Civil rights should not be election fodder

The New Hampshire gay marriage law went into effect at the start of this month. Of course, there is opposition. But NH makes it very difficult to pass a marriage protection amendment (I wish it was this hard in other states, like Michigan).

A commenter reports on analysis of why the gay-marriage vote failed in Maine. There are 4 reasons given:

1. Civil rights activists are weakest outside urban areas and the financial clout of Fundies can dominate rural politics.

2. Obama and the Democratic Party sat on their hands (or have been hostile to gays) rather than being the fierce advocate they said they were.

3. The state-by-state process of securing gay rights isn't working. It's time to get the prez. and Congress to live up to the national constitution that has an equal protection clause. No matter what states do, marriage will be unequal until enacted at the federal level.

4. Civil rights should not be election fodder manipulated by well-financed bigots. Why should we have to reassert our rights in every state and city when those rights are given in the federal constitution? If we wait for public opinion we'll wait a long time. People are hurt by the current system.

The Rhode Island legislature overrode Gov. Donald Carcieri's veto of some pro-gay legislation. The override vote was quite sizable, 67-3 in the House and 29-3 in the Senate. As the only New England state that hasn't made an attempt at gay marriage (with most succeeding) what did RI toss to gays that got the gov. so stirred up? The right for one to make funeral arrangements for a deceased partner. Yup, that's it. But apparently enough to start the slippery slope towards the destruction of marriage.


The New Jersey Senate voted on the gay marriage bill -- and defeated it, 14-20. Since the incoming governor will veto any future bills it could be a while before gay marriage comes through the legislature. It appears the incoming governor was able to convince several senators to switch votes during the lame duck session (probably applying the same kind of pressure I sometimes wish Obama would apply to certain federal senators). The vote is disappointing in a secondary respect -- many pro-marriage legislators were easily elected and gay marriage was so much considered a done deal that it wasn't an issue in the campaign.

Garden State Equality will go back to the NJ Supremes. In 2006 that court said the NJ legislature must enact marriage for gays or provide an equivalent structure. The legislature chose civil unions. And those are proving not to be equivalent. The case is boosted by gay marriage opponents have been saying instead of gay marriage they want to "fix" civil unions -- an admission they aren't equivalent. Now the only battle is to convince the court that the only way the two structures can be equivalent is for both to have the same name.