Gay marriage on the move in the U.S. Senate

[SystemError]

Two bits of otherwise-unrelated news on the gay marriage front, except that they both involve United States Senators and so could probably be grouped together in a single thread.

First: Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) has openly endorsed same-sex marriage. She posted this on her Tumblr yesterday:

http://clairecmc.tumblr.com/post/462098 ... ee-but-the#_=_

The question of marriage equality is a great American debate. Many people, some with strong religious faith, believe that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. Other people, many of whom also have strong religious faith, believe that our country should not limit the commitment of marriage to some, but rather all Americans, gay and straight should be allowed to fully participate in the most basic of family values.

I have come to the conclusion that our government should not limit the right to marry based on who you love. While churches should never be required to conduct marriages outside of their religious beliefs, neither should the government tell people who they have a right to marry.

My views on this subject have changed over time, but as many of my gay and lesbian friends, colleagues and staff embrace long term committed relationships, I find myself unable to look them in the eye without honestly confronting this uncomfortable inequality. Supporting marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples is simply the right thing to do for our country, a country founded on the principals of liberty and equality.

Good people disagree with me. On the other hand, my children have a hard time understanding why this is even controversial. I think history will agree with my children.

On the one hand, this is more obviously a politically-motivated endorsement than that of Huntsman or Obama or Portman, in the sense she delayed it until after her election despite quite obviously not having had a change of heart since then on the subject. On the other, I don't particularly give a damn and I'm glad she now supports it. If a purely political animal like McCaskill can get behind it, that means a deluge is coming. I think it's actually more meaningful than a 'conversion' for personal reasons (Portman) or after authentic genuflection (Huntsman). It means she thinks there's political space for her to openly endorse it without backlash.

Also of note: 41/53 Democrats in the Senate - and one Republican - now support gay marriage. The bulk that haven't made the announcement are from swing/Republican states, although there are some odd hold-outs (Tom Carper for one).

The other bit of news: Rand Paul has softened his stance to being alright with a "neutral" gay marriage policy in the United States.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/2 ... 44056.html

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) suggested Sunday he wouldn't mind if the Supreme Court struck down "the federalization part" of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) when it takes up the issue this week, since he believes the issue should be left up to the states.

"I've always said that the states have the right to decide," Paul, who opposes gay marriage, said on "Fox News Sunday."

"I do believe in traditional marriage, Kentucky has decided it, and I don't think the federal government should tell us otherwise," Paul said. "I don't want the government promoting something I don't believe in, but I also don't mind if the government tries to be neutral on the issue."

I love how hard he has to reach to remain "LOL I'M A LIBERTARIAN" and a socially conservative Republican. "I do believe in traditional marriage! No, really, I do!"

[Simon_Jester]

It's kind of sad that he does have to, but this is a totally self-consistent position for him to adopt. "Libertarian" doesn't mean "I think everything should be legal." If Rand Paul genuinely thinks that some kind of serious harm will result from gay marriage, I'm pretty sure he's wrong, but it's not inconsistent with him being a libertarian to say so, and vote so at the state level.

So the humor lies in how twisted up the Republican positions are on this issue, and on how the libertarian movement in the US risks compromising itself by allying with corporatists and social conservatives.

[SystemError]

The existence of the domino effect confirmed.

Mark Warner:

Mark Warner · 20,143 like this
9 hours ago ·
I support marriage equality because it is the fair and right thing to do. Like many Virginians and Americans, my views on gay marriage have evolved, and this is the inevitable extension of my efforts to promote equality and opportunity for everyone. I was proud to be the first Virginia governor to extend anti-discrimination protections to LGBT state workers. In 2010, I supported an end to the military’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, and earlier this month I signed an amicus brief urging the repeal of DOMA. I believe we should continue working to expand equal rights and opportunities for all Americans.

And Mark Begich:

WASHINGTON — After remaining mum on the subject when asked about it last week, Sen. Mark Begich's office issued a statement Monday night from the senator supporting marriage equality.

"I believe that same sex couples should be able to marry and should have the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as any other married couple," the Alaskan senator said in what appears to be his first direct statement on the subject.

