Home / General / Marriage Equality Plank

Marriage Equality Plank

Comments
/
/
/
759 Views

22 Democratic Senators are calling for a marriage equality plank in this year’s Democratic Party platform.

Can you imagine such a thing even 4 years ago? Or 8? 20 years ago, would you get 1? I don’t think so. 22 isn’t a majority and that’s too bad. I’m disappointed in some of the people not on this list. Jack Reed, where are you? Tom Udall? Your brother signed on, where are you? I assume Bernie Sanders is only not there because he’s not technically a Democrat. Still, it’s a good start. Maybe we can include it this year. Certainly in 2016.

Here’s the list of supporters:

Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), John Kerry (D-Mass.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • David Kaib

    I am glad to see thus, but I’m not sure what the consequences will be. I went back and read the 2008 platform, and it bore little resemblance to thewhat happened after the election, both in terms of policy and framing.

    • Desert Rat

      It’s a statement of the stance of party, David. Does it mean that Dems will repeal DOMA if they’ve got the numbers…doubtful, since A) we won’t have the numbers in the Senate and B) 22 Senators isn’t even half of the Dems in the Senate.

      Still, it’s a strong stance. As recently as four years ago, such a stance would have been political poison in a lot of places. It’s a reflection of the sea change going on around us. It absolutely means something, even if it doesn’t lead to a repeal of DOMA, post 2012 (I think DOMA will be killed by the courts, eventually, long before Congress can act).

      • David Kaib

        My point is that everyone pretty much forgets about the platform as soon as the election is over. That said, I don’t discount the symbolism, or the significance of the sea change.

        • Desert Rat

          Always remember the words of FDR “Make me do it.”

          From what I’ve seen of the LGBT community (and to their immense credit…a lot of other liberal constituencies could learn from them in terms of the power of persistence), they won’t let the Democratic officeholders forget their promises.

          • PBF

            Supporting marriage equality does not cost Dems campaign funds, in fact it may open up another avenue. Taking progressive stands on economic issues upsets some of the donor class.

            • Uncle Kvetch

              Supporting marriage equality does not cost Dems campaign funds, in fact it may open up another avenue. Taking progressive stands on economic issues upsets some of the donor class.

              Sadly, this is exactly right. The realization is taking hold among the elites that full equality for LGBT people costs them absolutely nothing, and in many cases can be a positive windfall.

    • joe from Lowell

      I am glad to see thus, but I’m not sure what the consequences will be.

      The fight is the thing, David. At an absolute minimum, the consequence will be another instance of the marriage equality issue being highlighted on a national stage, and a demonstration of its growing acceptance.

      • David Kaib

        Entirely true.

  • Barry Freed

    That’s great news and completely unexpected (at least by me). It’s been amazing to see how far and how fast equal marriage rights has come. One of the few bright spots in American political life these days. (I’m also pleased to see Gillibrand there).

  • Fighting Words

    Does Kirk Cameron know about this? I think America is really eager to know his opinion on this matter?

    All kidding aside, I think this is a step in the right direction. I wish it was done earlier, but I’m glad the Dems are finally coming around to making marriage equality a part of their platform. I am also happy to see both California Senator’s on this list.

  • John

    Mark Udall is Tom Udall’s cousin, not brother.

  • Don K

    Good to see my Sen. Levin on board, too. I suppose I can forgive Stabenow, because she’s up for re-election this year (better to have her back next year than to run the risk of the Reps bringing up same-sex marriage in an election she ought to win).

  • wichelwanker

    why aren’t you disappointed by the absence of sherrod brown? oh wait, he’s got an ad on your site . . .

    • And, I don’t know, because Sherrod Brown signed the thing.

      • Warren Terra

        Yeah, but probably only once.

    • Murc

      Also, as far as I know LGM uses google ads, which is why there’s been a constant parade of Ron Paul ads, gun ads, and union-busting ads.

      • Murc

        Somehow, Scott, I get the feeling that you, bourbon, Ron Paul, and three am are no strangers to one another.

        • Uncle Kvetch

          Somehow, Scott, I get the feeling that you, bourbon, Ron Paul, and three am are no strangers to one another.

          Go on…

          • Scott Lemieux

            Alas, was just up from a civilized dinner party; no bourbon. I can rectify that tonight, of course…

  • Joe Bohemouth

    Wow. Sherrod Brown’s from Ohio *and up for re-election this year.* Brass balls.

