US

AP: Gay Lawmakers Play Increasing Role in Marriage Debate

NEW YORK (AP) — Of America’s 7,382 state legislators, only 85 are openly gay or lesbian. They are, however, playing an outsized and often impassioned role when the agenda turns to recognizing same-sex couples with civil unions or full marriage rights.

In Hawaii and Illinois, gay state representatives were lead sponsors of civil union bills signed into law earlier this year. In Maryland and Rhode Island, gay lawmakers are co-sponsoring pending bills that would legalize same-sex marriage. In New York, a gay senator, Tom Duane, is preparing to be lead sponsor of a marriage bill in his chamber later this session.

“For my colleagues, knowing that I am not allowed to marry the person that I love and want to marry, that’s very powerful,” said Duane, a Democrat from Manhattan. “It‘s more difficult for them to take for granted the right they have to marry when I don’t have it.”

The gay lawmakers have impact in two important ways. Their speeches, often evoking personal themes, can sometimes sway wavering colleagues, and they can forge collegial relationships even with ideological foes through day-to-day professional and social interaction.

Rep. Deborah Mell, a Chicago Democrat elected to the state House in 2008, made a point of bringing her partner to legislative functions, and a year ago announced their engagement on the House floor.

The fiance, Christin Baker, was on hand when Mell gave an emotional speech Nov. 30 during the civil union debate. One of Mell’s points: Current law would bar doctors from consulting her if Baker, her partner for more than seven years, became seriously ill.

“The more visible we are, the better,” Mell said in a telephone interview. “When you look someone in the eyes, it’s a little harder for them to deny that we should have the same rights.”

Also speaking in that debate was Greg Harris, another gay Chicago Democrat, who urged his colleagues to be “on the right side of history.”

The vote was 61-52 to allow civil unions, the Senate followed suit a day later, and Gov. Pat Quinn signed the bill into law on Jan. 31.

Harris — who is HIV-positive — said last week he felt pressure delivering that floor speech.

“What you say or don’t say can win or lose a critical vote,” he said. “There was a palpable sense that one way or the other, history was going to be made and everyone on the floor was going to be remembered for that vote.”

In Hawaii, where a civil unions bill was signed into law last month, one of the key players was House Majority Leader Blake Oshiro, a gay Democrat.

Oshiro stood up in the closing minutes of the 2010 session to force a House vote on the measure, which was approved but vetoed in July by Republican Gov. Linda Lingle. In September, Oshiro won a primary election over a former Honolulu councilman who strongly opposed civil unions, then beat a Republican in November — ensuring the bill would re-emerge this year with a supportive Democrat, Neil Abercrombie, taking over as governor.

For Oshiro, the key moment was deciding to make a personal plea to members of his Democratic caucus to overcome their doubts and agree to a vote on civil unions in April 2010.

“I was thinking I wouldn’t be able to really look in the mirror, knowing I had just let it fade,” he said. “Ultimately, the caucus supported bringing it to the floor, even if some of them didn’t support the bill.

“That was my one ‘ask,’” he said. “The governor vetoed it, but it really set the stage for this year.”

Hawaii and Illinois are now among seven states that allow civil unions or their equivalent — state-level marriage rights in virtually everything but name. Five other states and Washington, D.C., let gay couples marry outright, and Maryland and Rhode Island would join that group if pending bills win approval.

The Maryland marriage bill cleared the Senate by a 25-21 vote on Feb. 24. The debate included a speech by the chamber’s only openly gay member, Richard Madaleno, citing his partner of 10 years and their two children.

“He is my spouse in every sense of the word, but to the law, he remains a legal stranger,” Madaleno said.

Timing is uncertain for a vote in the Maryland House, which has six openly gay members. But freshman lawmaker Mary Washington, a lesbian from Baltimore, has been anticipating the chance to speak in support of the bill.

“It will be an important moment in Maryland history,” she said. “I wouldn’t miss the opportunity to speak up, not just for myself but for the many families in Maryland who need protection.”

In Rhode Island, legislation to legalize same-sex marriage has failed in previous years, but advocates are optimistic this year because the new governor, independent Lincoln Chafee, is supportive. One of the bill’s co-sponsors is Democratic House Speaker Gordon Fox, who is gay; he has not yet set a timetable for voting on the bill.

“He’s passionate about this issue,” said Kathy Kushnir, executive director of Marriage Equality Rhode Island. “It’s not an abstract issue to him — he’s talking about his life, his family.”

Among the bill’s leading foes is the Rhode Island branch of the National Organization for Marriage, headed by Christopher Plante.