"Government should keep out of individuals' personal lives—if someone wants to marry someone they love, they should be able to. Alaskans are fed up with government intrusion into our private lives, our daily business, and in the way we manage our resources and economy," he continued.

It's like watching a freight train barreling headlong into the future.


44 U.S. Senators now back same-sex marriage. We're getting closer to a majority. Moreover, a plurality now actively supports it, as opposed to a minority that actively opposes it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_su ... ._Senators

[Irbis]

And on the flip side, something from supposedly European country demonstrating even US right wing can appear sane from time to time:

Lech Walesa – 'Gays should be made to sit at the back in parliament'

In an astonishing outburst against homosexuals, former Solidarity leader Lech Walesa has said that gay MPs should sit at the back of the parliament chamber, or even “behind a wall”.

“Homosexuals should sit on the last bench in the plenary hall, or even behind the wall, and not somewhere at the front,” Walesa, who was president of Poland from 1990 to 1995, told the TVN24 broadcaster on Friday evening.

Walesa was giving his views on recent debates in parliament about legalising civil partnerships for hetro and homosexuals in Poland and other social issues, when he said: “a minority cannot impose itself on the majority”.

“They must know they are a minority and adapt themselves to smaller things,” the 1983 Nobel Peace Prize winner and staunch Roman Catholic said, adding that he would not have voted for Anna Grodzka, Europe's only transsexual MP, when she was nominated by her party, the Palikot Movement, to become deputy speaker of parliament in January.

Robert Biedron, who became Poland's first ever openly gay MP in the 2011 general election, responded to the outburst by saying, “I would be happy to meet with Lech Walesa”.

“I love Lech Walesa - because if it was not for him I would not be here sitting with you,” Biedron, also an MP for the liberal-left Palikot Movement, told a TVN journalist, referring to Walesa's role in toppling communism.

“But his son [Jaroslaw Walesa, who is a member of the European Parliament] should sit him down and explain a few things: civil partnerships, IVF,” Biedron added.

The ruling centre-right Civic Platform party – who Lech Walesa has given qualified support to in the past - has yet to come to a unified stance on civil partnerships and state funding for the IVF treatment.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk has said that the party will meet on Monday to decide the fate of leading Civic Platform conservative, Justice Minister Jaroslaw Gowin, within the government, after he led campaigns to block votes in parliament legalising civil partnerships. (pg)

So, yeah, giving uneducated idiots Nobel Peace Prize just because they happened to be anti-communist and popular in USA wasn't such hot move after all

[SystemError]

Welp.

Jon Tester, on Facebook:

“Montanans believe in the right to make a good life for their families. How they define a family should be their business and their business alone. I’m proud to support marriage equality because no one should be able to tell a Montanan or any American who they can love and who they can marry.” -JT

And Jay Rockefeller:

West Virginia US Senator Jay Rockefeller says he now opposes a federal law banning same-sex marriage.

However, his fellow Democrat, Senator Joe Manchin, still supports the Defense of Marriage Act.

...

Senator Rockefeller said churches and ministers should never have to perform marriages that violate their beliefs, but the federal government shouldn’t discriminate against same-sex couples.

[SystemError]

Kay Hagan of North Carolina just came out in support of same-sex marriage this morning.

First it was Claire McCaskill two days ago, then Marks Begich and Warner and Jay Rockefeller yesterday, and now Hagan today. This really feels like a conscious attempt to create a political narrative.

https://www.facebook.com/SenatorHagan/p ... 6574494190

Marriage equality is a complex issue with strong feelings on both sides, and I have a great deal of respect for varying opinions on the issue. After much thought and prayer, I have come to my own personal conclusion that we shouldn’t tell people who they can love or who they can marry.

This wasn’t a decision I came to overnight, like my Republican colleague Rob Portman expressed recently on his own viewpoint. Last year, I opposed Amendment One because I was concerned about the negative consequences it could have on North Carolina families and our economy. The fabric of North Carolina and what makes our state so special is our families and our common desire for a brighter future for our children. No matter what your family looks like, we all want the same thing for our families – happiness, health, prosperity, a bright future for our children and grandchildren.

Religious institutions should have religious freedom on this issue. No church or minister should ever have to conduct a marriage that is inconsistent with their religious beliefs. But I think as a civil institution, this issue’s time has come and we need to move forward. Jobs and the economy are the number one issue for me and for North Carolinians right now, and I’m not going to take my eye off that ball at a time when so many are still struggling.

