By MIKE GLOVER Associated Press Writer
11:15 a.m. CST, February 9, 2010
DES MOINES, Iowa - Republicans failed on Tuesday in their effort to start the process of amending the Iowa Constitution to ban gay marriage -- meaning it will likely be 2014 at the earliest before voters could decide on the issue.
The Republican lawmakers tried procedural moves to pull measures out of committees and force a vote, but they couldn't get enough votes in either the House or Senate.
"There are a lot of folks out there who say they support traditional marriage," said House Minority Leader Kraig Paulsen, R-Hiawatha, "This is an opportunity to back that up."
Democrats, who hold majorities in both chambers, responded that lawmakers have their hands full with budget problems and don't have time for a gay marriage debate.
"We're not going to get bogged down this session with divisive social issues," said House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Des Moines.
At issue are resolutions calling for a vote to amend the Iowa Constitution, overturning an Iowa Supreme Court decision last April that struck down a state law banning gay marriage. Amending the constitution is a lengthy process requiring approval in two consecutive General Assemblies before a proposed amendment can go before voters.
If the measure isn't approved during the current legislative session, its next chance would be getting approved in the Legislature elected in November and then the one elected in November 2012. That means the 2014 general election is the earliest that voters could be asked if they want to amend the constitution.
The resolutions have languished in legislative committees and face a deadline Friday to remain eligible for debate this year.
In the 50-seat Senate, supporters couldn't reach the 26 vote threshold needed to force a vote.
In the House, gay marriage opponents used a rare procedural step to force all members to be present for a vote on pulling the gay marriage ban out of committee. The vote failed by a 54-45 vote largely along party lines, with Rep. Dolores Mertz of Ottosen the only Democrat who supported the move.
Some Republicans said they'll now focus on using the Democrats' vote against them in November elections.
"While our bipartisan effort fell short of gaining the 26 votes needed to proceed, the voters this November will have an opportunity to decide if they are content with the continued Democratic obstruction and inaction," said Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley, R-Chariton.
Bipartisan. Har.
Anyway, Iowa had way more important things to do than be haters, like try to get texting while driving banned and replacing one of its statues in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda replaced with one of Norman Borlaug. Also running out of money.
SDNW4 Nation: The Refuge And, on Nova Terra, Al-Stan the Totally and Completely Honest and Legitimate Weapons Dealer and Used Starship Salesman slept on a bed made of money, with a blaster under his pillow and his sombrero pulled over his face. This is to say, he slept very well indeed.
"There are a lot of folks out there who say they support traditional marriage," said House Minority Leader Kraig Paulsen, R-Hiawatha
I support traditional marriage, absolutely. I also support NON-traditional marriage! Like same sex marriage.
That's where some of these guys fall down - for quite a few of us it's not a matter of either/or. I see no reason to have both. Same sex marriage in no way threatens my own marriage, so why would I oppose it?
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
Meh, that "support traditional marriage" line is just a typical way of spin-doctoring a very negative position into a positive-sounding one. Sort of like how "ban abortion, to hell with the teen preggos, make sluts pay for their sins" becomes "pro-life".
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
"We're not going to get bogged down this session with divisive social issues," said House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Des Moines.
HA!
"I spit on metaphysics, sir."
"I pity the woman you marry." -Liberty
This is the guy they want to use to win over "young people?" Are they completely daft? I'd rather vote for a pile of shit than a Jesus freak social regressive.
Here's hoping that his political career goes down in flames and, hopefully, a hilarious gay sex scandal. -Tanasinn
You can't expect sodomy to ruin every conservative politician in this country. -Battlehymn Republic
The anti-gay bigots are pulling the same strategy in IA as they are in NH. They're trying to get a legislative vote on the matter first and then use that as political cannon fodder during the campaign year to replace the democrats with anti-gay legislators. Only with a plurality of anti-gay legislators will they be able to force a vote to ban marriage. They're now working on a campaign to reverse the trend and ban gay marriage in places that are already legal. They won't stop until every single state bans gay marriage or when they are politically dead.
Their goal isn't just the recriminalization of same-sex marriage.
Their goal is criminalization of all LGBT people.
At the time, you might think that it's a mistake you can never undo.
Even if it is, if we kick and scream and fight like hell, we'll move forward, even just a little bit.
I was taught to believe in the me that believed in myself. Maybe that's how it should be.
- Simon the Digger
ASVS Vets | Class of 2000
La Maupin wrote:Their goal isn't just the recriminalization of same-sex marriage.
Their goal is recriminalization of all LGBT people.
Fixed that for you.
ALL LGBT people.
Trans people had not previously been criminalized, because medically-facilitated transition didn't exist before the early to mid 20th century - and at that time, like in modern-day Iran, it was seen by the Establishment as a way to make straight women out of gay men.
Trans people's rights have suffered considerably during the gay marriage wars - we have less rights to control our identities and our legal existences in the United States now than we did during the 1990s because some of the laws that were passed against gay rights closed previously-extant legal loopholes to us.