    • Redbeard

      Don’t mock it. Democrats need young voters to turn out.

    • UserGoogol

      Well, Sherrod Brown is Sherrod Brown. He’s a pretty solid progressive, so it’s kind of hard for him to tack to the right and come across as particularly convincing.

      Still, even if he can’t tack to the right, that doesn’t mean he has to take a stance on largely symbolic efforts like this. So it certainly requires a certain amount of huevos, and props to him for that.

    • Desert Rat

      Sherrod Brown is one of the good ones. I think he wins elections because he let’s people know where he stands. I only wish a lot more Democratic Senators and Congresscritters were like him.

      • Joseph Slater

        Co-sign.

  • Manju

    It all good, but I can’t help but think our Regime works in the direction opposite to what liberal political philosophers contemplated.

    With marriage inequality, we have a classic case of Tyranny of the Majority. Basically, the people are the problem. Ergo, you can’t put shit like this up for popular referendum. That’s why everyone laughed their ass off at Christie.

    The solution is a wise body able to overcome the whims and prejudices of the peeps: the Senate. If they fail, no worries, we have an even wiser one: SCOTUS. So how’s this working out?

    We don’t even have a majority in the Senate yet, not even among Dems. SCOTUS? They’re more likely to find the Individual Mandate unconstitutional.

    But the people? I haven’t checked the most recent polls, but I’d venture to say; the tail wagging the dog isn’t exactly an implausible scenario here.

    • Warren Terra

      What’s this “we” stuff? Have you forgotten your usual role in the comments of this blog?

      • Maybe he’s converted?

        • DrDick

          Did somebody kidnap the real Manju and replace him with an actual human being?

      • Manju

        Warren,

        Let me put it this way…If, at age 77, Rick Santorum were to inform us that, at age 68, he finally realized that homosexuals “love their grandsons as much as I love mine”…I won’t ask you, when you bring up his bigotry, to “please stop acting as if” he “was frozen in carbonite” in his 30’s.

        Lets say during a filibuster marriage-equality legislation, Senator Santorum tells us gay brains are smaller that straight ones, that the bible mandates gay-segregation, and that straights and gays “differ in appearance, ways, physical power, mental capacity, creativity, and vision.” Let say Santorum doesn’t believe gays should be allowed to vote. Lets say he’s in his 50’s at this point.

        I promise I won’t pinkwash this behavior by telling you; “he exploited and participated in a corrupt and evil social structure in his early rise to power.”

        You shouldn’t either. That’s all I’m telling you. I fail to see the contradiction.

        • Warren Terra

          See, I knew you’d bring Robert Byrd in at some point.

          Maybe you can explain how it’s relevant, though.

          • Honorable..BOB

            The attempt of the left to make it seem that to bring up Robert Byrd is not a credible argument is absurd.

            Of course, it’s credible. So much so that there’s little defense against it. Even as late as 2001 Byrd spoke of “White Niggers” on national television, long, long after the left decided that they would turn a blind eye.

            Yes, Robert Byrd will be brought up again and again and again and again….because he should be brought up and thrown in your miserable faces.

            Not because of what HE did or said, but because of the utter hypocrisy of the American socialist Democrats and their acceptance of Senator Byrd’s attitude and his past they say they so abhor in others.

            • Socraticsilence

              Right so people like Helms, Thurmond and Lott who held Byrd’s long repudiated views proudly until the days they left office and were Republicans in good standing that means nothing right? Because we expect GOP members to be bigots of various flavors its only notable when its a Democrat?

              • Manju

                Right so people like Helms, Thurmond and Lott who held Byrd’s long repudiated views proudly until the days they left office

                Byrd’s Segregationist views were not “long-repudiated”. You’re thinking of his repudiation of the Klan. Even if we were to accept him at his word, and that is a big if, the three men you mention never belonged to Klan. Thurmond actually fought the Klan as a Judge…which is to say you can still be evil and be anti-Klan.

                Because we expect GOP members to be bigots of various flavors its only notable when its a Democrat?

                If you think its notable for a Dem to be a bigot, then allow me to point out that Strom is an outlier (Segregationist Politician who switched) while Byrd is just the tip of the iceberg. Thurmond is the only Senator who voted against any of the major CRA’s (64, 65, 68, 70) to make the switch.

                Helms was an asshole of major proportions, but allow me to inform you of Fritz Hollings and Zell Miller…segregationists who came into prominence after 1964. Lott is more in the vein of Jimmy Carter or Jim Webb (or Chris Dodd, actually)…they all said things that could be interpreted as support for segregation.

