Anyway, appreciate your comments on this thread.
Reader
PS — you’re right about the lopsided party vote in NJ — very surprising. Most Republicans here would be quickly labeled liberal Democrats in about 40 other states — can’t account for them lining up so solidly on the other side of this.
And that (#46) was for you Glisteny. Read the tag.
I’m so confused!!
There are more aliases being tossed around here than a Republican gay bar during happy hour.
DRINKS ON THE HOUSE!! 🙂
Monty
*head hurts*
*too many aliases*
Did anyone else get the memo that “mepend” and “Reader” were the same guy?
Re: gathering voting stats…
The NJ numbers are tabulated by N.J. Lesbian and Gay Coalition — they even highlight the legislators who “crossed party lines”. You’re right that someone should be keeping this data, and making it easily available (e.g. to voters who want to know how their local reps voted) — why not start a blog for free at Blogger.com, and do this yourself?
My predictions for the next few years would be fairly similar (CU’s in NY, WA, OR, SSM in CA) — except that I think it will take longer in Oregon (because they have to re-amend the state Constitution) and I think that Schwarzenegger will win reelection, and sign this bill the next time around, after the voters reject the next round of anti-marriage referendums. I’d be really surprised to see Pennsylvania join in. If there’s going to be a surprising state passing a weak D.P. law, I’d guess it would be somewhere like Arizona or Michigan.
It’s only when you jump from “most of our strongest supporters are Dems” to “any Dem is better than any GOP pol” that your argument breaks down. (as in comment #21)
#51 – Yeah, like “Stephen” and “DSH” – LOL
sorry, #51 meant to refer to #49 🙂
And Clint, you know, sometimes the way your mind thinks and the way mine thinks, perhaps (at times) we could almost be the same guy. But I know you hate Ayn Rand…also, that even though I am working and studying part-time right now, I don’t have that much time on my hands 😉
#49, I should be so lucky, after what I’ve heard of Mr. mepend. Read #47 after #46. You’ll get the point.
#49
Reader is also “Monty”. You can. And he’s been posting under Glisteny’s name too recently. You can also tell the difference there too.
Joe-
Where did you ever get the idea that I hate Ayn Rand? I think she was wrong on a few things (among them that homosexuality is contemptible) — and too absolutist on others… (you really can’t derive the superiority of Scotch whiskey to Irish whiskey from first principles like ‘A=A’) but she was absolutely brilliant in seeing and highlighting the gaping flaws in some of the unstated assumptions we’ve taken for granted (like the bizarre notion that needless self-sacrifice is good). Atlas Shrugged would have been much better if she’d had a good editor — and even more so if she’d known enough engineering and science to make the sci-fi aspects more plausible — but lots of really valuable ideas that no one else was putting forward. (And I can praise The Fountainhead without call for an editor…)
On the whole, the world is a significantly better place because she lived in it — the highest praise I ever offer.
(And, yes… I definitely have too much time on my hands at the moment… that’ll change shortly…)
#57 – Wow, that is great. And, in a general way, again we agree. I also think she became too absolutist on some things, and that Atlas is not the best as literature (and poor as sci-fi!).
But I got my impression that you didn’t like Rand (and sorry I said “hate”; that’s stronger than I meant) because, in another discussion, you seemed to indicate that you don’t think values (moral questions) can be solved objectively. I think they can. Her meta-ethics (her approach to “doing” ethical theory), in the “philosophy” sections of Atlas, persuaded me. Her application of her own meta-ethics doesn’t always lead her to correct results, but I think her meta-ethical methods per se are brilliant. (Beginning the job of ethics by asking why we need ethics – asking what facts of objective reality force us to have ethics – and thus grounding our ethical ruminations in the nature of the world we can see/hear/touch/etc.)
Joe-
It seems to me that logic is great at exploring the consequences of a set of assumptions or fundamental principles — but logic alone can’t tell you which assumptions to make. (Or what values have worth.)
When I was reading Rand it always seemed like she’d take “A=A” (a logical principle) and import her ideas about what properties the relevant ‘A’ has (or ought to have) as though they were logical primaries. (e.g. a man is an individual… to which a hard-core commie could respond “a social class is a group…”)
Starting from “what are ethics for?” doesn’t help if Rand starts from a reason based on the value of the individual and the commie starts from a reason based on society.
And here we disagree.
Taking your Rand – commie example: One of them is, in fact, right. Hint: It isn’t the commie. Operative phrase in fact or in reality. The commie can claim all he wants, that he is right in fact (or in reality), but his claims won’t suffice to make it so. We have gotten so used to people twisting words (most especially far Lefties / post-modernists) and saying “How can you say that?” and whatnot, that we tend to forget there is such a thing as one premise really and actually being true, while the other really and actually is bullshit. But there is.
Joe-
Ok… break it out for me. My sock-puppet commie says that the suffering and death of many individuals is “good” in his valuation if it leads to a more “equitable” society. Economic equality is a moral primary for him. He understands the cost in prosperity this entails — but values a society of equal paupers above that of greatly unequal capitalists ranging from the middle class to extreme wealth.
How would you demonstrate that he is factually or logically mistaken in his value judgements, as opposed to just morally repugnant?
See?
What a whack job glisteny is? She all beside herself, girl.
SUCK ME!
Don
Damn, girl.
Get a life….or a didoe. 🙂 🙂 🙂 You just TOO funny.
Monty
Oops. I’m Don Beller. Burn the fucker.
Monty