Plante described Fox as “very pragmatic” and said he clearly has the potential to influence some colleagues during the debate on the bill. However, Plante asserted that its chances of passage remain questionable, notably in the state Senate.

In 2009, New Hampshire’s legislature became the first to legalize same-sex marriage without ever facing pressure from marriage-rights lawsuits.

One of the emotional high points of that debate was a speech by Rep. David Pierce, a gay Democrat from Hanover who is raising two daughters with his partner. He described telling his oldest child, 5 at the time, that “some people don’t believe we should be a family.”

Afterward, Pierce said, a fellow representative came over to say that the speech prompted him to change his vote in favor of same-sex marriage.

After last November’s election, the Democrats became the minority in both chambers, and Republicans proceeded to introduce bills aimed at repealing same-sex marriage.

Pierce serves on an election law committee chaired by David Bates, prime sponsor of one of the repeal bills.

“We acknowledge we fundamentally disagree on that question,” Pierce said. “But it doesn’t have to dissolve into being uncivil. … We treat each other with as much respect as anybody.”

He said he had only one conversation with Bates on the marriage issue last year, recalling that the Republican had told Pierce not to take the repeal effort personally.

“I said, ‘Of course it’s personal. You want to delegitimize my relationship with my partner of 18 years, and my two kids,’” Pierce recalled.

Bates, whose repeal bill is now scheduled for consideration next year, said he and Pierce work together well in the Legislature despite “diametrically opposed opinions on marriage.”

As for the impact of Pierce’s 2009 speech, Bates said, “It played upon the sympathies of individuals who don’t think the matter through.”

According to the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, which recruits and supports gay political candidates, the number of openly gay and lesbian legislators nationwide has increased from 44 in 2003, when it started counting, to 85.

Chuck Wolfe, the fund’s president, said gay legislators were having an impact even in relatively conservative states where gay marriage has no short-term prospect of winning approval. He cited the example of Arkansas Rep. Kathy Webb, whose heartfelt arguments played a role in the rejection of a bill to bar gays from adopting or foster-parenting.

Gay lawmakers “are people, as opposed to issues,” Wolfe said. “The impact of having one of your colleagues directly affected by the legislation on the table is very powerful.”

Comments (51)

1 2
  • American-first
    Posted on March 8, 2011 at 8:16am

    The reason I married a person of the other sex was to have a child. So if this can not happen with gay people why do they deman it be called marriage? More power to them if they want to do the gay thing but do not try to make it something it is not.

    Report Post » American-first  
    • Vladia
      Posted on March 8, 2011 at 10:00am

      By that reasoning, anybody who can‘t have a child with their potential spouse shouldn’t be allowed to marry. I’m sure every woman with a hysterectomy, every man who has had a vasectomy, and every other person who for whatever reason isn‘t able to bear or sire a child will be happy to hear that you feel they shouldn’t be able to marry the person they love.

      (On a side note, gay couples /do/ have children through various means, even if it’s not the old-fashioned way to do it. That rather throws your argument right out the window.)

      Report Post »  
  • royalstar
    Posted on March 8, 2011 at 2:24am

    I don’t think it is the govt. business to define marriage period, however it is a religious tradition between a man and a woman. I don’t think homosexuality should be normalized and approved of as a society any more than any other sin. Homosexuality is a reality and I don’t have a problem with the govt. recognizing as a domestic partnership for them to have all of the rights of traditional marriage. God will sort all of us out in due time/ judgement day.

    Report Post »  
  • FEDUPPAWPAW
    Posted on March 8, 2011 at 12:32am

    85 out of 7400 .sound like the peoples choice aka obama’s government!
    But I have nothing against gay’s.

    Report Post »  
  • Precision
    Posted on March 7, 2011 at 7:49pm

    I would rather be right than politicallycorrect.

    Report Post »  
  • Eblaze44
    Posted on March 7, 2011 at 6:22pm

    so we make it pretty “Gay Lawmakers” they are Homosexuals, let’s tell it like it is.

    Report Post » Eblaze44  
    • Eblaze44
      Posted on March 7, 2011 at 6:45pm

      OOPS! I forgot – we must continue to be politically correct in our free speech.

      Report Post » Eblaze44  
  • Eblaze44
    Posted on March 7, 2011 at 6:21pm

    and ABC is on their side. (kind of like the Nationwide commercial ditty)

    Report Post » Eblaze44  
  • Precision
    Posted on March 7, 2011 at 6:20pm

    The homosexuals should take their case to the Middle East, I am certain they would get justice there!