                • Honorable..Bob

                  Byrd’s crime of recrluiting for the Klan…of being involved for years and swearing never to fight beside black was certainly much MUCH more than say Trent Lott’s kind remark to a 100 year old man at his last birthday party.

                  And yet, Byrd is the only one that the left has accepted an apology.

                  We know it. YOU know it and the whole freakin’ world knows it even when you ‘straight face’ it.
                  They turned a blind eye to their own while complaining about others of minor infractions.

          • Uncle Kvetch

            This isn’t cute anymore. Manju is beginning to seriously creep me out.

            • DrDick

              Beginning to??!?!

          • DrDick

            This answers my earlier question. It was just a minor aberration when he accidentally wandered into the rational world by mistake.

          • Manju

            Maybe you can explain how it’s relevant, though.

            You asked if I’d forgotten my usual role…which is to correct the liberal whitewashing of civil rights history that occurs regularly on LGM. This interaction between you and I is a case in point.

            You asked; “please stop acting as if Robert Byrd was frozen in carbonite in the 1950s”. Yet, by his own 2005 admission, Byrd was a Segregationist into the 1980’s.

            The only reasonable interpretation of your narrative is that you believe his Klan activity was his only evil of note. As you say, “in the last several decades of his life he must have spent aggregate days or weeks talking to interviewers about this part of his biography, and his regrets”. Therefore we RWingers are hacks to bring this up. He apologized for the Klan repeatedly. Get over it. I get it.

            This conclusion only makes sense if you erase from history these facts. He takes to the Senate stage in 1964 to tell us black brains are smaller than white ones. He votes against the 1970 Voting Rights Act. A year later, Liberals allow him to bypass seniority and he becomes Majority Whip. In 1968 he asks J. Edgar Hoover to make sure MLK meet his Waterloo; Thurgood Marshal too. The FBI makes this public in 1976. A year later, Liberals make this unrepentant segregationist their Senate Majority Leader.

            I assume you were unaware of these facts because the alternative, that you think these facts not worthy of consideration, is unthinkable. As I said, I fail to see the contradiction between doing this to you and supporting marriage equality.

            • Uncle Kvetch

              Dude. Get help. Seriously.

              • Is there some topic Manju can comment on without invoking Byrd? I ask because I don’t read the sports posts, or Campos BMI posts, and I wonder if my image of him posting eighty times “You libs know who else fat-shamed? You know who else was an over-rated quarterback” You know who else liked the designated hitter rule?” is justified.

            • Honorable..Bob

              Manju is correct….say it ain’t so.

              • DrDick

                It ain’t so. Manju and you are always absolutely wrong.

    • Davis X. Machina

      Ergo, you can’t put shit like this up for popular referendum.

      Sure you can. It keeps losing in Maine, no matter what makes it through the legislature. Fourth time’s the charm, though.

      • Honorable..BOB

        The economy is in the toilet and Iran is about to threaten the whole middle east and maybe Europe….and the Democrats want to support homosexual marriage??

        Really??

        • mark f

          Let me know how Iran’s multi-front war against Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and NATO works out for them.

        • Furious Jorge

          Well, you guys want to take away birth control, so I think Democrats are on saner (and safer) ground here.

          • Honorable..BOB

            Well, you guys want to take away birth control,…

            It’s a lie. A cartoon….a caricature constructed for your consumpion by the propagana masters.

            I don’t want to take away anyone’s birth control. I think birth control should be widely, WIDELY, available, maybe even OTC. And it is!

            BC has been around so long that generics can be had for less than $9 month. And if they can’t afford that, most doctors hand out samples. And if that’s not good enough, Medicaid will cover the cost for the poor. And if that isn’t good enough, Planned Parenthood will give them away for FREE.

            So, let’s all understand that there is no shortage of birth control or access to birth control.

            This issue has been turned on it’s head by the propagandists because of the upcoming election and the desperation of the Democratic party to turn the conversation to something….ANYTHING…but the economy.

            Issa’s hearing was legitimately about executive overreach and the issue of first amendment rights of religious organizations. Now, you may not believe that these organization should have special rights, but they do…explicitly. That’s why they are singled out in the first amendment because they DO have special rights….and one of those rights is not to have to pay for birth control. That doesn’t mean they they don’t have access and can’t use BC.

