Pennsylvania: Democratic Primary + Marriage Ban = Litmus Test
---
Given that there is nothing on the nominating agenda for the next month except Pennsylvania, and given that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton profess, loudly and frequently, to be committed to equal rights for gays, one wonders who lead the other in racing to denounce that state's proposed bigot amendment:
--This is not merely a marriage ban, but rather a cruel, spiteful "no nothing never" amendment that also forbids "the functional equivalent" of marriage (i.e., civil unions and likely even domestic partnerships). When they say "it's only about defending marriage," they lie.
--On the one hand, it's almost refreshing to see a bigot amendment not timed to take place during a presidential election year (cf., Florida); the Pennsylvania popular vote on the amendment would occur in 2009. On the other hand, the ban can still be used as a wedge issue in this election, as candidates for the state legislature can run on a platform of "I promise to vote for/against this amendment..."
But most important of all: Will Clinton and Obama, during this lengthy period of "all Pennsylvania all the time," take a public position against the measure? Will gay Democrats, in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, demand that the two candidates take such a public stance? Or will they do what gay Democrats almost always do: let themselves (and their votes) be taken for granted, only to subsequently be thrown under the bus?
How many times will gay Democrats allow themselves to be betrayed by a Clinton? When will gay Democrats remind Obama that "Yes they can!"?
"Keystone State" indeed.
(Via Good As You.)
A sharply divided Senate Judiciary Committee voted yesterday in favor of amending the state constitution to ban gay and lesbian marriage in Pennsylvania.Some hasty stitches:
...
The gay marriage ban has a long way to go. The bill must be approved not only by the current General Assembly, but also by the 2009-10 Legislature, whose members will be elected in November. If both sessions of the Legislature approve it, the amendment would go to a statewide referendum in November 2009.
--This is not merely a marriage ban, but rather a cruel, spiteful "no nothing never" amendment that also forbids "the functional equivalent" of marriage (i.e., civil unions and likely even domestic partnerships). When they say "it's only about defending marriage," they lie.
--On the one hand, it's almost refreshing to see a bigot amendment not timed to take place during a presidential election year (cf., Florida); the Pennsylvania popular vote on the amendment would occur in 2009. On the other hand, the ban can still be used as a wedge issue in this election, as candidates for the state legislature can run on a platform of "I promise to vote for/against this amendment..."
But most important of all: Will Clinton and Obama, during this lengthy period of "all Pennsylvania all the time," take a public position against the measure? Will gay Democrats, in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, demand that the two candidates take such a public stance? Or will they do what gay Democrats almost always do: let themselves (and their votes) be taken for granted, only to subsequently be thrown under the bus?
How many times will gay Democrats allow themselves to be betrayed by a Clinton? When will gay Democrats remind Obama that "Yes they can!"?
"Keystone State" indeed.
(Via Good As You.)
Related Posts (on one page):
- Pennsylvania: Democratic Primary + Marriage Ban = Litmus Test
- Gay Voting 201
- Dean: Democratic Party Opposes Same-Sex Marriage
- On Gays and the Two-Party System
Posted by Kip on
20 March 2008
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
