Gay marriage support has risks for GOP lawmakers

Feb 15, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Republic

ST. PAUL, Minnesota - As more state legislatures around the country consider whether to legalize same-sex weddings, an analysis of gay marriage votes in eight states shows that Republican lawmakers who backed it often faced consequences - including loss of their seats.

Comments
1 - 20 of 21 Comments Last updated Feb 19, 2013
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1 Feb 15, 2013
ya think?

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#2 Feb 15, 2013
Sometimes it is worth the consequences to stand up for what is right and good. Besides, just because they were once a Republican, or once a Democrat, there is no rule they can't change parties, and run for the same seat under a different flag. They might even get kudos for standing up for their principles.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#3 Feb 15, 2013
We saw evidence of this in Illinois yesterday, where only 1 GOP senator voted for their marriage bill.

While there are 1 or 2 elected GOP members willing to take the tough vote, the majority are going to continue letting the Dems take the credit/blame.

That's why we have no realistic shot of passing marriage bills in WV, PA, IN, or WY even though they don't have constitutional bans. We're left with the 5 remaining states with Democratic majorities in their legislature & supportive Democratic governors. And as we've seen in Rhode Island and Hawaii, even that's not enough sometimes.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#4 Feb 15, 2013
I think the good news is that our system of government, while slow moving, is doing what it's supposed to do. Eventually.

The sad part, though, is that we're still a country full of fools and hate-mongers that fear and attack anything they're uncomfortable with. It's so much better to learn and grow, but that's just not gonna happen for most of them.
John

Bridgeville, PA

#5 Feb 15, 2013
Of course, they face consequences for selling out to the opposition. Playing along with "gay marriage" marks a person who then is suspected he or she will play along with other components of the progressive agenda.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6 Feb 15, 2013
eJohn wrote:
I think the good news is that our system of government, while slow moving, is doing what it's supposed to do. Eventually.
The sad part, though, is that we're still a country full of fools and hate-mongers that fear and attack anything they're uncomfortable with. It's so much better to learn and grow, but that's just not gonna happen for most of them.
I see a group in Grand Rapids is going to push for a ballot vote in 2016 to repeal our ban.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#7 Feb 15, 2013
i think my state senators in St. paul should look at the last republican senate and house in MN.

they ran on a "jobs, jobs, jobs" platform, but the first thing they did when they got in office was spend all their time pushing for a anti-SSM amendment to our constitution.

the amendment was defeated and they lost both the house and the senate in MN...

it would seem backing SSM would be the sensible thing to do to be in line with the MN voter, and also to distance themselves from teh national GOP that is running headlong off the cliffs of far-right evangelical insanity...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8 Feb 15, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
i think my state senators in St. paul should look at the last republican senate and house in MN.
they ran on a "jobs, jobs, jobs" platform, but the first thing they did when they got in office was spend all their time pushing for a anti-SSM amendment to our constitution.
the amendment was defeated and they lost both the house and the senate in MN...
it would seem backing SSM would be the sensible thing to do to be in line with the MN voter, and also to distance themselves from teh national GOP that is running headlong off the cliffs of far-right evangelical insanity...
How did your district vote on the amendment?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#9 Feb 15, 2013
According to the article, 26 of 47 Republicans who supported same-sex unions or marriage equality are no longer in office. But they do not indicate how many of them were actually replaced by anti-equality politicos.

It's unbelievable that they mentioned only one Republican in New Hampshire who lost her seat. There were undoubtedly more.

It's hard to say whether the marriage vote is the reason, even though outside agitators may have used that as a reason to target her. Our legislators run for re-election every two years (as does our governor and governor's council), and their life in Concord is typically short. Apparently, the joy of serving constituents and the generous $100 annual stipend are not enough to entice legislators to drive an hour to two or four each way to attend four sessions a week from November through June.[While the taxpayers do generously reimburse legislators for miles actually driven to Concord, we don't help them pay for lodging if they decide to stay night instead.]

