06/30/2008
Married To It
As predicted, the Arizona Senate voted 16 to 4 late Friday in favor of putting a proposed statewide gay-marriage ban to the ballot in John McCain's home state this November. Senate President Tim Bee cast the deciding vote even though he "chastised groups lobbying for the issue for threats and coercive tactics."
Same-sex marriage is already illegal in the state. The measure is intended to codify the one-man/one-woman law into the state constitution in order to protect the institution from activist judges. You know, like the conservative ones who made same-sex marriage legal in California.
Speaking of Cali, according to the Boston Globe, by the time Californians vote on their November ballot initiative aiming to outlaw gay marriage, opponents and proponents of the measure will have gathered up to $15 million.
"In many people’s minds, it is the civil rights issue of the day, if not the decade," says Steve Smith, who is working to kill the initiative and help keep same-sex marriage legal in the state.
It’s incredible that people will give so freely to try to keep others from marrying, but many of the same people would balk at contributing toward free healthcare, improving their local schools, pay raises for soldiers...
Posted 8:53 AM EST by Andy Towle in Gay Marriage, John McCain | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I am amazed that we continue to fight this battle when there are so much greater ills in the world! It is over, it is only a matter of time so the right neeeds to let it go. We WILL see marriage equality in our life times.
However, if we could get half of the excitement from the right on issues such as feeding the hungry and seeing to it that all children get a quality education or even finding a way to fund job training or low income child care we would be so much better off! There are HUGE issues in our world today that need this focus and financial support but we have to pick on the gays?! Amazing! Talk about choosing your battles...
Posted by: RB | Jun 30, 2008 9:21:19 AM
This is John McCain's home state. What is his opinion of this? That's right! He supports the ban.
RB,
I think you miss the point of the Right. The Right-wing does not care about the suffering of others in general. It believes in Social Darwinism, the strong survive. Humanitarian programs are only good when they can buy them something: votes, access to natural resources, etc.
The Right was against the Civil Rights movement, Social Security, etc. These are the same people who just refused to accept an EPA report because they knew it would provide scientific information they don't want to hear. Faced with that information, the Bush Administration might have to do something about global warming, etc.
Posted by: noah | Jun 30, 2008 9:47:31 AM
But, but, but, McCain can't support the ban. The Log Cabinites have told us that he's really pro-gay behind it all.
I can't even keep it up.
Posted by: MAJeff | Jun 30, 2008 10:50:37 AM
Only losers call California Cali or San Francisco Frisco. Its so low-rent from Jersey.
Posted by: hootn | Jun 30, 2008 10:58:09 AM
Hi everybody, if you want to keep same sex marriage alive in California and throughout the country, please give what you can afford to Equality for All, the group fighting the amendment. (Equality for All dot com)
Posted by: Matt C | Jun 30, 2008 1:29:34 PM
The Right is only concerned with keeping up appearances: the appearance of being patriotic, the appearance of being heterosexual, the appearance of being happily married, the appearance of knowing and caring about what America IS and not what some believe it used to be. It's all for show. So I'm not surprised by the news from Arizona AT ALL. Those people will fight tooth and nail to maintain the facades they've chosen to live by.
Posted by: Chas | Jun 30, 2008 1:45:43 PM
Noah, I suggest you look at the voting record by party of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 80% to 20% Republicans voted IN FAVOR. Democrats voted anywhere from 31-39% AGAINST. It's overly simplistic and divisive to ascribe a broad label to Republicans or Democrats.
RB: Once again you play as if this is a zero sum game. Enthusiasm on this issue doesn't mean gays are any less passionate about HIV/ADIS, does it? Likewise, opposition to gay weddings not prohibit those people from giving time or money to help the sick, elderly or impoverished. The facts are that they do those things too.
Posted by: queendru | Jun 30, 2008 2:27:17 PM
Queendru, Noah said "The Right was against the Civil Rights movement," not Republicans. The Republicans that voted for the Civil Rights Act were largely the moderate to liberal wing of the party, a wing that has since either left the party for left-er pastures or has been browbeat into meaninglessness by the fanatical religious zealots. The 1964 Act marked a realignment of the two parties as Southern "Democrats," the racially bigoted segregationist Dixiecrats, began becoming Republicans since the leadership of the Democrats made it clear they weren't welcome on the national level in the Democratic Party. As that happened, the so called Rockefeller Republicans got shut out in their party and many became Democrats. Many Northeastern states like New Jersey and Vermont used to be dependable Republican states, but their Republicans tended to be more of the Rockefeller variety and have slowly transitioned into very dependable Democratic ones. I know it is hard to understand in today's political climate how there could be liberal Republicans and to some extent very conservative Democrats, but that had been the case since the early 1800's when the Democratic Party was formed and the mid-1800's when the Republican party came into being. The association of liberal with Democrat and conservative with Republican is a relatively recent phenomenon.
Posted by: Craig | Jun 30, 2008 3:54:52 PM
Queendru, I really wonder what you're talking about. You can't believe the Republican party (or the Democratic Party for that matter) of 1964 is at all similar to what it is today. You do remember Goldwater, Reagan, Nixon, Bush 1 & 2 etc... You need to read more and comment less.
Posted by: db | Jun 30, 2008 4:29:02 PM
for Queendru, I had the same reaction as Craig. Wikipedia breaks down the votes by region, and the picture looks rather different. It's not really Republican/Democrat. It's (surprise surprise!) North/South:
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)
Interesting that the Republican candidate for POTUS is on the "nay" list.
Posted by: Kevinvt | Jun 30, 2008 8:17:49 PM
I live in Arizona and I am embarrassed. I am appalled at the number of times I have been approached by someone asking me to sign a petition to ban gay marriage. I'll be upfront and point out that I am LDS and my church does not condone or accept homosexuality, but it truly disgusts me how so many of my fellow members seem to find themselves "superior" to others and think that because they love someone of the opposite sex, than they are better. The LDS church teaches us to love one another and to let God be the judge of things in life not us. I just wish that people would stop being judgemental and holding others back from experiencing the beauty that is love. But hey, that's me being overly optimistic. I am married myself and so incredibly happy and I am so sad that one of my gay friends cannot marry the man he loves so dearly. When will people learn?
Posted by: Bri | Jul 1, 2008 1:15:49 AM
Bri, I was raised Mormon too. The LDS church may say that it teaches us to love each otehr and not judge--but they do. They worked against the Equal Rights Amendment back in the 70s, they didn't allow black males to hold the priesthood till 1979, they still don't let women hold the priesthood, they worked against gay marriage in Hawaii, they were heavily involved in the Boy Scouts decision to become an anti-gay institution, and now they're working AS AN INSTITUTION against gay marriage in California. You can parse this all you want but their actions speak louder than their words.
Posted by: db | Jul 1, 2008 4:33:32 PM
A little confused here. How did Tim Bee's vote become a "deciding vote" if it was a 16-4 result? (Not that I agree, but unless his vote counts for 13 others...)
Posted by: Mike | Jul 1, 2008 11:45:20 PM