pageok
pageok
pageok
Wyoming legislature kills anti-SSM amendment:

The news for gay marriage advocates hasn't been especially good lately. But today the Wyoming state house defeated a proposed state constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman. The defeat is especially significant because, in a legislative body in which the GOP enjoys a 41-19 advantage, sixteen Republicans joined all nineteen Democrats to vote against. (HT: Michael Petrelis.)

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. How Wyoming beat an anti-SSM amendment:
  2. Wyoming legislature kills anti-SSM amendment:
Public_Defender (mail):
History is moving against the anti-gay marriage side. The best argument against lawsuits is that the pro-marriage side is getting stronger all the time. They used to be happy just to get close. Now, victory is the goal, and it's achieved more and more often.

Thirty years ago, many companies would fire people just for being gay. The public was debating whether gay people should be categorically denied jobs as teachers. Now the debate is mostly whether being openly anti-gay is or should be a disqualification from employment.

And remember, this is West Virginia. West freakin' Virginia.
2.6.2009 10:07pm
mgarbowski:
Looks like Wyoming to me.

DC: OK, so I was a couple of thousand miles off. I did get the "W" state part right.
2.6.2009 10:09pm
Netopalis:
Yeah, I was going to say - West Virginia is predominantly democratic.
2.6.2009 10:27pm
Jimmy S.:
Let's not break out the champagne just yet. The thrust of the bill (at least according to the news reports I've seen) was apparently that Wyoming would not recognize gay marriages solemnized in other states. Wyoming law already prohibits the solemnization of same-sex marriages within the state.
2.6.2009 11:21pm
J. Aldridge:
They probably will limit the recognition so far as inheritance is concerned.
2.7.2009 4:40am
Public_Defender (mail):

Yeah, I was going to say - West Virginia is predominantly democratic.

But it's not at all liberal, unless you define "liberal" as being against free trade agreements.
2.7.2009 7:03am
Pragmaticist:
Remember, Wyoming is the "Equality" State. They were the first to grant women the right to vote.
2.7.2009 7:17am
David Warner:
Didn't this post originally read "West Virginia"? That would have been a shocker to me too. We West Virginians prefer to restrict our sexual deviance to close relations of the other sex, thank you, and, locally at least, we're big on our yellow dogs.

[Disclosure: I was born and raised outside the Great State, but my heart is still there]
2.7.2009 10:44am
Joe Kowalski (mail):
I wonder if Brokeback Mountain had a bit of an impact on the folks there :).....
2.7.2009 12:27pm
glangston (mail):
Does Wyoming have Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions?
2.7.2009 1:30pm
Bruce Hayden (mail):
I think it all goes to show that not all conservatives or Republicans are alike. This is the state of Dick and Lynne Cheney who not only fully backed their daughter's sexual orientation, but also publicly accepted her partner and her son. Yes, they wear cowboy hats both in Texas and Wyoming, but they are still very different.
2.7.2009 2:00pm
luci:
Certain states are filled with politicians who, if they had their druthers, would support democrats, but run as republicans because that is the only hope they have of being elected.The reverse is true also.

This explains Arlen Specter, who really should be a democrat, but originally ran for office at a time when it was a huge advantage to running as a republican.
2.7.2009 2:51pm
Bretzky (mail):
David Warner:


Didn't this post originally read "West Virginia"?

Yes, it did originally identify West Virginia as the state in question.
2.7.2009 5:54pm
Brett A. (mail):
I wonder if this had to do with the Matthew Shepard incident. That would tend to add a layer of wariness about anything seen as too anti-gay.
2.8.2009 2:16am
Public_Defender (mail):

I think it all goes to show that not all conservatives or Republicans are alike. This is the state of Dick and Lynne Cheney who not only fully backed their daughter's sexual orientation, but also publicly accepted her partner and her son. Yes, they wear cowboy hats both in Texas and Wyoming, but they are still very different.

