Why I Support Marriage Equality

Well Done, Kathy (4.00 / 6)

You had me at #1:

1. Americans are supposed to have equal rights under the law.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 11:57:04 AM CDT

A good guffaw (4.00 / 3)

was had by me over this part:

Let's look at the overwhelming number of people who lost election over civil unions in 2008. Okay, that was quick.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 15:16:42 PM CDT

Fantastic, Kathy! (4.00 / 2)

Every Democrat in the House and Senate and the corner office of the State House has to see that.  Nice job summarizing excellent reasons why marriage equality should happen now.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 15:56:47 PM CDT

Thanks! (4.00 / 2)

I did forget another reason: economics.  Being the first state to pass marriage equality will be a boon for the wedding business!  Rooms and meals tax revenues!!!  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 16:33:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good and Evil in the Garden of the Judiciary Committee (4.00 / 8)

Jim Splaine detailed some of the committee debate on this in another thread.  However, as Jim has never been known to say an ill word about anyone... I will.

But first a positive word about one of the two Democrats who voted No; he talked with the press afterward and indicated that he was not stating opposition to marriage equality, but that he believed that civil unions were doing just fine, and that that fact needed another year or two or so to sink into the public mind, which he did not believe to be nearly as prepared to support marriage equality as the bill's supporters seemed to think.  (Paraphrased and from memory, so don't make huge judgments based on fine points here.)

The Judiciary Committee had twenty-one bills to debate and vote on, over eight barely interrupted hours, on a range of topics, (see here)  which allowed ample opportunity for representatives to provide evidence of their characters.

No Democrats in the committee spoke other than honorably at any time, and all spoke well.

Gary Richardson of Hopkinton was a workhorse, bearing the brunt of defending decency with Lucy Weber of Walpole, who was consistently excellent.

As for the Republicans, the utterly anti-choice Anthony DiFruscia of Windham was a consistently intelligent, considerate and thoughtful voice.  And the anti-choice and anti-marriage-equality Will "No Relation" Smith of Newcastle seemed entirely sincere, and if he was, to my mind, poorly informed on some facts and misguided as to the role that the Founders intended Christianity to play in our governing institutions, he never spoke disrespectfully or disparagingly of anyone.

Ditto for Joseph Hagan of Chester.

On the other hand, Peter Silva of Nashua was not only constantly on the side of wrong, but seemed more pleased with himself than was visibly justifiable.

And Robert Rowe of Amherst gained no points for bringing up the old slippery-slope-to-bestiality argument, nor for twice mentioning "foreign nations or tribes," with ominous stress on "tribes," as sources of marriage traditions that we might be forced to honor.  One doesn't hear much about Caucasian tribes.  Or Asian tribes, for that matter.  Iraqi tribes have been somewhat in the news of late, but I rather tend to doubt that he was referring to them, either.  A bow tie and a professorial demeanor do not a gentleman make, Rep. Rowe.

But the truly repugnant were Michael O'Brien of Mont Vernon and Nancy Elliott, of the Merrimack Elliotts.

O'Brien, who presumably has a poster of Newt Gingrich above his bed, spoke at length and repeatedly on every bill, giving the most partisan possible slant to every bill, issue and detail and frequently seeking to obstruct and delay the work of the committee.  His idea of the good seems to be entirely contained within what he believes to be to the detriment of the Democratic party, and the benefit of the Republican party, and not at all to the production of sound policy through honest debate.  I believe he would agree with this analysis, (though he would certainly deny it) and actually consider it as an accolade.  He has a persistent reptilian calm, and is probably a very good lawyer, as long as you define "good lawyer" as one able to, and unashamed to, make a seemingly strong argument for pretty much anything, not as one with any particular concern for truth or justice.  In a just world, Joseph Welch's ghostly form would appear before him about a dozen times a day, shaking its translucent finger and demanding, "At long last, sir, have you no decency?"

Elliott is a piece of work.  Up until now, whenever I saw a movie with a certain stock character (whose major function was to sneer in privileged contempt at the inadequately subservient hero) as a readily despised sub-villain, I figured that the producer had thrown any pretense to verisimilitude to the winds and decided to blow 90% of the writing and directing money on cocaine.  From now on, though, whenever I see a snooty, sour-mouthed, contemptuous, passive-aggressive, elitist, fiftyish, blonde WASP ice queen feigning delicate gentility while dripping venom, I'll think, "Hey, there's Nancy Elliott!"  Yes, she did indeed top off her full day's worth of bile by volunteering that she didn't see how anyone could think it made any difference whether it was two sisters having a sexual relationship or any other two women.  This is a vile, vile woman.

