Senate Homosexuality: the Thread

http://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriages-fate-sealed-more-50-years-ago-073000037.html

This article excellently sums up how I view the cultural inevitability of mainstream acceptance of gay marriage.

 

It's sad that some people only accept the 'inevitability' of gay marriage because they believe the institution of marriage itself was irrevocably corrupted when culturally the institution of marriage stopped being about procreation. That article basically says that marriage is now worthless and meaningless so the gays may as well have it. What a hateful, spiteful, bitter and twisted position to take.

 

No, the point is that marriage doesn't have the same meaning that it did before mainstream cultural acceptance of contraception, and in the new definition homosexual couples aren't prevented from engaging in it by nature.

 

Yeah, God forbid that should ever happen.

 

I was married. My disgusting ex-wife and I had two children. I regret neither of them. Actually I love them more than anyone could ever care to explain, but did the institution of marriage make that possible? No. Biology did.

 

I've never really understood the right's description of marriage as sacred or "permanent and exclusive" and as if gay marriage will someone destroy those supposedly-existing foundations.

First, "gay marriage" is solely focused on the legal rights that come with marriage. The gay couple down the street that has already been living together in a "permanent and exclusive" relationship for 30 years finally wants the same tax breaks and benefits that you and your wife get. It's not as if all of a sudden gay couples will finally start existing.

Second, it assumes that marriage is some holy and cherished institution. When celebrities get married overnight in Las Vegas, conservative icons are on their umpteenth wife (I'm looking at you, Rush and Newt), the divorce rate is at 50+%, and millions of teenagers have children...to whine and complain that gay marriage will be the downfall of children and and the institution itself is actually ludicrous.

That, and I still don't quite understand how they talk about "Biblical" or "historical" marriage or refer to marriage even 50 years ago as an institution that should be on a pedestal. Interracial marriages weren't completely legal it was highly shunned to marry outside of your religion when my parents were born. Go back even further, and women didn't even really get much of a say in who they married...so yeah. Great standards.

 

Gay Marriage just passed the House (in Rhode Island) about 10 minutes ago...

Governor Chafee is expected to sign it on the steps of the Capitol in less than 15 minutes.





(It passed 56 to 15, don't have the exact count of who voted how yet)

Rhode Island now becomes the 10th state to legalize gay marriage, and now all of New England has done so. The House started singing "My Country 'Tis of Thee" after it passed. Weddings can start on August 1st.

Governor Chafee's editorial in the NYT (he was once one out of only 4 US Senators who supported gay marriage):
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/o...rriage-equality-into-law-in-rhode-island.html

Spoiler: Governor Chafee's editorial in the New York Times

ON Thursday, the Rhode Island House of Representatives is expected to approve legislation to extend the right to marry to all Rhode Islanders, regardless of sexual orientation. I plan to sign the Marriage Equality Act into law immediately after the vote, on the steps of the Rhode Island State House, overlooking downtown Providence. This is the same spot where, in my 2011 inaugural address, I called for Rhode Island to embrace marriage equality.

Signing the bill will be gratifying for many reasons. When I first defended gay marriage in 2004, as a Republican United States senator, most of my party colleagues were extreme in their opposition. In fact, to draw a line in the sand, they scheduled a vote on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in June 2006 — just before the height of a campaign season.

In the end, only six Republican senators joined me in opposing the amendment: Susan Collins, Judd Gregg, John McCain, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter and John E. Sununu. Of those, only Mr. McCain and Ms. Collins remain in the Senate. Even many of those Republicans opposing a constitutional ban avoided taking a position on gay marriage by saying it was an issue best left to the states. But I went further and announced my support for full marriage equality.

I was one of only four members of the entire Senate to take that stand, along with Senators Ron Wyden, Edward M. Kennedy and Russell Feingold — three of the most socially liberal members of the chamber at the time. Hardly common company for a Republican.
As it turned out, I did lose office in 2006, as part of the general rejection of Republican leadership that year. But I was elected governor as an independent in 2010, and I was proud to see that my stand on gay marriage stood up well over the years.

