The Cons, of course, couldn't be less happy.
Here's Michael Steele, who's all for states' rights so long as they don't involve giving gay people rights:
Mmm, smell that hypocrisy! The only two people in the party who actually believe the Cons' rhetoric about states' rights are the two who get skewered for being too librul. How long before Limbaugh screams for the heads of Collins and Snowe, do you think?After the RNC said he wouldn’t be issuing a statement on Maine’s decision to legalize gay marriage today, RNC Chairman Michael Steele is in fact condemning the decision, a position that puts him at odds with Maine’s moderate Senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of whom said today the decision should be left to the states.
The RNC emails over this statement from Steele:
“Our party platform articulates our opposition to gay marriage and civil unions, positions shared by many Americans. I believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman and strongly disagree with Maine’s decision to legalize gay marriage.”
Earlier today, Collins said on MSNBC that the decision is best “decided at the state level.” And Snowe’s office put out a statement citing her support for the Defense of Marriage Act, which leaves it to individual states to “make their own determinations on this very personal issue.”
In the meantime, a Con from Utah thinks he's got the right to tell D.C. how to conduct its affairs:
Yesterday, the DC Council overwhelmingly approved a bill recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states, by a vote of 12 to 1. It is the latest victory for LGBT rights, coming just days after the state legislatures in New Hampshire and Maine approved gay marriage, after Vermont became the fourth state to make gay marriage legal last month.Dylan Thomas called. He wants bigoted fucktards to stop quoting his poetry.Marriage equality in the nation’s capitol, however, is too much for freshman Rep. John Chaffetz (R-UT), who is refusing to let the issue “go softly into the night“:
“Some things are worth fighting for, and this is one of them,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah), the ranking Republican on a House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee that oversees the District. “It’s not something I can let go softly into the night. … I recognize the Democrats are in the majority, but I represent the majority of Americans on this issue.”
The City Desk noted Chaffetz’s Twitter explanation for why he would use Congress to intervene: “Why am I involved? Congress is set up to oversee the affairs of D.C. I am one of the Members of the relevant committee.”
As far as representing the majority of Americans... eh. That's debatable:
I don't think the majority of Americans are such anti-gay fuckwits that they care passionately whether D.C. recognizes same-sex marriages or not. Quite the opposite, I'd say. And there might be a little bit of irritation at seeing the democratic process subverted by irrational homophobes. Just sayin'.As for the anti-same-sex marriage zealots who were counting on Carrie Prejean to come to traditional marriage's rescue... well, there's a slight problem with her purity.
It's not looking good for the crusaders, is it?
6 comments:
'Cons' are much more okay with legalization through the democratic process than through the courts. Maine is not a 'liberal' state by any stretch of the imagination. If anything they are fiercely independent (and I say this as someone who has talked politics with them in the same bar where the Maine constitution was drafted).
The interesting thing is going to be watching to see if there are court challenges and how gays react if one of these laws are struck down through the courts.
If they're OK with it through democratic legalization, why the hell are they complaining about the ones that are coming up?
That's a big hole there, man. A really big hole. Unless you're saying that no true conservative would be against democratically legislated gay marriage, of course.
Mike, as usual "Cons", at least the ones you're speaking for, don't know what a democracy is. Let me explain.
One of the three branches of our government is the judicial branch. One of its jobs, as defined in Article III, is to mediate or decide disputes between governments and/or people. Article VI says that the Constitution is the law of the land. All people, including those in the government, are supposed to obey the law, and the law, in turn, is supposed to obey the Constitution. When a legislature decides to write a law that violates the Constitution, it's the job of the courts to say that this action is illegal. It's also their job to explain to a government that the way it is enforcing the law violates the Constitution, should that actually be the case.
Courts are a necessary part of a democracy, at least as we and the rest and the world have implemented them. They aren't just there to throw bad people in jail. Interpreting laws and the actions of other courts with regard to the rights and powers defined in the Constitution is part of their job.
If you don't like the way the courts have interpreted the Constitution, Article V defines the democratic process for fixing that problem.
Functioning democracies don't just work by majority rule. Mobs work by majority rule. What sets a democracy apart from a mob is that it recognizes that everyone has rights, and that those rights can't be violated to satisfy the majority.
As a Brit- whats the big arguement against 'Civil Unions'?
Here we have civil unions, and they are exactly the same a a civil marriage (and I happen to know that a little known side effect was to treat a couple with children as exactly the same for tax/benefit purposes, so legalising unions actually made some parent/parent families worse off)- I checked with the LGBT rep at work and she says there is no difference. The only difference is that 'marriage' sticks with the M/F tradition. Every one refers to the civil unions as gay marriage, husbands, wives etc. There is NO problem as far as I am aware in the UK over one word difference.
I think the idea of civil unions reminds us of the old phrase "separate but equal". Nothing wrong with it, if it's truly equal. The problem. though, is that if you're making things separate then it can be taken that there is a difference. Given how our politics have been working, I have absolutely no faith that they actually would be equal.
So, if your state Governor/ legislature/ whatever came up with a law that treated gay couples exactly the same as straight ones, but to get it through had to call it 'Civil Union' instead of marriage, what would the reaction be?
FYI- In Coronation St, one of the UKs top soaps (UK soaps are less glam than US ones- tend to be 'kitchen sink dramas'), watched by people of all ages, and set in a working class suburb of Manchester, a character turned out to be TS, though the part was played by a woman, and no one who was particually butch. Her and her boyfriend married in a civil ceremony, and there was no great gnashing of teeth among the viewers. Incidently part of the plot revolved around how a local paper had uncovered the fact a vicar had agreed to do it in church, and after the church stopped her, she did it at the couple's cafe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayley_Cropper
Skip "Storylines". The last two paragraphs are interesting.
Post a Comment