    Report Post »  
  • Bernard
    Posted on March 7, 2011 at 4:34pm

    First I am against Gay marriages for a whole plethora of reasons, the main issue being it cuts through the tradition of the whole concept of marriage as we know it. Secondly the term “gay” is a political term invented in the late sixties to define those who are Homosexuals or Lesbians.
    I believe that sex does not and cannot be categorized into sections. Human sexuality covers all grounds. Any human being, throughout his/her life engages in a variety of sexual acts be in masturbation including sex.

    Take for example having sex with vegetables. It is common knowledge that cucumbers are a favorite substitute to the real thing and for men from watermelons to cantelopes have been used. Is there a term for that? What about the use of inflatable plastic dolls? If so I have not heard or read of it.

    We as an advanced civilization must do away with categorizing people according to their sexual preference and come to terms that “human sexuality” covers a variety of acts. In this context “gay marriage” only furthers categorizing people by their sexual preferance.

    Report Post »  
  • GayDem4Beck
    Posted on March 7, 2011 at 3:58pm

    @JEANNIEMAC – Teachable Moment:
    From what I remember, as we’re told, HIV n’ AIDS first displayed in Africa with monkeys. It then spread throughout heterosexual population in Africa before moving into the homosexual population. The first case in the USA was a gay flight attendant, that frequently worked on international flights. At the time, allot of conspiracy theorist speculated that the government created HIV n’ AIDS to kill the gays.

    Today HIV n’ AIDS, in the USA, affects mostly ‘Black’ men and women. Allot of conspiracy theorist today speculated that the government created HIV n’ AIDS to kill the Blacks.

    IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING GAY !!!

    Report Post » GayDem4Beck  
    • mllyjul
      Posted on March 7, 2011 at 5:13pm

      Sorry, but HIV and AIDS is found primarily among gay men and IV drug users. Look it up…According to the CDC, in 2009 there were 34,993 new cases of HIV reported. Of those, almost 24,000 cases were among gay men and about 2,500 were IV drug users.

      Report Post »  
  • Greyhound424
    Posted on March 7, 2011 at 2:59pm

    I myself find homosexuality quite disgusting. The thought of 2 men having sex is just plain gross. God created sex for a man and a woman to enjoy in a marriage.

    Report Post »  
    • specforjag
      Posted on March 7, 2011 at 4:59pm

      Just curious, do you also find two females having sex quite disgusting?

      Report Post »  
  • LIBERTARIAN44magnumman
    Posted on March 7, 2011 at 2:58pm

    I’d just like to ask folks one question. What right do you have to tell others how they should live thier lives? You don’t, period end of story. How about worrying about your own house and leave folks alone. Those that like to use the bible as an argument against gays should really use it in ALL areas of your life. Judge not lest ye be judged. Let he without sin, cast the first stone. Are there really THAT many sinless folks in our country? I don’t believe that for a moment. I see conservatives as being some of the MOST controlling folks we have in this country. They claim to support freedom but yet almost ALWAYS come down on the side of restricting CERTAIN people‘s freedoms when they don’t coincide with their conservative ideologies.

    Report Post »  
  • garylee123
    Posted on March 7, 2011 at 12:56pm

    Homosexuality IS a choice. You can be as gay as you want UNTIL YOU CHOSE to do a homosexual act, then you are a homosexual

    Report Post »  
    • GayDem4Beck
      Posted on March 7, 2011 at 4:01pm

      Actually homosexuality is NOT a choice, it’s part of who one is. It’s the way GOD made me. I tried to lie to myself and I chose to be straight for a number of years. However, I could no longer live with the lies of who I was.

      Report Post » GayDem4Beck  
  • jeffile
    Posted on March 7, 2011 at 12:40pm

    I‘m at a complete loss over the accusations that homosexuals aren’t given the same right to marry as heterosexuals. I am allowed to marry any woman of my choice (less parent, sibling, minor) and a homosexual has the exact same right. So, where is the problem? Now, if the point is to change the definition of marriage then that is a different story. But doesn’t that open a door? Using the same logic then marriage of siblings or farm animals can also be permissable.

    Report Post »  
  • BurntHills
    Posted on March 7, 2011 at 12:17pm

    The Communist Take Over of America (1963): 45 Declared Goals:
    #26. Promote homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural and healthy”.

    Report Post » BurntHills  
  • BurntHills
    Posted on March 7, 2011 at 12:13pm

    the article subtitle “the more visible we are, the better” said it all.. the most sickening and disturbing is the gays have their psychotic “LOOK AT ME, I AM SPECIAL” need for public sexual displays with their whole sexual agenda, their gay pride parades are nothing but displays of sexual deviance and degeneracy, tehy acnnot walk 10 feet downa sidewalk without having to perform some sort of sex act publicly, and obama has escalated it to where our normal little youngest schoolkids are being indoctrinated how to perform gay sex safely. why would our kids need to learn How except to be able to perform it for bathhouse obama and his gay comrades when he requests it.