A historic realignment is happening all around us, as Americans from all walks of life realize that this is the right thing to do. It is occurring both inside and outside of politics, through conversations at the office and over kitchen tables, and at different speeds in different parts of the country. But once the people have spoken, politics should do its part to make the change efficient and constructive.

Much of the argument for and against gay marriage has revolved around the morality of the issue. Each side feels intensely that its position is more righteous than the other side’s. I personally feel that Rhode Island is a better state, and America is a better country, when we are as inclusive as possible.

But over the last few years, as governor, I have been impressed by another argument, one that is less connected to convictions of personal morality, and one that ought to unite all Rhode Islanders. No issue is more important to my state than job creation. Rhode Island was badly battered by the recession of 2008, but we are moving in the right direction. Jobs are the only way forward — we need to keep the ones we have, and we need to create new ones.


There are good signs — our unemployment rate has just undergone the largest yearly drop since 1985 — but one needless obstacle to our recovery remains. Rhode Island is part of a highly regional economy, with the other New England states and New York in constant competition with us for innovative companies, and particularly for the young, open-minded individuals who are close to the heartbeat of the new digital economy. In our small cluster of states, it is relatively easy for a company or a person to cross a border seeking a more favorable climate. And in recent years Rhode Island has been an outlier among our surrounding states: we are the only one prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.

Many experts have found evidence of a strong correlation between tolerance and prosperity, particularly in high-tech sectors. One of them, the author Richard Florida, has identified the “three T’s” — talent, technology and tolerance — as the fundamental basis for the growth of new economies.


With a high concentration of outstanding colleges and universities, Rhode Island certainly has the talent. The technology is there as well, with our state’s broadband speed and coverage ranked among the nation’s best. The Beacon Hill Institute’s most recent State Competitiveness Report also placed Rhode Island fifth among all states in the technology category. Now we are poised to adopt the third and final T: tolerance.


The point is not simply that we are welcoming to gay people, though we are. It is that we want to welcome everyone. The talented workers who are driving the new economy — young, educated and forward-looking — want to live in a place that reflects their values. They want diversity, not simply out of a sense of justice, but because diversity makes life more fun. Why would any state turn away the people who are most likely to create the economies of the 21st century?

I have been heartened in recent months to see members of my old party coming around on marriage equality, including the entire Republican caucus in the Rhode Island Senate — the first time a caucus of either party has been unanimous in its support. That reflects sound political judgment, and some values that are at least as Republican as they are Democratic, including a belief in marriage as an institution and a desire to keep government out of our personal lives.

The push for equality will continue to grow stronger in statehouses, courthouses and polling places in every state in America. This is, by and large, a generational issue, not a geographic one. Even in the reddest states, the rising generations are far more tolerant than their parents and grandparents. As this shift continues, marriage equality will inevitably become law in more and more states. The states that cling to their old prohibitions will then be viewed as the outliers. Like Rhode Island in recent years, they will be seen as islands of old thinking.

This is also true, more broadly, at the national level. The United States is at a competitive disadvantage in attracting skilled workers to fill high-level jobs in technology, finance and health care, as noted by industry leaders and Wall Street executives at Monday’s annual “Out on the Street” conference. It is my hope that the Supreme Court will choose to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, and that my fellow governors will lobby their Congressional delegations to address our country’s discriminatory policies at the federal level.


So tomorrow, when I sign the Marriage Equality Act into law, I will be thinking of the Rhode Islanders who have fought for decades simply to be able to marry the person they love. I will be thinking of how Rhode Island is upholding its legacy as a place founded on the principles of tolerance and diversity. But I will also be thinking, as all governors must, about the economy.


With marriage equality becoming law tomorrow night in Rhode Island, we are sending a clear message that we are open for business, and that all are welcome. I hope that leaders in capitals across the country — including Washington — will soon realize that marriage equality is an issue where doing the right thing and the smart thing are one and the same.

 

get a twitter account

edit: that's better

 

Lowbacca_1977: here's the link to how the House voted that you wanted to see:

http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/same-sex-marriage/?super_reload=1367531157225

For: 56 (including 2 Republicans)
Against: 15 (including 3 Republicans)
Not Voting: 4 (including 1 Republican)


It's been signed:

 

Excellent, I couldn't find that earlier when I was looking for it.