[SystemError]

Senator Lisa Murkowski's views may be evolving, but her politics are still purely creationist.

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said Wednesday that her views on gay marriage are "evolving," but stopped short of endorsing it.

"The term 'evolving view' has been perhaps overused, but I think it is an appropriate term for me to use," she said, following an address at the Chugiak-Eagle River Chamber of Commerce, according to the Chugiak-Eagle River Star.

Murkowski elaborated on her stance to Alaska Public Radio. "I think you are seeing a change in attitude, change in tolerance, I guess, and an acceptance that what marriage should truly be about is a lasting, loving, committed relationship with respect to the individual," she said. Her comments came on the same day as the Supreme Court heard arguments challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

It's incredible how quickly it is becoming politically damaging for any politician with even a remotely moderate constituency to oppose gay marriage, especially given how recently the opposite was true. Did majority views on civil rights flip this quickly in the 60's, or is this unprecedented?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

It's incredible how quickly it is becoming politically damaging for any politician with even a remotely moderate constituency to oppose gay marriage, especially given how recently the opposite was true. Did majority views on civil rights flip this quickly in the 60's, or is this unprecedented?

I don't know if there was adequate public opinion polling data back in the 60's to answer this question (though I could be mistaken). We also have the advantage of the internet, which I think accelerates the process of acceptance through such frequent and immediate exchange of ideas. But if I recall correctly, the public was generally quite opposed to inter-racial marriages around the time Loving v. Virginia was decided.

[Lord Revan]

It's incredible how quickly it is becoming politically damaging for any politician with even a remotely moderate constituency to oppose gay marriage, especially given how recently the opposite was true. Did majority views on civil rights flip this quickly in the 60's, or is this unprecedented?

I don't know if there was adequate public opinion polling data back in the 60's to answer this question (though I could be mistaken). We also have the advantage of the internet, which I think accelerates the process of acceptance through such frequent and immediate exchange of ideas. But if I recall correctly, the public was generally quite opposed to inter-racial marriages around the time Loving v. Virginia was decided.

You got a good point about the internet, I mean how many of the straight member of SDN have interacted with people they've known to be homosexual in their lives out outside of the board.

It's alot easier to maintain negative stereotypes about some group of people if you don't interact with them often.

[SystemError]

It's incredible how quickly it is becoming politically damaging for any politician with even a remotely moderate constituency to oppose gay marriage, especially given how recently the opposite was true. Did majority views on civil rights flip this quickly in the 60's, or is this unprecedented?

I don't know if there was adequate public opinion polling data back in the 60's to answer this question (though I could be mistaken). We also have the advantage of the internet, which I think accelerates the process of acceptance through such frequent and immediate exchange of ideas. But if I recall correctly, the public was generally quite opposed to inter-racial marriages around the time Loving v. Virginia was decided.

Nate Silver suggests that support for same sex marriage is 51%; for comparison support for interracial marriage didn’t reach that level with Gallup until between 1994 and 1997, jumping from 48% to 64% in those years. This was some 30 years after Loving v Virginia. That's actually a terrible indictment on the American people.

Do you approve or disapprove of marriage between blacks and whites?

Approve
Disapprove
No opinion
%
%
%

1997 Jan 4-Feb 28
64
27
9
1994 Sep 18-20
48
37
15
1991 Jun 13-16
48
42
10
1983 Apr 29-May 2
43
50
7
1978 Jul 21-24 ^
36
54
10
1972 Oct 13-16 ^
29
60
11
1968 Jun 26-Jul 1 ^
20
73
8
1958 Sep 24-29 †
4
94
3

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I don't know if there was adequate public opinion polling data back in the 60's to answer this question (though I could be mistaken). We also have the advantage of the internet, which I think accelerates the process of acceptance through such frequent and immediate exchange of ideas. But if I recall correctly, the public was generally quite opposed to inter-racial marriages around the time Loving v. Virginia was decided.

You got a good point about the internet, I mean how many of the straight member of SDN have interacted with people they've known to be homosexual in their lives out outside of the board.