    Report Post » BurntHills  
    • GayDem4Beck
      Posted on March 7, 2011 at 4:32pm

      @BurntHills – How is gay pride any different than the heterosexuals outcry for attention ?

      Lets talk about sexual displays in the straight community that people do as ‘normal behavior’. Strip clubs, Hooters, Wing House, Mugs n’ Jugs, Spring Break (major sexual tention), Mardi Gras (show me your Txxx), the Mummers Parade, Sex in movies (n’ TV), Carnival-Brazil, Fasching-Europe, lets remember all of the straight athletes which are such great examples of best behavior.

      Granted I don’t like all of the sexual explicit displays at gay pride, and what MSM displays as the gay community. In fact I take great comfort in knowing that is a very small segment of the gay community and most gay men and women are much more reserved. Maybe because most of them have to hide the fact that they are gay, because of the bashing and hate of homosexuals.

      Report Post » GayDem4Beck  
  • ConscientiousObjector
    Posted on March 7, 2011 at 11:23am

    Actually Sodomy is left pretty abstract in the bible and includes all non-standard sexual practices including ones I’m sure most people practice all the time. But also falling under the sodomy act is sleeping in the same bed as a woman menstruating, adultery, having sex without the wish to procreate, and of course non-standard sex practices which are common place in America today.

    Sodomy meaning sex between homosexuals was invented by the Catholic church and has long since been de-canonized by the Church due to what they called “bending the word of god.”

    Report Post » ConscientiousObjector  
  • momsense
    Posted on March 7, 2011 at 10:26am

    I don’t care what you call it, but please don’t call it marriage. Marriage is a biblically defined institution–so is sodomy. If you don’t recognize the definition of the second one, don’t claim the right of the first..

    Report Post »  
    • Mako Dragoon
      Posted on March 8, 2011 at 6:22pm

      So your argument is that the Bible is the only book to define marriage? Or that it is the only book to correctly define marriage and all other definitions of such from Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Navaho, and the Maori are all wrong?

      Report Post »  
  • GayDem4Beck
    Posted on March 7, 2011 at 9:10am

    Lets do our homework:
    Marriage has evolved over the centuries, but some basic features have remained constant. In ancient Rome, it was accomplished by consent of the parties to live together. No forms were required, and no ceremony was necessary (USA Law Enforcement recognizes this a ‘Common Law Marriage’). This early Roman model of marriage was displaced when the Catholic Church declared in 1563 that marriages were not valid unless contracted in the presence of a priest and two witnesses. In England, under the Anglican Church, marriage by consent and cohabitation was valid until the passage of Lord Hardwicke’s Act in 1753. This act instituted certain requirements for marriage, including the performance of a religious ceremony observed by witnesses.

    The American colonies rejected the requirement of a religious ceremony but retained the custom of a ceremony, religious or otherwise. The ancient Roman concept of marriage by agreement and cohabitation was adopted by early American courts as valid under the Common Law. In the 1800s, state legislatures began to enact laws expressly to prohibit marriage without an observed ceremony and other requirements. Common-law marriage was prohibited in a majority of jurisdictions. However, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires all states that prohibit it to nonetheless recognize a common-law marriage created in a jurisdiction that allows it. U.S. Const. art. IV,

    You can be gay and Christian. Sex in all different permutations is a gift of God. If you would like to know more about what the Bible says about homosexuality instead of what different pastors and religious leads have to say, check in you local public library for “What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality” by Helminiak.

    Report Post » GayDem4Beck  
    • Resolved
      Posted on March 7, 2011 at 12:41pm

      Good info. I am curious though, did common law apply to homosexual couples during these time periods?

      Report Post » Resolved  
    • aLinedog
      Posted on March 7, 2011 at 4:30pm

      From the column of WTF?!?!?
      Quoted from GAYDEM:
      “If you would like to know more about what the Bible says about homosexuality instead of what different pastors and religious leads have to say, check in you local public library for “What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality” by Helminiak.”

      Hey, this is brilliant, really…
      read the BIBLE to find out what it really says.
      -Line

      Report Post »  
  • PIL
    Posted on March 7, 2011 at 9:08am

    Why does anyone give a damn about Government Marriage?
    http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com

    Report Post » PIL  
  • Confederate
    Posted on March 7, 2011 at 9:06am

    This is news? What a shocker! http://www.rebelpowflag.com

    Report Post » Confederate  
  • MrSoul99
    Posted on March 7, 2011 at 4:34am

    Have some been duped by all these Gay candidates who ran on the platform of: Our sex life has nothing to do with politics?