            To now make this about “Well those terrible conservatives are trying to hate on women and take away their birth control…” is simply ludicrous to anyone with two synapsaes to rub together.

            All of this was designed to distract from the economy. Why else would Obama pick this fight now…at this time?

            • DocAmazing

              BC has been around so long that generics can be had for less than $9 month. And if they can’t afford that, most doctors hand out samples. And if that’s not good enough, Medicaid will cover the cost for the poor. And if that isn’t good enough, Planned Parenthood will give them away for FREE.

              Please. I just completed a night shift in the ER caring for children who were unable to get basic medications due to shortages or insurer refusal; their parents were unable to pay out-of-pocket for the necessary drugs (because they cost three times as much in the US as they do in neighboring Canada or Mexico, despite massive subsidies). They end up in the ER, running up a huge tab because drugs are not cheap and not covered and not OTC.

              Do we have to keep hearing your ignorant shot over and over again? Please come and spend a little time in a health care setting and learn something.

              • DrDick

                He is a conservative. Learning is against his most deeply held beliefs.

              • Honorable..Bob

                I just completed a night shift in the ER caring for children who were unable to get basic medications due to shortages or insurer refusal; their parents were unable to pay out-of-pocket for the necessary drugs…

                Gee, that’s great.

                No, really, it is. But you’ve not addressed how cheap and widely available *these* drugs really are.

                The argument about access being limited by not having a religious organization choose to pay for them is an argument for the foolish.

                Anything…ANYTHING…but the economy.

                • DocAmazing

                  Actually, you are once again a fountain of nonsense, Bob. You seem to think that all oral contraceptives are interchangable–they aren’t. Tell you what–go to Kragen Auto and tell them that you need an oil filter, but don’t tell them what type of car you have. Eventually, they’ll toss you out of the place for being an irritant–and that’s what would happen if you went to the pharmacy to ask for generic oral contraceptives. You see, there are these people called “gynecologists” who study the human reproductive system and who make recommendations as to which specific drug is needed based on a host of factors–cost and insurance coverage being but a small part of that.

                  Of course, that’s assuming that the generic drug in question is even still available and hasn’t fallen prey to the Soviet-like shortages that we’re seeing in the past five years. (Google “methotrexate” for a particularly chilling example, Bob.) That is talking about the economy: generic drugs are a low priority for drug manufacturers, because the profit margin is much thinner, so we have recurrent shortages of them and inability to obtain them–and that’s when insurers are not changing their formularies without alerting precribers, which happens several times a year. So you see, Bob, there are a number of moving parts. As a businessman, I’m quite certain you understand that expertise plays a role in getting good outcomes; you might wish to defer to the expertise of gynecologists who have been at the forefront of opposing things like the Blunt Amendment.

                  By the way, insurance companies are not religious organizations. They are hired by religious organizations to cover employees. I have objections to paying for white phosphorus shells–do I get a refund on my 2006 income taxes?

                • Honorable..Bob

                  You seem to think that all oral contraceptives are interchangable–they aren’t.

                  Straw man. I never said that and it doesn’t matter. Planned parenthood will provide FREE birth control and a real doctor will prescribe it, whtever drug is appropriate.

                  Nice try there “Dr. Nick”.

                  In your defense, you admittedly do not deal with this much in the ER, but that shouldn’t stop you from being more honest in your arguments.

                • joe from Lowell

                  Planned parenthood will provide FREE birth control and a real doctor will prescribe it, whtever drug is appropriate.

                  Great. So, those people who happen to have a Planned Parenthood nearby can have access to birth control. As long as they schedule twice as many doctor’s appointments. And maybe get screamed at as they walk up to the front door. Oh, btw, you want to defund Planned Parenthood so that a bunch of those clinics will close down.

                  Are there any more hoops you’d care to compel women to jump through?

                • DrDick

                  Planned parenthood will provide FREE birth control and a real doctor will prescribe it, whtever drug is appropriate.

                  Really? That is funny, since all the women that I have known who got their BC from them (a very large number) had to pay for it.

                • DrDick

                  Also, your statement assumes that all women have access to Planned Parenthood. Here in Montana, there are only 12 clinics statewide and we are the 4th largest state in the US.

                • Oh, btw, you want to defund Planned Parenthood so that a bunch of those clinics will close down.

                  Not to mention Medicaid.

                • DrDick

                  I would also point out that PP provides birth control at “reduced cost” and not for free (there is at least one state program in Minnesota that does so, but this appears to be rare).