Yet not a peep about the way his party shamelessly attacked families like his daughter's. He worked hard for a party that pulled itself to power in part by working to take away his grandson's right to support and care from both of his parents in a loving, stable home. Anti-family scumbag hypocrite.
2.8.2009 8:56am
A Conservative Teacher (mail) (www):
I wouldn't read too much into this- the politicans don't want to go on record with this issue, so it's no surprise that they didn't want to be attacked for thier vote. I'd be surprised if voters voting using the traditional democractic secret ballot voted against it.
2.8.2009 9:25am
seadrive:
Perhaps over time, some people on the anti side of gay marriage debate will become aware of how cruel some anti-gay marriage proposals are.
2.8.2009 10:24am
Hoosier:
Brett A

Yes. I was wondering about that as well.

But I think it's important toavoid stereotyping people based on geography, as well as other traits. [Not including Wisconsin, of course, because they are total suckwads.]

So we need to acknowledge that the perpetrators of the Shepard murder were given very severe sentences, and the death penalty was taken off the table for one only as a result of a deal with Shepard's parents, IIRC. In any event, it is not as if the State of Wyoming let his killers off easy.

I would have considered any greater penalty over the top. But I don't support the death penalty.
2.8.2009 10:55am
J. Aldridge:
Bruce Hayden wrote:

This is the state of Dick and Lynne Cheney who not only fully backed their daughter's sexual orientation, but also publicly accepted her partner and her son. Yes, they wear cowboy hats both in Texas and Wyoming, but they are still very different.

It's one thing to be tolerant of ones sexual orientation, but it's another thing to be told to approve of the behavior.

It's like recognizing people do kill other people, but this isn't to say people must approve of people killing people.
2.8.2009 2:02pm
trad and anon:
Perhaps over time, some people on the anti side of gay marriage debate will become aware of how cruel some anti-gay marriage proposals are.
I think many of them already are. That's the whole point.
2.8.2009 2:11pm
James Gibson (mail):
I think the comment regarding what the bill actually was about is the telling piece. Wyoming has a law prohibiting SSM being performed in State. This proposed law would have extended that to SSM performed in another State or another nation.

As a recent post talked about regarding the New York State Court ruling regarding inheritance between a Gay couple; the couple were not married in New York (they were from Canada), and New York (which was predicted to approve Gay marriage with the new Dem legislature) still does not recognize it in State. But the State recognizes that its laws do not apply against other States or nations. Thus, though we have laws on Bigamy or Polygamy a man being married to two or more women in his country will not face charges when living in the United States. This even extends to how young the women can be even though we might call such marriages statutory rape (please note the Texas Mormon case).

In short I seriously doubt this will suddenly turn into the passage of a law in Wisconsin allowing same sex marriage to be performed and recognized by the State. I mean, Rhode Island recognized a lesbian couple was married according to Massachusetts law. But that didn't mean they had to recognize SSM and then change their divorce laws so the couple could divorce in Rhode Island.
2.8.2009 2:45pm
ChrisTS (mail):
J. Aldridge: It's one thing to be tolerant of ones sexual orientation, but it's another thing to be told to approve of the behavior.
It's like recognizing people do kill other people, but this isn't to say people must approve of people killing people.


What??? Is the analogy between being gay and committing murder? Is anyone 'tolerant' of murder?
2.8.2009 4:48pm
BGates:
But it's not at all liberal, unless you define "liberal" as being against free trade agreements.

Didn't we just have an election where a guy calling himself a liberal said he was going to unilaterally renegotiate NAFTA and refuse a free trade agreement with Columbia?

Anti-free-trade scumbag hypocrite.
2.8.2009 5:06pm
Putting Two and Two...:

This is the state of Dick and Lynne Cheney who not only fully backed their daughter's sexual orientation


Yeah, right. Much is made of Cheney's position but few people understand it. Here is his position, as presented during the 2004 VP debates:


"people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard...The next step then, of course, is the question you ask of whether or not there ought to be some kind of official sanction, if you will, of the relationship, or if these relationships should be treated the same as a conventional marriage is. That's a tougher problem. That's not a slam dunk. I think the fact of the matter is that matter is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area. I try to be open minded about it as much as I can and tolerant of those relationships. And like Joe, I also wrestling with the extent to which there ought to be legal sanction of those relationships. I think we ought to do everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into."