    If two men can marry, what other combination could the State possible say “no” to with a straight face?

    And if Gay Marriage becomes the norm, who would bother objecting to anything else?

    Report Post »  
  • walkwithme1966
    Posted on March 7, 2011 at 3:07am

    I think the reporters for the Blaze are hurrying too hard to get articles up – take your time, write better articles, may certain that are correct and you will get more viewers who come here because of the writing and not just the stories. http://wp.me/pYLB7-IH

    Report Post » walkwithme1966  
    • EqualJustice
      Posted on March 7, 2011 at 11:08am

      HAHAHAHA Your comment is amusing. (READ IT AGAIN) You made a few BOO BOOs yourself. :)

      Report Post » EqualJustice  
  • reckless
    Posted on March 7, 2011 at 12:58am

    If you can’t destroy your enemy from without, join their ranks and destroy them from within.

    Report Post »  
  • Mako Dragoon
    Posted on March 7, 2011 at 12:42am

    I’m not sure it was neccesary to mention that Harris is HIV positive, or what the reasoning would be for that. Maybe the author thought it contributed to the story but I don’t know why.

    Other than that… how is who a person decides to marry any business of the government?

    My one concession on this point is in semantics, I’m okay with a “civil union” as long as it’s legally equal to a “marriage.” That’s what this is really about. Legal rights. They want legal (I say they because I am straight, engaged, and soon to be married) rights.

    Report Post »  
    • GayDem4Beck
      Posted on March 7, 2011 at 9:04am

      @Oil_Robb – I thought one of the straight mans holy grails is ‘Anal Sex’ with a woman. Another holy grail for straight men is having sex with two or more women at the same time. I think that spreads incurable killing diseases too. So how does your argument stand up against the same issues with straight men/women ? Maybe you shouldn’t get on your soap box until you actually thought everything through !

      Report Post » GayDem4Beck  
    • Resolved
      Posted on March 7, 2011 at 11:28am

      @Gaydem4beck

      Not to play the gay-basher here, but I find anal sex and sex with multiple partners to be absolutely abhorrent and grotesque, and I’m a heterosexual male married to a beautiful wife with a lovely daughter. Perhaps YOU should speak for yourself instead of declaring what the Holy Grail for hetero men is.

      Also, if you want to know what the Bible says about Homosexuality, instead of going to the library and checking out the book recommended by GayDem4Beck, you could just… I dunno… read the Bible and decide for yourself instead of letting any secondhand source, whether it be pastor or book, do the work you ought to be doing yourself.

      Report Post » Resolved  
    • smithclar3nc3
      Posted on March 7, 2011 at 1:16pm

      gaydem4beck,
      I have gone anal on women I’ve dated but only at the request of the woman. I find it nasty but I am a generous lover. I personal think the “Holy Grail” is the 68.

      Report Post »  
    • PIL
      Posted on March 7, 2011 at 3:45pm

      As a libertarian I don’t believe in telling people how they can have sex, thank you very much. Oh, and if we‘re gonna pass judgment over HIV don’t forget that the liberals love to pass judgment over OBESITY which is basically anyone who doesn’t look like one of those Abercrombie & Fitch supermodels.

      Besides, so-called “unnatural” sex has never created an unwanted pregnancy which later becomes a wanted abortion. So as much as I disapproved of Billy Clinton engaging in “unnatural” acts with Lewinsky, hey, at least he didn’t get her pregnant.

      FUN FACTS ABOUT QADAFFI.
      http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/2011/02/isratine-and-other-fun-facts-about.html

      Report Post » PIL  
  • Doc Inman
    Posted on March 7, 2011 at 12:19am

    What is INCREADING? Is it like WisONSIN and TOOLbooth? Yep, no doubt about it NOW. The Blaze staffers are for sure mixing work with Glenn’s meds. Doesn’t matter really, since according to the Beckman the world is coming to an end soon anyway, right?

    Report Post »  
    • Mako Dragoon
      Posted on March 7, 2011 at 12:45am

      Ha! Even if he spells as well as Dan Quale, I’ll still vote for Beck to be the Archduke.

      Report Post »  
    • Doc Inman
      Posted on March 7, 2011 at 2:32am

      Oops, MAKOMOONBAT! You forgot the ‘Y’. It’s QuaYle…….as in Dan the 44th Vice-President.

      Report Post »  
    • Mako Dragoon
      Posted on March 8, 2011 at 6:24pm

      The dropped Y was my attempt at humor.

      Report Post »  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love