Oh, and she lied in an attempt to force the committee to adjourn the executive session at 6:30pm, with only four bills left to vote on, and haul all twenty members back into Concord the next day (when, conveniently enough, one Democratic member of the committee was known to be unable to attend).  She declared a fear of venturing to the distant Storrs St. parking lot in the dark, tossing in gratuitous griping about the majority party's allocation of parking spaces, and asked for an immediate adjournment so that she could go there while it was light.  O'Brien also argued for adjournment.  When two members of the committee, both Democrats, offered to drive her directly to her car, she said that she really didn't like riding with other people.  The chair, with admirable restraint, did not call her a liar to her face, but suggested that if the offer to drive her door-to-door didn't satisfy her, he didn't know what could.  Half an hour later, the committee's work was done.  She would happily have summoned nineteen people -- from Newcastle, Walpole, Nashua, Ashland, Dover, etc. -- to drive to Concord and back for a half-hour's work, for a slight political advantage (and, probably, the ability to ask for reconsideration of a couple of 10-10 votes with that advantage), or, if you believe her lie, to spare her the horrid discomfort of riding for one quarter of a mile in the vehicle of another.

It is said that great minds discuss ideas, middling minds discuss events, and small minds discuss people.  I would certainly prefer to discuss the substance of issues, rather than the usually trivial and gossipy matter of personalities.  But when the entire substantive debate on issues is warped by the degraded personalities of some of those charged with discussing them, what would otherwise be a merely private disgrace becomes a public harm, and requires public knowledge.

---

by: Tim C. @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 16:05:33 PM CDT

nice locutions (4.00 / 1)

I especially liked 'persistent reptilian calm' and always swoon for the proper usage of 'verisimilitude'. Thanks Mr. TimC.

We represent the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop guild.

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 17:22:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Two things: (4.00 / 2)

The representative from Mont Vernon is William "Bill" O'Brien, not Michael.

And someone from the security team at the State House/LOB will walk a rep to Storrs Street if asked. And IIRC, the security folks are on duty as long as there is activity in the building.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 19:14:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If you could add more here (0.00 / 0)

On the other hand, Peter Silva of Nashua was not only constantly on the side of wrong, but seemed more pleased with himself than was visibly justifiable.

I would appreciate to know more about the why's and how's of this estimation, as a constituent of his.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 22:00:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Peter Silva (0.00 / 0)

As far as "on the side of wrong" goes, all but two of the votes were within one vote of party line decisions, and he, along with all the other Republicans not named DiFruscia, was always on the Republican and (to my mind) wrong side of those votes.

I didn't go into more detail about his demeanor because it wasn't over the top or sufficient to force me to a conclusion about his character or self-estimation.  But his habit of voting No with a prolonged "Newwwwww" suggested that he overvalued his own amusement relative to the importance of the issues at hand.  On the few brief occasions that he spoke, though, he spoke seriously, albeit without any evident belief in the relevance of compassion or broadmindedness.

In short, while he evinces no kinship with the Good Samaritan, neither does he seem consumed by hatred; rather, he seems somewhat nibbled on by vanity.

And yes, I do have a longstanding bias, of which I am well aware, against men who wear goop in their hair.

---

by: Tim C. @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 08:40:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Silva is OK (0.00 / 0)

Peter Silva and I are both members of the freshman class of 2008, albeit from different parties. I think he is a valuable member of our class.

He voted what I would consider to be the wrong way on most of the gender issues... but he is a thoughtful person. When he speaks up, which is not that often in committee, he does at least have the decency to cite actual facts to support his position and to respect the intelligence of his listeners.  He is a member of the rapidly fading reality-based wing of the Republican party.  He does need to tone down his "Nooooo" when he votes No, but that's not a big deal--- and maybe over time it will seem endearing.


-----

Thanks for all the fish

-----

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 08:54:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Doing Mr. Bill, maybe? (0.00 / 0)

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 09:03:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And another thing-- (0.00 / 0)

Tim C., it would be very helpful if you could rework your observations of these reps into one or more letters to the editor in their districts. The Nashua Telegraph would cover many of them.

The problem is many independents and moderate Republicans are unaware of how these people act in Concord. It would be a service if you and others who observe them in action, would let them know.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 05:52:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Pursuit of happiness" (0.00 / 0)

---

by: This Was The Moment @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 18:26:33 PM CDT

It's a shame that a former NHCLU Board member would vote against this bill (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for this posting, Kathy

---

by: Putney Swope @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 21:57:23 PM CDT

name please (0.00 / 0)

I assume that you mean Rep. David Cote?  Let's be up front and use peoples names when they do something bad (in this case horrible) as well as when they do something good.

---

by: brianrater @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 17:16:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Another Vote Is Coming (0.00 / 0)

Yes, I was disappointed in David's vote on this issue, but I'm not disappointed in David.  He is a class guy, and shines in so many ways.  I've known David since the 1970s, and one vote even on an issue of human rights and equality as important as this one does not dim his star to me.  Through the years, he has done incredible work to make lives better.  

Let's keep in mind that there is another vote on this issue -- on the House floor next week, likely on Wednesday or Thursday.  David needs to hear about some of the many stories of how gays and lesbians have been discriminated against through the years.  He knows more than many the difficulties people face in life.  The tens of thousands of us who are born gay face challenges that will be made a little easier by passing House Bill 436 and breaking down one more element of discrimination.  To those who know him, please let him know you.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 18:33:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]