It's alot easier to maintain negative stereotypes about some group of people if you don't interact with them often.

That's the wonderful thing about the recent "coming out" campaign. Most of America used to have the luxury of thinking of gay people as distant, leather-clad hedonists in the hearts of big cities, an "over there" menace similar to Middle Eastern terrorists. Now those images have to compete with pleasant co-workers, nephews, and respected celebrities like Anderson Cooper. I can't remember who made the comment, but it was pointed out at the time Prop 8 was originally being debated that its backers inadvertently shot themselves in the foot by drawing attention to the marriages being conducted in SF. Instead of seeing threatening predators, people were treated to images of graying, modestly-dressed men and women declaring their deep and monogamous love. The acceptance movement didn't have much momentum then, so Prop 8 still passed, but the images started working their way into the collective consciousness.

As the snowball continues to roll, more and more straight supporters of equal rights are gaining the confidence to voice their opinions without fearing that their own sexuality will be suspect. Opponents are starting to fear being perceived as retrograde bigots or backwoods idiots on the wrong side of history, and I hear fewer and fewer talking heads and politicians willing to come right out and say they oppose gay marriage because homosexuality is wrong/unnatural/immoral. I don't see this tend losing momentum before we have full marriage equality in most or perhaps even all states, even if there remains a large minority of the population that is vehemently opposed to progress on the issue for decades to come.

[General Mung Beans]

So, yeah, giving uneducated idiots Nobel Peace Prize just because they happened to be anti-communist and popular in USA wasn't such hot move after all

He was much more than "anti-communist", actively leading a large-scale labour movement in opposition to the communist regime in Poland. And considering it was awarded in 1983, I'm not sure how the awardees were supposed to forsee that Walesa would make homophobic comments a generation later.

[Ralin]

He was much more than "anti-communist", actively leading a large-scale labour movement in opposition to the communist regime in Poland. And considering it was awarded in 1983, I'm not sure how the awardees were supposed to forsee that Walesa would make homophobic comments a generation later.

Or more to the point, that anyone would care.

[D.Turtle]

I think this hits the point perfectly:


Still a good thing when politicians do the right thing.

[Irbis]

He was much more than "anti-communist", actively leading a large-scale labour movement in opposition to the communist regime in Poland. And considering it was awarded in 1983, I'm not sure how the awardees were supposed to forsee that Walesa would make homophobic comments a generation later.

You want large-scale labour movement that should have gotten this award instead? Try this one. Not only it was first, it had among them some of the most decent people to ever grace Polish politics. Let's see, this man was one of the KOR founders and one of few politics ashamed how inept post-communist reforms worsened quality of life in Poland, and tried his best to fight the inequalities - to the point various forms of social help today are unofically synonymous with his name. If there was anyone deserving of Nobel Peace Prize, it was him. I can easily name at least dozen far more decent and better opposition leaders than Walesa, who was largely a figurehead.

Compared to them, Solidarnosc proposed Moon economics as insane as these in North Korea, almost destroyed economy with strikes that only hurt the common people, not the regime, and overall collapsed like house of cards the first moment the government declared any serious action against it. There is reason why everyone now pretends their 21 Demands didn't existed, or at least doesn't mention them in full except for a handful of sane ones - they are that stupid to new generation.

As for you two claiming no one would know his beliefs, please. Walesa was barely educated villager from very catholic region, he was held in contempt by his backwards views by many in Poland even in 1970s. Anyone bothering to do a minimum of research on him could guess his stances on mostly anything by just looking what Church preached a few centuries ago.

[Simon_Jester]

So, yeah, giving uneducated idiots Nobel Peace Prize just because they happened to be anti-communist and popular in USA wasn't such hot move after all

He was much more than "anti-communist", actively leading a large-scale labour movement in opposition to the communist regime in Poland. And considering it was awarded in 1983, I'm not sure how the awardees were supposed to forsee that Walesa would make homophobic comments a generation later.

Him being a homophobe has nothing to do with whether he made a major contribution to world peace.