Of course in some states they created bizarre situations where the only legally binding and enforceable marriage that a trans person could enter into was a same-sex marriage.
At the time, you might think that it's a mistake you can never undo.
Even if it is, if we kick and scream and fight like hell, we'll move forward, even just a little bit.
I was taught to believe in the me that believed in myself. Maybe that's how it should be.
- Simon the Digger
ASVS Vets | Class of 2000
La Maupin wrote:Their goal isn't just the recriminalization of same-sex marriage.
Their goal is recriminalization of all LGBT people.
Fixed that for you.
ALL LGBT people.
Trans people had not previously been criminalized, because medically-facilitated transition didn't exist before the early to mid 20th century - and at that time, like in modern-day Iran, it was seen by the Establishment as a way to make straight women out of gay men.
Trans people's rights have suffered considerably during the gay marriage wars - we have less rights to control our identities and our legal existences in the United States now than we did during the 1990s because some of the laws that were passed against gay rights closed previously-extant legal loopholes to us.
Of course in some states they created bizarre situations where the only legally binding and enforceable marriage that a trans person could enter into was a same-sex marriage.
I didn't miss the T.
I realize how often transgender activists have been thrown under the bus by gay rights organizations, e.g. the last attempt at ENDA.
I was referring to the cross-dressing laws once in existance that while often used against gay men and women were also applied to transgender and genderqueer folks.
During an NYPD raid of a gay bar anyone “not wearing at least 3 pieces of gender appropriate clothing” would be arrested, everyone else was let go. Appropriate was more-or-less left to the officers' discretion, and while it was commonly used against gay men and lesbians, it was also applied to drag-queens and trans-gender persons, though less often only because many bars didn’t admit that drag-queens and trans-gender persons.
They're after all of us, so let's not get into another circular firing squad.
I realize how often transgender activists have been thrown under the bus by gay rights organizations, e.g. the last attempt at ENDA.
Dont even get me started on this shit... It is one of the reasons I have become so disillusioned with the gay community over the years. So willing to be judgmental about those in their own community (read: If you are over 25, and/or not a greek adonis, twink, or bear stereotype, good luck with your love life). Hard sciences are disdained, post-modernism runs rampant... and you get groups together that combine the worst of both worlds. The aggressiveness of men due to high testosterone, and the social/romantic insecurity and infighting that teenage girls do because of brain feminization.
The end result is of course a shallow culture with an insecure sense of self-entitlement that leads handily into throwing our trangendered brothers and sister under the bus.
Individual gay people are not like this. But groups tend toward the lowest common denominator, and you end up with the Human Rights Campaign, and failures in almost every political engagement we have fought via ballot box.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/ Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
But but but.... ONE Democrat voted for it, so it's CLEARLY bipartisan!
Also, good on Iowa.
I, too, commend their lack of antiprogress.
What I will say, in fairness, is that if the Democrats manage to pass something in the Senate with two or three Republican votes, I wouldn't be surprised to hear them call it "bipartisan" the same way the Iowa Republicans are calling this "bipartisan." In today's political climate, anything more than a party-line vote is a bit of a surprise.
Like it or not, negative attitudes toward gays are bipartisan. The only reason they can get rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is that people wank military service so much. In general society, most people wish they could implement an "out of sight, out of mind" policy.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Yeah, but if they can only get one Democrat to vote for it... is it really bipartisan? You can talk all you like about how Democrats hate gays as much as Republicans, but if practically none of them are voting for the Gay Hate Bill of 2010, then the Gay Hate Bill isn't bipartisan.
I don't think it's really bipartisan just because they managed to rope one or two people from the other party into backing it. But I do think that it's both parties who try to call things "bipartisan" when they do that, because it's a useful buzzword.
Simon_Jester wrote:Yeah, but if they can only get one Democrat to vote for it... is it really bipartisan? You can talk all you like about how Democrats hate gays as much as Republicans, but if practically none of them are voting for the Gay Hate Bill of 2010, then the Gay Hate Bill isn't bipartisan.
I don't think it's really bipartisan just because they managed to rope one or two people from the other party into backing it. But I do think that it's both parties who try to call things "bipartisan" when they do that, because it's a useful buzzword.
What percentage should we use to call it bipartisan though? Until you can come up with a reasonable answer for that all you need is one guy.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
I'd want to see at least 20 to 25% support from the "opposing" party. Enough that there is clearly a real bloc within the opposition that supports the action, one that the opposition party leadership actually has to respect. You should need more than one or two fringers. After all, you can probably coerce one or two legislators in a group of several dozen to do practically anything, if you can find the right carrots and sticks, and are free to pick the easiest target.
For claims of bipartisanship to be meaningful, you should have to show actual support from a significant fraction of both parties, as opposed to having a few members bucking the trend of their own party (and possibly getting punished for it afterwards)
For example: the Iraq War Resolution passed with 48 of 49 Republican and 29 of 50 Democratic votes. It was deeply stupid on many levels, but it was definitely bipartisan stupidity.