                  As to the economy, that is the Republican strategy at the moment, since it was the Republicans that put it in the tank and it is starting to get significantly better now.

                • Honorable..Bob

                  I gave you the link that says FREE birth control from PP.

                  Also, my local county health department give FREE BC.

                  All of your points are lies. There is no diminution of access to BC.

                  None

                • elm

                  I gave you the link that says FREE birth control from PP.

                  On Long Island. Is this true at every Planned Parenthood? Are Planned Parenthoods easily accessible to all women? Is the Right trying to defund Planned Parenthood?

                • Shorter Boob: if all women simply become as obsessed as I am, they are bound to eventually find someone who can help them with medical care. Why men don’t need to jump through hoops like this is a question I lack the self-awareness to ask.

                • Hogan

                  See how cleverly HB is forcing us to talk about the economy? A plan fiendish in its inTRICacy.

            • All of this was designed to distract from the economy. Why else would Obama pick this fight now…at this time?

              And you and your party keep taking the bait. It’s very strange. One might almost think you don’t really want to talk about the economy.

        • Murc

          We can deal with all those things at once.

          We’re also capable of walking AND chewing gum. At the same time!

          Also, I’m not scared of Iran. At all. I say proudly that I don’t think they can harm us in any meaningful way, and if they’re stupid enough to try they’ll very quickly realize it was a dumb move.

          Apparently Republicans are scared of a third-rate nation with a second-rate army. This saddens me. They should have more faith in America and its strength.

          • R Johnston

            Apparently Republicans are scared of a third-rate nation with a second-rate army. This saddens me. They should have more faith in America and its strength.

            Republicans truly do hate the U.S.A., largely for our freedoms.

            Republican projection is an amazing thing.

          • DrDick

            Poor Boob must be changing his undies 5 times a day given all the boogie men under his bed.

            • Warren Terra

              And if those boogie men are gay married, they might be breeding under there.

              • Or having gay abortions. You just can’t tell nowadays.

          • firefall

            Iran could definitely hurt the USA, simply by destroying all its own oil fields – the resulting oil price spike would be catastrophic for pretty much the whole global economy.

            Of course, it wouldn’t do Iran much good either, but if they were 1% as crazy as the Republicans keep claiming, they’d do it like a shot.

            • DrDick

              It would, in fact be far more disastrous for them, as their entire economy is based on oil production. There is absolutely nothing that Iran could do to us that would not have exponentially worse consequences for them. And they know this. They talk big, but they are very careful about what they actually do. Even the US intelligence community does not believe they are building a nuclear weapon.

              • Spud

                So my “Iran is bluffing” theory isn’t so far fetched after all!

          • Honorable..BOB

            Apparently Republicans are scared of a third-rate nation with a second-rate army. This saddens me. They should have more faith in America and its strength.

            Yeah….well THIS should really command respect and put the fear of God in our enemies…..

            This lack of respect is the price you pay for using the military for to achieve your social goals instead of military goals.

            • Rob

              Well it sure as hell scares you.

              • To be fair, two men getting married scares Boob. A nation possibly developing 1940s technology is bound to scare the living fuck out of him.

            • DrDick

              Given that pretty much every other advanced nation allows openly gay soldiers to serve, even Israel, how is this supposed to have any impact on anything?

            • William Burns

              Yes, Truman’s integration of the Armed forces is why America lost the Cold War.

        • Ben

          Oh man why am I looking up planks from the 2008 Republican platform adopted weeks before the global economy crashed I don’t even:

          – Prohibit internet gambling

          – “By whatever legislative method is most feasible, Old Glory should be given legal protection against desecration.”

          – “We support efforts to ensure equitable participation in federal programs by Native Americans, including Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians, and to preserve their culture and languages.” To be clear I think this is pretty awesome.

          – “Forcing religious groups to abandon their beliefs as applied to their hiring practices is religious discrimination.” I included this because I have no idea what it means or what it is trying to prevent. And the sentence after it is this: “We support the First Amendment right of freedom of association of the Boy Scouts of America and other service organizations whose values are under assault”

          – And the best for last. “Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it.” WOOHOO NO CIVIL UNION FOR YOU FA- “We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California.” HEY LET ME GET MY DEROG- “We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage.” . . . FINIS- “As the family is our basic unit of society, we oppose initiatives to erode parental rights.”

          This has been “Really?!?” with Bob and Ben.

