New Hampshire State Senate Votes For Same Sex Marriage But... Virginia Foxx Is Still Taking Up Space In Congress

No clown makeup needed

New Hampshire took another giant step forward in joining New England neighbors in Massachusetts, Vermont and Connecticut, plus the state of Iowa, in decriminalizing marraige for gay people. The state Senate voted 13-11 for a slightly amended version of the bill the House had already passed. Although most New Hampshire voters support same sex marriage, the state's conservative Democratic governor, John Lynch, hasn't announced if he would sign the law or veto it. New York and Maine are considering similar legislation. In Maine the House Judiciary Committee voted 11-2-1 Tuesday in favor of marriage equality.

This morning CQPolitics ran a piece about how even young evangelicals are breaking with their bigoted elders on this issue. Young peole, across the board are far more in favor of marriage equality than the elderly. And it's no different among people of faith.

Leaders of evangelical Christian organizations — the most vocal opponents of gay marriage as the issue polarized the electorate for much of this decade — now face a similar divide in their own ranks. In a survey last fall by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, Inc., 58 percent of white evangelicals ages 18 to 29 said they support either civil unions or gay marriage; support dropped to 46 percent among white evangelicals who were older than that. (Asked about gay marriage exclusively, the support figures were 26 percent for the younger group and 9 percent for the older group.)

“The data do show a growing divide between younger and older evangelicals. There clearly is a generational difference,” said Amy E. Black, a political scientist at Wheaton College, an evangelical liberal arts school in Illinois. She characterizes the thinking among many younger evangelicals as, “What big deal is civil unions, really? What I care about is the environment, or what I care about is human rights.”

But it's far from a rose-strewn path for the gay community in their quest for equal rights. The only prominent Republican elected official with the courage to abandon the narrow-minded hate-based approach of the past has been Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, who would like to run for president. And Huntsman has been slammed for his position-- not even for same sex marriage, just for civil unions! A a local Michigan Republican club (Kent County) dis-invited Huntsman to speak to them because of his position on ccivil unions. The crazed bigot who leads the local party, Joanne Voorhees wrote in the local newspaper that "The voters want and expect us to stand on principle and return to our roots. Unfortunately, by holding an event with Governor Huntsman, we would be doing the exact opposite."

And Voorhees isn't the only Republican off the rails over this. Earlier today North Carolina's worst member of Congress-- now that is no mean feat-- was on the floor of the House bellowing against the Hate Crimes bill and denigrating the memory of Matthew Shepard. As usual, Virginia Foxx is too demented and disgusting to even write about without puking. Watch her in action:



Earlier today I was on the phone with Palm Springs Mayor Steve Pougnet, the Democratic candidate for Congress in CA-45. Steve and his partner adopted adorable twins, a brother and sister who he was talking to me about potty training while we got into the fine points of the Employee Free Choice Act. I couldn't help but think of Steve and his family when a few minutes later a friend sent me this column from today's Chicago Sun-Times about how demented bigots relate to gay families.

The more I reflect upon the practice of society allowing gay "civil unions" but not "marriages"-- the latter term being reserved for heterosexual couples who wed, the argument goes, as God intended-- the more I wonder why those who insist upon the distinction stop there.

What about the children of gay couples? (And yes, they have children, sometimes, just like heterosexual people do.) I'm surprised we don't hear the argument that saying these children are "born" somehow undermines the value of heterosexual couples giving birth to their children. Does it not cast a pall over their joyous event, touched as it is with religious significance?

How much longer will they allow gays to press their agenda by claiming their children are "born" when of course, by entering the world as part of these lesser civil unions, they could easily be relegated to a similarly lesser state?

Perhaps mainstream America would be happier if couples that can form unions but not marry would have children that are "birthed," or "whelped" or "emerge." Instead of a "birth certificate" the couples could be issued a "document of existence."

Sure, we naysayers might point out that doing so would cause discomfort for the affected children, who, when asked where they were born, would have to answer, "Well, I wasn't technically 'born,' but I 'came into existence' in Evanston.'' But since opposition to gay marriage considers neither the feelings of children nor the concerns of their gay parents, it's a little late to start caring about them now.

This afternoon the House voted on the Hate Crimes bill, H.R. 1913, although first they voted on enabling legislation which was opposed by all 175 obstructionist Republicans-- including both closet cases like Adrian Smith (R-NE), Patty McHenry (R-NC), David Dreier (R-CA), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Aaron Schock (R-IL), etc and the Republican phonies who pretend to be friends of the gay community because of big gay constituencies they're afraid to offend-- like Mary Bono Mack (R-CA), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Anh Cao (R-LA), Dave Reichert (R-WA) and Mark Kirk (R-IL). Although the resolution passed 234-190 they were joined by 15 homophobic Democratic bigots. When the real vote came, 18 Republicans crossed the aisle to voted with the Democrats (7 less than last year)-- and 17 Democrats crossed in the other direction to declare their bigotry, 3 more than in 2007. The Democrats in today's Hall of Shame:

Bobby Bright (Blue Dog-AL)
Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK)
Chris Carney (Blue Dog-PA) who still hasn't learned his lesson
Travis Childers (Blue Dog-MS)
Lincoln Davis (Blue Dog-TN)
Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN)
Brad Ellsworth(Blue Dog-IN)
Bart Gordon (Blue Dog-TN)
Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC), whose younger brother is gay
Charlie Melancon (Blue Dog-LA)
Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
Mike Ross (Blue Dog-AR)
Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC)
John Tanner (Blue Dog-TN)- abstained in 2007
Gene Taylor (Blue Dog-MS)

(Bolded names are members who voted against hate crimes in 2007)

Isn't that a coincidence! Every single bigot is a Blue Dog! And they call themselves a fiscally conservative caucus; they never tell anyone they're also a hate group because then people will know if you join you get cooties. I'd also like to take this opportunity to point out that Debbie Wasserman Schultz's job at the DCCC is to get these hate-mongers re-elected. If you make a donation to the DCCC, you are making a donation to re-elect sick and demented bigots who are not a bit better than a Republican when it comes to homophobia. A piece of every cent that gets contributed to the DCCC goes directly to help re-elect committed homophobes who are part of Wasserman Schultz's Front Line program: Chris Carney, Travis Childers, Parker Griffith and Bobby Bright. Swear off supporting homophobia and bigotry by swearing off the DCCC. If you want to donate to a better Congress-- to better Democrats-- please consider making a donation to Blue America, which-- since our encounter with Carney-- always makes certain that the candidates we back are supportive of equality.