Otherwise, you have the first half of the Merriam-Webster definition you linked to:
"of, relating to, or involving members of two parties;"
but not the second:
"marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties"
There's no cooperation, agreement, or compromise if only one out of twenty or more legislators in the party is willing to go along with the bill.
Simon_Jester wrote:I'd want to see at least 20 to 25% support from the "opposing" party. Enough that there is clearly a real bloc within the opposition that supports the action, one that the opposition party leadership actually has to respect. You should need more than one or two fringers. After all, you can probably coerce one or two legislators in a group of several dozen to do practically anything, if you can find the right carrots and sticks, and are free to pick the easiest target.
For claims of bipartisanship to be meaningful, you should have to show actual support from a significant fraction of both parties, as opposed to having a few members bucking the trend of their own party (and possibly getting punished for it afterwards)
For example: the Iraq War Resolution passed with 48 of 49 Republican and 29 of 50 Democratic votes. It was deeply stupid on many levels, but it was definitely bipartisan stupidity.
Otherwise, you have the first half of the Merriam-Webster definition you linked to:
"of, relating to, or involving members of two parties;"
but not the second:
"marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties"
There's no cooperation, agreement, or compromise if only one out of twenty or more legislators in the party is willing to go along with the bill.
That's still just arbitrary semantics though. Why 20-25% and not 50%? Why not 30 or 75%?
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
That's really not the point. You can debate where to draw the line, but 20-25% means there's a significant minority within the opposing party willing to cross the line on an issue, as opposed to one or two rogues. You can't possibly be arguing that "any issue where a single legislator crosses the aisle" is a useful working definition of "bipartisan" for serious political discussion. It's a useful definition for spin and ass-covering by the majority party, but I don't think that makes it a good one.
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963 X-Ray Blues
RedImperator wrote:That's really not the point. You can debate where to draw the line, but 20-25% means there's a significant minority within the opposing party willing to cross the line on an issue, as opposed to one or two rogues. You can't possibly be arguing that "any issue where a single legislator crosses the aisle" is a useful working definition of "bipartisan" for serious political discussion. It's a useful definition for spin and ass-covering by the majority party, but I don't think that makes it a good one.
It's not a good one, but my point is I'm not seeing how else you can refine the definition in a meaningful fashion without using a purely arbitrary number.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
RedImperator wrote:That's really not the point. You can debate where to draw the line, but 20-25% means there's a significant minority within the opposing party willing to cross the line on an issue, as opposed to one or two rogues. You can't possibly be arguing that "any issue where a single legislator crosses the aisle" is a useful working definition of "bipartisan" for serious political discussion. It's a useful definition for spin and ass-covering by the majority party, but I don't think that makes it a good one.
It's not a good one, but my point is I'm not seeing how else you can refine the definition in a meaningful fashion without using a purely arbitrary number.
OK, first, I'm pretty sure "a number large enough for most reasonable people to agree that it's a significant percentage" isn't "purely arbitrary". It's not like someone just threw a dart. Second, who gives a shit if it is arbitrary? It's a better definition than "one guy switched sides, therefore, bipartisan lol" unless you're more interested in being a pedantic fuckwit than actually having a political discussion.
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963 X-Ray Blues
Simon_Jester wrote:Yeah, but if they can only get one Democrat to vote for it... is it really bipartisan? You can talk all you like about how Democrats hate gays as much as Republicans, but if practically none of them are voting for the Gay Hate Bill of 2010, then the Gay Hate Bill isn't bipartisan.
I don't think it's really bipartisan just because they managed to rope one or two people from the other party into backing it. But I do think that it's both parties who try to call things "bipartisan" when they do that, because it's a useful buzzword.
The only difference is that the republicans hate us and use that hate to get votes, while the democrats(politicians anyway) are at best indifferent to us, and use the fact that they are not republicans and strategic lip service in order to secure our vote.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/ Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
That's the difference on LBGT issues. I'm talking about the general case, too: both parties will call anything they want to do "bipartisan" when they can get away with it, even if they haven't actually won over a significant fraction of the other party.
Why the fuck is it so important for things to be "bipartisan" anyway? All that means is that both political parties support it. It doesn't tell you whether it's a good or bad idea, nor does it tell you whether it's reasonable or unreasonable.
The Iraq War had fucking "bipartisan support". Bank deregulation had "bipartisan support". "Don't Ask Don't Tell" had "bipartisan support". The PATRIOT Act had "bipartisan support". Who gives a flying fuck whether something has "bipartisan support"?
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
In theory, any issue that gets bipartisan support is assumed to have such importance that it exceeds the level of factional conflict that comes from a two-party political system. I guess if Republicans and Democrats can agree on something, then something can get done.
In practice, any bipartisan agreement is certainly going to be a watered down, tepid compromise between competing ideals with pragmatism smack dab in the middle. That's 'progress' for you.
Personally, I don't understand why the Democrats don't just do whatever they like now that they've got a Democrat in the White House and majorities in both houses of Congress (at least I think they have majorities in both houses). It's not like the Republicans gave a shit about bipartisanship when they were in power. They just did whatever the fuck they wanted. On the other hand... look how well that turned out.