I definitely find it interesting that there's a rough split with the Republicans (although this one, the numbers are so small to not really be significant either way), but still with that much Democratic opposition. There certainly is a political opening here to cause some disarray within the Democratic party and its supporters if this style of republican attitudes on this (be it ideological or pragmatic) shows up in some of the states where same-sex marriage is facing greater trouble, and where opposition from Democrats is part of the problem (Illinois is one of these, I was reading earlier). There's also a Republican PAC that is representing social moderates trying to let Republicans that might back same-sex marriage on a state or federal level that they can get support that would counterbalance the opposition they would get within the GOP for going against the standard opposition to same-sex marriage.

This may be the biggest thing for how quick same-sex marriage sees wide spread adaptation, is the Republicans starting to have money flow to those supporting it, and as the GOP fractures in its opposition, that'll likely put it over the mark in many states that it couldn't pass at the moment.

 

Come to NY for the gay marriage and stay for the taxes.

 

The Minnesota House will vote on Thursday to legalize SSM. House Speaker Paul Thissen, DFL-Minneapolis, said he would not bring the measure up for a floor vote until he was certain it had the votes to pass - so that is hopeful. The house was the more contentious of the two.

 

Yeah, I just found out about this an hour ago. Really hopeful that this passes, and I am seeing a lot of people posting in support of the Bill being passed on Facebook which is great. Too bad I live in Stearns County. Bachman's district...

 

I'm moving out of this state anyway. If they don't pass the bill, gives me way more incentive to leave.

 

Don't leave! We need your help to get rid of Bachman. People down there might finally be seeing her for the major embarrassment she is to the state!

Sometimes you just gotta take one for the team. I did my part to rid us of Cravaak ;-)

 

So, where does the opposition lie? For Minnesota, both chambers are majority DFL (Democratic-Farm-Labor) with the Senate being 39-28 and the House being 73-61. I'm presuming this would need a simple majority, so is this simply an issue of keeping the DFL intact, or are there indications of Republicans that will vote for this, in which case the issue is how many DFL members can be lost and still pass it, even with that inflow of extra support? Especially after Rhode Island showed that there can still be sizable opposition even with Republicans not in the picture.

 

Delaware just legalized gay marriage (though I think it still needs to be signed by their governor).


Lowie, while you can't count on a Democratic vote automatically being a Yes vote on gay marriage, I doubt most state parties are as divided as RI on this... we're basically a single-party state (except for our governors).

 

Delaware's governor has said he'll sign it, so Delware's pretty much all but offically the 11th state that has legalized gay marriage.

 

I think the above cartoon is one of the main reasons why this issue is moving so quickly - straight couples are already doing a remarkably effective job of tarnishing the sanctity of marriage and it is blatantly obvious. Clean your own house first before you bitch at me to clean mine.

Low, there are a lot of socially conservative democrats in MN. (kinda like Blue Dogs, but not quite the same.) They are democrats because of the unions and that's about it (maybe education too). The representative north of me is a good example of this. He pretty consistently follows a republican ideology, but he won't mess with anything union or he would get bounced out in a heart beat.

However, there seem to be some reps who are very in line with democratic ideals, but they struggle with their personal religion. This is the case of at least one woman I know of in Duluth (which feels a little disingenuous to me because Duluth solidly defeated the anti-ssm amendment.)

IMO, this phenomon of socially conservative democrats is actually part of the reason the amendment lost in MN - the anti-ssm side assumed they didn't need to waste time or effort in these areas, which are predominately rural. I actually heard this strategy from them in a news story last fall - they didn't need to worry about us. Turns out they were wrong - several cities up here defeated the amendment and in those that didn't, it only won by a very small margin (generally by 1 percentage point).

 

MN House just passed the bill. Everyone said that was the tough hurdle but it won quite handily. The Senate vote is on Monday and that is supposed to be easier. Guess its time to start being hopeful!

 

I think I know the guy in the left panel...