          • Rob

            The Boy Scouts wants to ban gay scout leaders. And the Catholic Church is terrified of a sex discrimination law suit. But maybe they should hurry up and invite them so they can don’t have to declare bankruptcy a second time to avoid having to pay out.

        • Spud

          The economy is in the toilet and Iran is about to threaten the whole middle east and maybe Europe….and the Democrats want to support homosexual marriage??

          Think of it as a response to the GOP’s war on vaginas.

          It would be nice if both parties focused on international events and the economy.

          It would also be nice if you were honest enough to admit conservatives were the ones to start this whole social issue ball rolling.

          • Incontinentia Buttocks

            Don’t you understand that if Congress and the President allow ladies the unfettered right to control their ladyparts, the Iranian mullahs win?

          • Honorable..BOB

            Think of it as a response to the GOP’s war on vaginas.

            There *IS* no war on vaginas.

            I like vaginas. I just don’t want my sister to marry one.

            • Spud

              I like vaginas. I just don’t want my sister to marry one.

              And what would you do if she did? Disown her? Refuse to talk to her next Thanksgiving?

              Sure lesbians get the short end of the stick when it comes to average income (thanks to continuing gender discrimination with wages gay male couples generally out-earn hetero ones. Heteros out-earn lesbians)

              But then you also have a couple where both members can give birth (thanks to a little trip to the turkey baster)

              • MAJeff

                (thanks to continuing gender discrimination with wages gay male couples generally out-earn hetero ones. Heteros out-earn lesbians)

                The interesting thing about that, though, is that gay male individuals tend to suffer a wage penalty. It’s just that even with two lower male incomes, they’ll still out earn women.

                Lesbians tend to outearn heterosexual women, but a large part of that has to do with the fact that lesbians take less time out of the workforce on the “mommy track.” Not having that male income in the house necessitates more work, which leads to slightly higher average incomes than their heterosexual sisters, although, as you noted, household incomes for lesbian couples tend to be lower than their heterosexual counterparts.

                • Spud

                  Lesbians tend to outearn heterosexual women, but a large part of that has to do with the fact that lesbians take less time out of the workforce on the “mommy track.”

                  Then there is also the significant number of gays who are “late bloomers”. Those who come out after hetero marriage and siring kids. [You see this more with Baby Boomers than Gen’s X & Y]

            • DrDick

              Your problem is that vaginas hate you and none of them will ever marry a misogynistic fascist such as yourself.

            • Furious Jorge

              I like vaginas. I just don’t want my sister to marry one.

              Why should what you want have any bearing AT ALL in who your sister marries?

        • Holden Pattern

          The economy is in the toilet and Iran is about to threaten the whole middle east and maybe Europe….and the Democrats want to support homosexual marriage Republicans are such bigoted assholes that they want to spend their energy keeping people from getting married??

          FTFY. Takes two to make a fight, and since the Republicans are the homo-obsessed bigots who can’t seem to quit fag-bashing as political strategy, it’s on you. All you have to do is just get over hating on the fags, admit that it doesn’t pick your pocket or break your leg if they get married, and presto — no issue any more, no need to waste any resources at all beyond just letting the bipartisan “Freedom to Marry” act sail right on through.

          • DrDick

            Indeed. It is in fact the Republicans who have been devoting all their time and attention to gay marrying and aborting and the proper care and maintenance of (other people’s) lady parts. The Dems are just reacting and responding to this tsunami of ignorant bigotry.

        • MAJeff

          How is supporting marriage equality incompatible with attempting to tackle other problems? Adding a plank to the platform hardly means it’s going to be the primary issue around which the Democrats campaign this fall…although I wouldn’t put it past the Republicans to use anti-gay bigotry in an attempt to turn out votes yet again.

          Do try harder not to be a fuckwitted bigot.

          • DrDick

            That presumes he is not, in fact, actively working at being a fuckwitted bigot, contrary to all available evidence.

            • MAJeff

              Point taken.

            • Furious Jorge

              I think it all comes very naturally to him.

              • DrDick

                I think it is a little bit of both actually.

        • Socraticsilence

          How are these things related? Hell, the economy being in a slow recovery seemed to spur the GOP to renew its War on Women.

    • joe from Lowell

      The solution is a wise body able to overcome the whims and prejudices of the peeps

      No, Manju, the solution is to win.

      And we’re going to win. Every skirmish, even the lost ones, brings us closer.

