Comments on Advance Indiana™: Lugar Statement On Gay Marriage Debate

Bottom line to all us civilly married queers who r...

2006-06-29T12:16:00.000-05:00

Bottom line to all us civilly married queers who refuse to acquiesce to the government's coercion to lie to it about our marriages is that, without DOMA repeal, we're still felons. FMA, MPA, whatever -- in practical terms, it has little effect that DOMA does not.

They're all despicable but worse are those policians who know that and still will not stand for justice.

Chris--you're a great guy, but as we used to say d...

2006-06-02T21:20:00.000-05:00

Chris--you're a great guy, but as we used to say down on the farm, you're shoveling a lot of shit with that explanation.

It's a good point, anonymous. The reason I mentio...

2006-06-02T17:01:00.000-05:00

It's a good point, anonymous. The reason I mention Clinton is that there is a tendancy to cut a moderate republican no slack when hardly any principled support for our (glbt people's) position existed on a topic on either side of the line.

And what was not politically possible in 1996, or what had no support at all in 1996, can develop support over time. That developing support can also cause a politician to rethink their own biases. And in our case, enough politicians in the course of 10 years can be startled to find a gay son, grandson, nephew, or staffer forcing them totally to rethink their sympathies.

Beside which...Whenever DOMA is mentioned by a Rep...

2006-06-02T16:28:00.000-05:00

Beside which...

Whenever DOMA is mentioned by a Republican it seems more likely than not that the statement will also end with the -- which Clinton signed into law -- reminder. Even if Clinton had vetoed DOMA isn't it true his veto would have been easily overridden?

Well, I'm taking the bait, Gary. I'm not sure whe...

2006-06-02T15:53:00.000-05:00

Well, I'm taking the bait, Gary. I'm not sure where we agree or disagree, so I'll clarify.

I expect that if the opponents to the FMA filibuster, Lugar will vote to end filibuster for three reasons.

First, his modus operendi is to oppose filibusters no matter his views on a topic. Live by filibuster and die by filibuster. It is the threat of the radical right in the senate to filibuster that effectively puts the end to any progressive legislation before it even starts, even with majority support. My understanding of Lugar's position on filibusters is that they empower one senator to thwart the will of the majority, which is presently a greater problem for moderates and progressives than for conservatives, who hold absolutely everything of any moderate majority value hostage.

Second, my understanding is that Lugar is not especially afraid of allowing the measure to progress to final consideration personally, because he doesn't feel the need to hide his position one way or the other in the final vote. (I paraphrased and linked his letter of 2004 in my post on Bilerico, and I continue to stand behind that post.)

Third, my understanding is that Lugar (as do all observers) observes that there are not enough votes in the senate to pass the amendment, even if filibuster is ended and it goes to the floor for final vote. (Informed observers tend not to include Lugar among those who support final passage of the FMA.) So closing filibuster and allowing a vote is not problematic for Lugar.

So to clarify my expectation: I expect Bayh to vote against cloture and Lugar to vote for cloture. If the vote is some other procedural vote that prevents the measure from reaching the floor, then I expect Bayh to support the procedural obstacle, and Lugar to oppose the procedural obstacle. If the vote is procedural and facilitates the measure reaching the floor, then I expect Bayh to vote against the procedural attempt to move the measure to the floor and Lugar to vote for the procedural attempt to move the measure to the floor.

(I expect Bayh's vote on any of the above to be popularly and accurately characterized as opposition to the FMA. I expect Lugar's vote on any of the above to be popularly and inaccurately characterized as support of the FMA. Lugar himself clearly did not wish his vote for cloture to be misunderstood as support for the FMA, which is why he published his letter detailing his reservations and skepticism about the FMA itself.)

If the vote is for final passage, I expect both Bayh and Lugar to vote against the FMA.

DOMA, in my opinion an unconstitutional measure, is very different from FMA. DOMA reserves to the states the power to define marriage without that definition being imposed by the actions of another state legislature or state judiciary. Under DOMA, state legislatures and judiciaries can proceed to the recognition of same-sex marriage and/or civil union, but without effect on other states. FMA prevents ALL states from recognizing same sex marriage and civil union, even when states move inevitably to do so.

A Senator can very plausibly have voted for DOMA and vote against FMA and be perfectly consistent. (I note this while also repeating that I do not defend Lugar's voting for DOMA or Clinton's signing it into law.)

I posted to the GayIndy listserv a couple of times...

2006-06-01T17:47:00.000-05:00

I posted to the GayIndy listserv a couple of times on this with regards to Lugar's vs. Bayh's position where I maybe gave a little bit too much of the benefit of the doubt to Lugar.

After reading your post, Gary, I'm not sure whether to retract or just point out the obvious, which is they are both straddling the same fence, just in different ways.

They don't have to be terribly concerned with said fence damaging their balls while straddling it, because neither of them have any balls in regards to taking a real position on this issue.