No support of civil unions. A recognition that other folks in other states might enact them. No federal involvement at all.

It's all meant to deceive, and it does.
2.8.2009 6:09pm
Randy R. (mail):
Adridge :'It's one thing to be tolerant of ones sexual orientation, but it's another thing to be told to approve of the behavior. "

Really? And being tolerant to you means what, that you won't kill us? So we should be happy that you allow us to live, but we shouldn't ask for anything more than that?

If you hate gays, please, just be honest and say so.
2.9.2009 12:29pm
Randy R. (mail):
and if you don't hate gays, then please refrain from inanities such as this one.
2.9.2009 12:29pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

Adridge :'It's one thing to be tolerant of ones sexual orientation, but it's another thing to be told to approve of the behavior. "

Really? And being tolerant to you means what, that you won't kill us?
You might want to look up what "tolerance" means. It does not mean what you think it means. Tolerance means that there is no punishment for holding a particular position and taking a particular action. When Britain adopted laws tolerating various minority religious beliefs, it didn't mean that non-Anglicans were now the full social and legal equals of Anglicans. It meant that it was no longer unlawful to be a non-Anglican. Laws prohibiting non-Anglicans from attending Cambridge and Oxford continued for decades afterwards, and laws prohibiting non-Anglicans from holding office lasted into (I think) the 1830s. (And in some American states, laws prohibiting non-Protestants from holding office persisted into the beginning of the 19th century.)

Insisting on full equality for a behavior that is widely regarded as depraved isn't a recipe for achieving full equality; it might, however, just make some people wonder if tolerance was a good idea.
2.9.2009 4:19pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

I wonder if this had to do with the Matthew Shepard incident. That would tend to add a layer of wariness about anything seen as too anti-gay.
Which is absurd, since Shepard's wasn't murdered because he was gay. One of his killers is bisexual. At least, ABC interviewed someone who knew for a fact that this was the case, because the interviewee had had sex with the killer.
2.9.2009 4:24pm
torrentprime (mail):
Anyone who refers to homosexuality as a "behavior" gives themself away right there.
It's not a behavior, nor a lifestyle. That's kind of the point. It's something you are, and unless "a gay" is performing what you think "it" is in front of you (and I love anti-gay reactionaries obsession with gay sex), what business is "it" of yours, or harm is "it" causing? That's the problem with these hellish and cruel anti-gay initiatives and laws. They single out one aspect of a person's life and make it a rationale for mountains of discrimination.
J Aldridge, "It's one thing to be tolerant of ones sexual orientation, but it's another thing to be told to approve of the behavior. " Let's flip this on the basis of another protected status - religion: should we be tolerant of Christians, but not approve of the church-going? You can "be" religious, but not "do" it?
More to the point, why on earth would your being or doing status become the basis for a different legal status?

Besides, no one told you to approve of anything. But you don't get to write discrimination into law based on one version of holy texts or because you think something's icky, and that's pretty much all anti-gays have.
2.9.2009 6:30pm
hazemyth:
There's been some talk about good comment culture on this blog. It's a difficult thing to gauge, especially with comments like:

"Insisting on full equality for a behavior that is widely regarded as depraved isn't a recipe for achieving full equality; it might, however, just make some people wonder if tolerance was a good idea."

The phrasing may be oblique and the language civil, yet it calls gay people depraved (by way of the behavior that defines them), chastises them for being uppity, and caps it off with a vague threat. Is this good comment culture? And, if so, how obtuse does comment culture require us to be?

Gays are not just an academic topic of debate. We are people. And some of us are here on this blog.

Veiled insults are insults nonetheless.
2.10.2009 5:07pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.