  • Warren Terra

    There are some people whose absence is a bit surprising: Washington’s junior senator Maria Cantwell, for example.

    • MAJeff

      I was thinking that about Amy Klobuchar. Not surprised to see my current (soon to be ex) Senator Kent Conrad missing, though.

    • DrDick

      I’m going to contact my Senators and urge them to sign on, but I doubt much will happen. Dubious that Bauchus would ever do it. Tester might, but he is up for re-election this year and that could hurt him with Montana’s somewhat unenlightened electorate.

  • “unrestrained” don’t you mean?

    And all of them need to be restrained.

    And retrained.

    Love your blog!

    S

  • Joe Bohemouth

    It all good, but I can’t help but think our Regime works in the direction opposite to what liberal political philosophers contemplated.

    Not really. The Senate is meant to protect minorities in the sense secondarily of small states, primarily of rich people. It works exactly as designed. As for the courts? Eh.

    I think in general the poli sci literature tends to show that legislative supremacy tends to produce the most progressive outcomes, in both distributive and social-liberal terms. But that’s given a fairly representative voting system (not malapportioned like the Senate or gerrymandered like the House or state legs) and decently high voter turnout. [Source: garbled-ass recollection of grad school electives]

  • FFS, Herb Kohl couldn’t be arsed to join? Dude, can you dial back the self-loathing a bit?

    I mean, you’re on the way out, who the fuck cares about your closet at this point?

  • Anniecat

    By contrast, according to the SF Chronicle, Rick Santorum not only wants to prohibit same sex marriage in all states, he wants to invalidate all the same sex marriages performed in all states where it’s now legal, or performed, as in California, during any time when it was legal.

    • Honorable..Bob

      Here’s a newsflash for ya’, honey…

      The Republican party is a wide umbrella and they don’t all agree on a LOT of things.

      I, for one, don’t see why the federal government should be involved in this at all. Each state is sovereign and should be able to set their own rules.

      Not everything is a federal issue.

      • Each state is sovereign and should be able to set their own rules.

        Dumb Boob, consistently wrong since 1865.

      • DocAmazing

        Please Google “Full Faith and Credit”, Bob.

      • joe from Lowell

        The Republican party is a wide umbrella and they don’t all agree on a LOT of things.

        I don’t think that’s true; certainly, marriage equality is not a very good example of this allegedly diversity of viewpoints.

        Not everything is a federal issue.

        The stance of the federal government itself – income tax filing status, spousal benefits for federal employees – is a federal issue.

        • MAJeff

          Let’s not forget immigration issues and the ways that DOMA is being used to break up bi-national same-sex couples through deportation.

  • Mike Schilling

    The amazing thing is that same-sex marriage is now such a centrist position that Dianne Feinstein favors it.

    • John

      Feinstein’s always been pretty liberal on social issues, I thought. She was mayor of San Francisco, after all. She sucks on foreign policy and economic stuff.

      • DocAmazing

        She was mayor of San Francisco and turned the cops loose to bust heads. Don’t ever mistake her for a liberal.

        That said, she’s always been gay-friendly, and her staff has always been fairly diverse in all areas but economic class.

        • Spud

          Same could be said of Mike Bloomberg. Economic conservative, social liberal.

          The guy was certainly Occupy Wall Street’s biggest detractor and has on more than one occasion let it be known that the outer boroughs don’t matter.

          That being said, he has always been consistently gay-friendly. Even to the point of denouncing the Boy Scouts of America about their stance on gays. [Bloomberg is president of the National Eagle Scout Association]

          • Scott Lemieux

            Andrew Cuomo. How nice that the Empire State has its own Diane Fienstein, although I don’t know about his foreign policy views.

            • Spud

              Of course Cuomo. He signed the bill making it legal in NY. That is about as far as anyone can expect a politician to go on that subject.

              Thanks to it, NYC is expected to see about half a billion dollars in increased business due to boost in tourism and marriage industries.

        • Hob

          Has she really “always been gay-friendly”? This was before my time but from what I’ve read, her record on this as mayor was not too impressive and consisted mostly of being willing to make campaign appearances to LGBT groups. She vetoed SF’s first domestic partnership legislation, and only came around to supporting same-sex marriage within the last ten years. I do admire her stand on it now although I hate nearly everything else she does.

          • DocAmazing

            “Gay-friendly” within the acceptable parameters of the Democratic Party.

    • DrDick

      It really is amazing how far and how fast these things have changed.