Some perspective on how many Republicans who voted against equality are still in office would be helpful. It would also be interesting to know how many Democrats lost seats after voting against same-sex couples.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#10 Feb 15, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
How did your district vote on the amendment?
Against! most of the outstate districts voted for it, but up here we are a tad more 21st century. Our major town of Grand Marais has a very thriving, open gay community.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#11 Feb 15, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Against! most of the outstate districts voted for it, but up here we are a tad more 21st century. Our major town of Grand Marais has a very thriving, open gay community.
Interesting. My folks are in one of those outstate districts in the southwest part of the state which all voted for it.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#12 Feb 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I see a group in Grand Rapids is going to push for a ballot vote in 2016 to repeal our ban.
Yeah, I'm of two minds there.... Not sure it's safe enough to do it, but then, how will we know if we don't try? Have you heard if it's going both reverse the ban AND install equality, or just reverse the ban? I don't think I've heard the details yet.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#13 Feb 18, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I'm of two minds there.... Not sure it's safe enough to do it, but then, how will we know if we don't try? Have you heard if it's going both reverse the ban AND install equality, or just reverse the ban? I don't think I've heard the details yet.
It would do both. No sense overturning the ban just to have to turn around and attempt to convince the legislature to pass equality legislation, or have to do a 2nd referendum.

I doubt there would be more than a handful of people who vote to overturn the ban but not vote for marriage equality.

At least they're looking at 2016 instead of 2014. It's been a decade; I think it's time to start voting whether we win or not.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#14 Feb 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
It would do both. No sense overturning the ban just to have to turn around and attempt to convince the legislature to pass equality legislation, or have to do a 2nd referendum.
I doubt there would be more than a handful of people who vote to overturn the ban but not vote for marriage equality.
At least they're looking at 2016 instead of 2014. It's been a decade; I think it's time to start voting whether we win or not.
I could imagine an amendment similar to Hawaii's giving the legislature authority to define marriage--taking it out of the hands of activist judges. I think some people might be willing to give the legislature authority, even though they aren't personally comfortable approving same-sex marriages.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#15 Feb 19, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I could imagine an amendment similar to Hawaii's giving the legislature authority to define marriage--taking it out of the hands of activist judges. I think some people might be willing to give the legislature authority, even though they aren't personally comfortable approving same-sex marriages.
That would be redundant.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#16 Feb 19, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I could imagine an amendment similar to Hawaii's giving the legislature authority to define marriage--taking it out of the hands of activist judges. I think some people might be willing to give the legislature authority, even though they aren't personally comfortable approving same-sex marriages.
I suppose that's possible, but at this point irrelevant. The initiative being put forward in Michigan will straight out legalize marriage for same-sex couples.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#17 Feb 19, 2013
In addition, putting marriage equality into the constitution ensures the next legislature can't just overturn it without putting it to another vote of the people.

The same way the current constitutional bans make it harder for us to overturn them will now work in our favor.

With the changing demographics in this country, once these constitutional bans are overturned by popular vote they will never be reinstated.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#18 Feb 19, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
It would do both. No sense overturning the ban just to have to turn around and attempt to convince the legislature to pass equality legislation, or have to do a 2nd referendum.
I doubt there would be more than a handful of people who vote to overturn the ban but not vote for marriage equality.
At least they're looking at 2016 instead of 2014. It's been a decade; I think it's time to start voting whether we win or not.
I tend to think you're right about voting whether or not we win. If nothing else, it'll provide solid polling numbers that prove the sway in public opinion in our favor. And it might be enough to stop the hate-mongers from rushing to the polls in the last few states that don't have constitutional amendments against marriage.

What'll be especially interesting here is whether or not Snyder will have the balls to support it. He's a Republican, but he's an Ann Arbor Republican, which often means that, socially, he's really a Democrat. And he's all over the "creative community" initiatives and funding for the arts and things that might suggest that he's open to equality.

But then, will he be able to shout down the hate-based Republicans in the rest of the state that fear everything except money?
fretlessfender

Mcallen, TX

#19 Feb 19, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Against! most of the outstate districts voted for it, but up here we are a tad more 21st century. Our major town of Grand Marais has a very thriving, open gay community.
Since when is Grand Marais a "Major" town? Also, I never see evidence of a "very thriving, open gay community" when I'm in the area. Face it, you are an extreme minority in that area.

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#20 Feb 19, 2013
fretlessfender wrote:
<quoted text>
Since when is Grand Marais a "Major" town? Also, I never see evidence of a "very thriving, open gay community" when I'm in the area. Face it, you are an extreme minority in that area.
face it... your an extreme redneck bigot... so there morazz

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 57 min KiMare 49,489
Michael Jackson's children Paris, Prince and Bl... 2 hr Len is Disgusted 7
Obamas attend wedding of their longtime chef 3 hr serfs up 14
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 3 hr Benjamo84 24,912
Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 7 hr ALL ABOUT THE FRE... 31,221
Tennessee judge issues first ruling in favor of... 8 hr Fa-Foxy 4
Gay marriage opponents take lower profile 8 hr The Troll Stopper 30
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••