Today's Vote

Here's another analysis (4.00 / 1)

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo...

---

by: jpmassar @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 19:45:17 PM CDT

A novice analysis. (4.00 / 2)

Fun to see how the uninformed put things together.

Vaillancourt tipped his hand days ago. And Kleefeld didn't count right: the key thing wasn't the former AWOLs who were rounded up - that netted 3 votes against. It was the Dems who went AWOL this time: 12 votes gone.

---

by: elwood @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 19:48:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kleefield is a meticulous guy on other issues (4.00 / 1)

And I've often seen him change course when corrected.

You should email him your analysis. We have a weird state.  

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 20:17:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Missing Persons (0.00 / 0)

It's a volunteer legislature, and many of these folks do have real paying jobs to do. Still, it bothers me greatly that there are some habitual no-shows. On days like today it's particularly glaring.

I'm not going to name names, but it's so often the same names that are AWOL. At some point you have to ask, shouldn't these people give up their seat to someone who can actually show up for the job?

I completely reject the use of violence to effect social and political change.
End the wars. ALL OF THEM.

---

by: d_goddard @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 21:47:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why I Missed the Vote (John DeJoie) (4.00 / 1)

http://www.bluehampshire.com/s...

"Never doubt that a small group of dedicated people can change the world...it's all that ever has."
~Margaret Mead

---

by: johndejoie @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 08:47:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

well maybe we can blame it on Vaillancourt (0.00 / 0)

If he had voted Yes, he would have created a tie which the Speaker would have broken.  Although without Vaillancourt's efforts we may not have gotten even as far as we have.

Like Vaillancourt, DiFriuscia also flipped and like Vaillancourt he spoke on the floor--- but his objections were somewhat more reasonable than Vaillancourt's.  Well, actually, Steve had a very valid point--- but it was a valid point which wasn't a good reason to flip his vote.

I think this may be the first Steve has actually changed the outcome of a vote... although there is at least one more battle left to fight on this issue.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 22:42:04 PM CDT

There are 400 stories in this Naked City called the State House (4.00 / 4)

Blaming it on one person might make you feel better, but it I don't think it is totally accurate.

Besides, as Jim said, "Criticizing the Governor, or pointing fingers to a few House members, does no good. Finding a way to get more House Reps to vote FOR us in two weeks will."

---

by: Putney Swope @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 23:00:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

any one of the 188 no votes (0.00 / 0)

There were 188 legislators who voted No on HB 73 (which strictly speaking has already passed.)   Any one of them could have changed the outcome by casting a Yes vote.  I know there were many on both sides who are deeply conflicted.

Steve Vaillancourt was right when he said that the bill which narrowly failed would have institutionalized homophobia.  Both sides of the bill were willing to create a privilege for some institutions to discriminate against gay people.  I don't think anyone in the House would have voted for a bill protecting a church's "right" not to support disabled people who want to get married.  I don't think anyone in the House would have voted for a bill protecting a church's "right" not to support interracial marriage (which was illegal in many states just a few decades ago.)  And yet 186 of us were willing to support a bill which protected a  church's "right" not to support gay people who wanted to get married, and the 188 who voted against it did so for the most part (although each representative had his or her own reasons) because they thought it didn't go far enough to protect that "right."

I am putting "right" in square quotes because morally no such right exists--- and legally it doesn't either, as we may find iout the hard way in court.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 06:20:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Religions do that (4.00 / 3)

This argument was an excuse not to vote for the bill, not a reason.  How many religions discriminate against interfaith opposite sex marriages?  How many religions discriminate against wome?  It is the price you pay for freedom of religion. If you don't like the religion's ideas, then find another church or temple or meetinghouse.

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

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 06:34:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's called freedom of religion -- (0.00 / 0)

not freedom of every religion to behave the way society thinks it should.

If the Mormons hadn't had their "Maybe black people aren't actually all that accursed, after all" revelation in 1978, I'd absolutely support their right to perpetuate racism within their faith.

I might also be a wee bit outspoken in regards to my opinion of that faith, but I would absolutely defend its legal right to freely practice its justly constitutionally protected crack-brained idiocy.

As Frank (or was it Ed?) said in a long-ago Bartles and James commercial, "Putting up with crazy ideas is what America's all about."

---

by: Tim C. @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 18:49:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Did you just agree with me? (0.00 / 0)

OMG :)

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

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 18:54:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

In The End, We're All On The Same Team More Or Less (4.00 / 2)

We just have different positions (pun intended)

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 19:35:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I always agree with you when you're right. (0.00 / 0)

So it's rare, but not unprecedented.  :)

---

by: Tim C. @ Fri May 22, 2009 at 13:27:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not quite (0.00 / 0)

It is unprecedented when you realilze that I am right :)

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

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Fri May 22, 2009 at 13:39:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

HB 436 and HB 73 (4.00 / 4)

Let's remember that Churches are private property, and each religion has its independent right to set the standards of their own membership requirements.  All Churches and religions have to right to refuse to marry whomever they wish.  

Currently, a couple -- must be a man and a woman -- goes to a city or town clerk and pays $45.00 and receives a license to marry.  THEN they can go to a justice of peace or other person authorized to contract that marriage and be married.  IF they want a religious marriage, then then apply at their Church.  The Church can set its own standards.  Some require a six month conseling program before marriage.  Others have their own requirements.  That's freedom of religion -- government doesn't and shouldn't force them to do anything.

HB 436 allows a "civil marriage" and a "religious marriage."  All same-gendered couples may have a civil marriage, and all may have a religious marriage -- if their Church so allows.  That's freedom of religion -- government doesn't and shouldn't force them to do anything.

Governor John Lynch wants to have that core principle clarified in our state law, thus HB 73.  I think that's a fair request.  That's not insitutionalizing discrimination -- that's protecting the freedom and independence of religion.  

The task we have is to write that into state law without further removing any rights from others.  I think HB 73 with the Governor's requested language does that.  The Committee of Conference might be able to come up with an even better way, but regardless -- the freedom of religion AND marriage equality should be protected.  I think on that we're on the same page.

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 06:44:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dont really care what religions do or dont do internally. (4.00 / 5)

as long as they dont inflict it or impose it on others and dont cause harm to non willing participants including children. They can share or not share their internal rites and blessings on whoever they choose, but they cant be allowed to restrict the freedoms and rights of others in the public marketplace.

To the extent that such restraints are ever appropriate, (ie laws against yelling fire in theater limiting free speech) they should be imposed solely by the people acting through law for substantial secular reasons.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 06:45:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Last word on the aforementioned rep (4.00 / 3)

[someone reminded me of this exchange from Casablanca last night when the flip by said representative came up in the discussion]

Ugarte: You despise me, don't you?
Rick: If I gave you any thought I probably would.



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

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 06:15:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That is SO unfair (4.00 / 2)

to Senor Ugarte.

---

by: elwood @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 17:36:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

LOL n/t (4.00 / 1)

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

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 18:47:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]