Irbis's argument that Walesa should not have gotten the Prize because someone else deserved it more, on the other hand, sounds interesting. And I would be happy to see some people who know more Polish history comment on it. I'd like to learn more.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The only two of the 21 demands I disagree with really is No.14, the reduction of the retirement age, and 11. for eliminating the premium shops. Thirteen is kind of a meh to me personally but I can understand why it's important to people who have meat as a larger part of their diet. The rest were eminently sensible demands, whatever actually came of them later.

[SystemError]

Hey, maybe this guy can help his Party move forward.

An up-and-coming Republican Senator said Sunday it was “inevitable” that the GOP would field a presidential candidate who supports same-sex marriage.

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” was asked by guest host Chuck Todd whether he could “support a Republican presidential candidate someday who supported same-sex marriage.”

"I think that's inevitable,” Flake said. “There will be one, and I think he'll receive Republican support, or she will, so I think that the answer is yes.”

But when pressed a moment later on whether he could see shifting his own position on same-sex marriage, Flake maintained that he is a traditionalist.

"I still hold to the traditional definition of marriage," Flake said, adding that his views, unlike those of many of his colleagues, were not “evolving.”

In recent days and weeks, several U.S. senators from both major political parties have said their views on the controversial topic had shifted or were changing.

Of course, he's still hedging his bets. But at least it's an improvement.

[FaxModem1]

The Advocate

WATCH: Ariz. Rep. Says Gay Son Doesn't Change His Opposition to Marriage Equality
Rep. Matt Salmon, a Mormon Republican from Arizona, isn't ready to evolve on the issue, despite having a gay son.
BY Sunnivie Brydum
April 01 2013 2:48 PM ET

Despite having an openly gay son, U.S. representative Matt Salmon, an Arizona Republican, still does not support marriage equality.

"I don't support the gay marriage," Salmon, a Mormon representing Arizona's Fifth Congressional District, told Phoenix's 3TV News. "My son is by far one of the most important people in my life. I love him more than I can say. … I'm just not there, as far as believing in my heart that we should change 2,000 years of social policy in favor of a redefinition of the family."

Salmon mentioned Ohio senator Rob Portman's recent change of heart on marriage equality, prompted by his own son coming out as gay. "It doesn't mean that I don't have respect; it doesn't mean that I don't sympathize with some of the issues," Salmon told 3TV. "It just means that I haven't evolved to that station. Rob Portman apparently has."

But Zack Ford at ThinkProgress LGBT posits that perhaps Salmon's family isn't as accepting as they'd like us to believe. Salmon voted in favor banning same-sex marriage and adoption by gays, reports Ford. What's more, Salmon's son told the Phoenix New Times in 2010 that his family refuses to let him bring his partner of 10 years around the house, and that his siblings unfriended him on Facebook over his support for LGBT equality. Watch the interview below.

Seems this one is digging his heels.

[gigabytelord]

I'm just not there, as far as believing in my heart that we should change 2,000 years of social policy in favor of a redefinition of the family.

2,000 years of which social policy? "traditional" marriage, as in between one man and one woman didn't become the norm until the last several centuries and even then it was most often used as a public bargaining chip for great royal houses.

During the middle ages your average married couple didn't go to a church and have some priest say a damn vow or some shit, they just started living with each other and after a certain amount of time they would be considered to be married. I wonder if this guy has ever heard of common law marriage or Sui juris?

And what about polygamy? That's been practiced by at least a half a dozen major and minor religions that I can name right off the top of my over the last 2,000 years.

When idiots open their months history cries.

[SystemError]

Catholic, pro-life Senator Bob Casey (D-Pennsylvania) has "evolved":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/0 ... lp00000003

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) announced his support for gay marriage Monday, at last joining the growing number of Democrats to embrace marriage equality over the last week.

"After much deliberation and after reviewing the legal, public policy and civil-rights questions presented, I support marriage equality for same-sex couples and believe that DOMA should be repealed," Casey said in an exclusive statement to the Philadelphia Gay News.

[Crossroads Inc.]

The comments by Matt Salmon make me wonder just how we he and his son get along.

[The Xeelee]

Soon I will be able to get married because I am a person, not because I am straight!

The tide is turning, unfortunately a small amount of bigots could still ruin it for everyone.

[xt828]

I love him more than I can say. … I'm just not there, as far as believing in my heart that we should change 2,000 years of social policy in favor of a redefinition of the family."

That's the Mormon representative there.