      • joe from Lowell

        Remember what Howard Dean was an envelope-pushing hero for gay equality because he supported civil unions and opposed equal marriage?

        That was, what, five years ago? Seven?

        • Hob

          Especially after so many false starts and backlashes. I remember hearing about the Hawaii Supreme Court decision 15 years ago and feeling like the future was around the corner, and then getting really cynical and pessimistic when that didn’t work out.

          • joe from Lowell

            In hindsight, those backlashes and false starts were just little wobbles in a steadily-rising trend line.

            But it can be tough to see that in real time.

            • Hob

              Oh, sure. I’m not saying I was particularly wise about these things then, or that I am now either; I’ve always been pretty terrible at predictions.

          • DrDick

            I am old enough to remember Stonewall and to see us go from that to eight states with legalized same sex marriage in my adult lifetime (Ok, I was only 17 in 1969, but still), is astounding.

            • joe from Lowell

              But if you looked at the period from Stonewall to the day the Vermont case was filed, you might think that gay rights were making only the slowest, most incremental progress.

              The thing about slow, steady progress is that it causes these explosive leaps to occur, which were completely unforeseen until they happened, like a hockey stick graph.

              • MAJeff

                Indeed. It took 7 years between the first state adopting non-discrimination legislation (Wisconsin in 1982) and the second (MA in 1989). Minnesota was the first to include gender identity (1993) in its statute.

                A minority of states have such laws.

                • DrDick

                  It is definitely piecemeal, but it has moved much faster than I would ever have guessed.

                • MAJeff

                  Considering that during the Reagan administration, the general national response to HIV/AIDS was, “let the faggots die,” yeah, the notion that majorities are now celebrating same-sex marriages…yeah. It’s still a bit strange, as someone who came of age during the Reagan years, to be in a nation that, overall, isn’t making fun of our deaths anymore anymore but is valuing our relationships.

                • DrDick

                  While I am not gay, imagine what it is like for someone who grew up when nobody was out, ever.

                • MAJeff

                  While I am not gay, imagine what it is like for someone who grew up when nobody was out, ever.

                  That’s what it was like for me. In college, I was the first undergraduate resident assistant in the history of my college to come out of the closet while living in the residence halls.

                  it wasn’t easy. I know, because some students told me, that I was something of a role model. I also had students on my floor tell my supervisor that I deserved to die.

                  Sometimes I forget these things…maybe on purpose.

                  I’m working on a public lecture for our campus on the repression of LGBTQ people and contemporary political issues. It’s bringing up instances like when I was at a queer activists’ conference in the mid-90s and the hotel staff decided to don latex gloves to serve us our dinner…and only us. Or being harassed and threatened with violence while out for drinks with friends. Or feeling threatened and scheduling my showers so that I was the only one in the bathroom while an RA…

                  …plus ça change…

                • Honorable..Bob

                  While I am not gay…

                  Nobody believes that…

                • Boob knows. It is important to him to pick out who is and is not. This says nothing at all about him. Stop snickering.

              • Uncle Kvetch

                But if you looked at the period from Stonewall to the day the Vermont case was filed, you might think that gay rights were making only the slowest, most incremental progress.

                Ain’t that the truth. I was 22 and recently out when Bowers v. Hardwick came down. Between that and the AIDS conflagration (this was before even AZT…HIV was quite literally a death sentence), it felt like everything was going backwards at top speed.

            • DrDick

              Boob, keep your sick and twisted sexual fantasies to yourself. Neither I nor anyone else here would come within 50 feet of you, even in a full hazmat suit.

  • MAJeff

    On a related note, Dustin Lance Black’s new play, “8,” premiered last night. The script of the play is taken directly from the transcripts of the Prop 8 trial. Kind of an amazing cast including Brad Pitt, Jane Lynch, George Clooney, Martin Sheen, Kevin Bacon, John C. Reilly, Jamie Lee Curtis, George Takei, and some other folks whose names I’m forgetting.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlUG8F9uVgM&list=UU2sJZ3e3DYvAwCCsrr34S7w&feature=plcp

  • That DiFi signed on tells you how radical this isn’t.

  • Barry Brenesal

    A plank is just a piece of wood that an elected official likes to use to slap their former supporters into line. (“Don’t gripe about what I haven’t done! Look at what I promised to support! And anyway, you losers, would you rather have had XYZ in office who never supported that plank?”)

It is main inner container footer text