More from the WaPo and Sun
Gawker: "last-minute pressure from church groups and the National Organization for Marriage apparently scared a few new, sensitive delegates"
Elsewhere, hundreds of people denuded the Rhode Island state house, where same-sex marriage hearings are being held, and on Wednesday, a U.S. House panel "voted 3-2 along party lines to direct the House counsel to come up with a legal defense" of DOMA
15 comments:
Fail. Lame.
ugh.
i hate this state.
From what I understand, District 45's Delegate Hattie Harrison changed her vote to "No" at the last minute.
Someone is going to give me grief for this, but...
If gay marriage advocates had been willing to compromise and pass a civil unions bill instead it would have almost certainly sailed through the legislature. Yes I'm sure people will now jump all over me and accuse me of supporting discrimination, but the strategy they ended up using accomplished nothing. If a civil unions bill had passed it would make a world of difference for gay and lesbian couples worried about things like inheritances, insurance, child custody, etc etc etc. Instead the purists insisted on marriage or nothing and got nothing.
I strongly agree with ppatin. In one of the most liberal and gay friendly states in the country, the proponents of the bill over-reached a bit. They could have gotten the result they wanted without the wording. Instead, they got nothing.
after my "thank you" letter, there is no doubt in my mind that Maggie G and her ilk were bombarding delegates with fraudulent e-mails and phone calls purportedly from constituents against the bill.
.. Maryland already recognizes marriages performed in other jurisdictions. So the practical implication is MD couples have to drive to DC to get married, while knowing that the legislature considers them second-class citizens.
This should have never been in the legislature in the first place. The civil rights of a minority should not be subject to the popular opinion of the majority. Brooke Murdock should have womaned up and not stayed her decision.
That's disgusting. Were you able to find out why you got the "thank you" letter?
I wrote to say I was concerned that someone had stolen my identity, no response, and I was thinking of calling Gansler's office about it today, maybe I still should.
I think you should. At the very least, lawmakers need to know there was tomfuckery, in case this comes up again. (By the way, if true, this is pretty typical of the right wing, unfortunately.)
"This should have never been in the legislature in the first place. The civil rights of a minority should not be subject to the popular opinion of the majority. Brooke Murdock should have womaned up and not stayed her decision."
No offense, but this is what I mean by a lack of pragmatism.
Let's assume the Court of Appeals had ruled differently and upheld the decision that gay couples should be allowed to get married. You can be certain there would have been a backlash, a state constitutional amendment to ban it would have ended up on the ballot and on election day supporters of gay marriage would probably end up losing.
There simply is no way to get around the fact the voters of this state will have a say in the gay marriage debate, whether it's through their elected representatives or through a direct vote on a constitutional change. A very big chunk of the population is hung up on the use of the word marriage, but would be willing to accept civil unions that are a total legal equivalent. Is that ideal? No, but it's a huge improvement over what we currently have, and if there's any lefty cause that is clearly gaining ground it's the widespread acceptance of gay rights/equality. A little pragmatism and patience is still required though.
okay, point taken, what needs to happen is for SCOTUS to review Perry vs. Schwarzenegger or a similar case and do the right thing, as it eventually did in Loving v Virginia.
I wouldn't blame Judge Murdock. Even if she had not stayed her ruling, the Court of Appeals or Court of Special Appeals (if the COA hadn't elected to take it) could have, and likely would have, stayed the ruling pending their decision.
Despite the liberal fiscal policies of the State, there still is a significant socially conservative religious base that has some hangups.
I'm looking more at the bigger picture. The bill didn't fail, it was sent back to committee. It passed in the Senate which is further than I thought it would ever go. A few years ago the Conservative Christians were out en masse in front of the State House and we didn't see that brohaha this time. Since I am not gay I am not necessarily narrowly focused on this particular bill, but more of the tenor of the state in general and I definitely like the direction it is taking.
Frankly, there are some things right now I feel very strongly about and how this bill was treated leads me to believe that maybe we, the people, can start having some conversations with new ideas that don't espouse the War on Drugs, Tough on Crime and Family Values. As a state, as a nation and as a city we really have to start coming up with a new perspective.
Oh, and the bad news is that I have a new bug up my ass that will reveal itself most likely in the near future so stay tuned. Maggie Gallagher, I'm going to wipe the floor with you.
Post a Comment