Leave a Comment Johan
NJ Senate President Steve Sweeney talks marriage equality game plan, Mitt Romney panders to conservatives at CPAC
February 10, 2012
By Jacob Combs
Speaking to WNYC today, New Jersey Senate President Steve Sweeney had this to say about the marriage equality bill scheduled for a vote next week in the legislature: “It is absolutely going to pass on Monday, and I expect it to pass the Assembly on Thursday, and it’s going to go to the governor’s desk.” He did admit, however, that as of now, he does not have the two-thirds vote required in the Senate to override Gov. Chris Christie’s promised veto. Nevertheless, he plans to make marriage equality a priority throughout the legislature’s current session, which goes into 2014, even if he doesn’t succeed this year, saying, “If the governor vetoes the bill, we’re gonna fight to override the governor. I have two years to do it almost, so that gives us plenty of time to work on people.” Regarding Republican Senator Christopher Bateman’s proposed legislation to send the issue to voters for a referendum, Sweeney said there is ”not a chance in hell that bill is going anywhere,” adding that, in his opinion, Bateman’s bill is “a cop-out.”
Also today, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney continued his race to the right, speaking before an enthusiastic audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference and highlighting his work against marriage equality as governor of Massachusetts. At the conference, Romney called the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Court decision allowing marriage equality “inexplicable,” and touted his support of a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples and reinstatement of a 1913 state law prohibiting out-of-state couples from wedding in Massachusetts. “On my watch,” Romney said, “we fought hard and prevented Massachusetts from becoming the Las Vegas of gay marriage.”
Romney also reiterated his support for the federal Defense of Marriage Act and assured attendants that as president, he would fight for a constitutional amendment banning marriage equality nation-wide. Romney’s comments today belie any argument he can make to being a moderate candidate in the race, although they most likely come out of a place of political expediency as the candidate as his team read the writing on the wall regarding the recent injection of social issues into the 2012 Republican presidential battle.
While his statements at CPAC are more likely than not pandering to the conservative base, it will be interesting to see if Romney sticks to them should he become the GOP’s eventual nominee. Plans for a constitutional amendment on marriage equality are even more of a long-shot now than they were when President George W. Bush called for them: the process of amending the U.S. Constitution is very much an uphill battle, and all polling on the subject shows that it has almost no chance of success with the public. In addition, marriage equality could very well be a talking point in the 2012 campaign. A referendum on the issue will at the very least occur in Maine, and it seems likely marriage will appear on the Washington ballot as well. Depending on what happens with the economy, President Obama’s reelection campaign could see marriage equality as a way for the president to connect with and energize a portion of his young base who feel strongly about the issue. While it is indeed disappointing to hear that President Obama’s position on marriage equality is still ‘evolving,’ it is evident from the remarks of Mitt Romney at CPAC (or indeed any of the other possible GOP nominees) that the views of the two party’s presidential candidates could not be more diametrically opposed, or more clear-cut, come November.
Filed under: Marriage equality
Having technical problems? E-mail prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
12 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Ann S. | February 10, 2012 at 3:11 pm
§
2.
Carpool Cookie | February 10, 2012 at 3:28 pm
" 'On my watch,' Romney said, 'we fought hard and prevented Massachusetts from becoming the Las Vegas of gay marriage.'
What a PROUD fact to have associated with the family name for his descendants.
Could someone PLEASE think of the CHILDREN??
3.
bndkllr2 | February 10, 2012 at 4:25 pm
I hate to insult black people, but I think Obama is scared to death, perhaps justifiably so, that he will lose the support of the African American community if he supports gay marriage. There are bigots in every race, but I had no idea how much of a problem there was in the black community against gays until prop 8 passed.
4.
chiefscribe | February 10, 2012 at 5:39 pm
OT but relevant to California, this post from SCOTUSBlog on how long it could take to get the case to the Supreme Ct: http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/02/prop-8-a-slow-j…
5.
X-man | February 10, 2012 at 9:21 pm
Do you have any idea how much bigotry there is in the gay community towards blacks? Perhaps we, as a community, need to take a searching and fearless moral inventory of our own feelings about race. There could just possibly be a eight hundred pound garilla in the room that we don't want to look at.
6.
X-man | February 10, 2012 at 9:25 pm
To me it is not at all disappointing to hear that the Presidents position on marriage equality is evolving but rather encouraging. I'l take an open mind over a closed one anyday.
7.
David | February 11, 2012 at 1:01 am
I think it's more likely that he knows how much bigotry towards us there still is in the ranks of senior Democrats. At the moment the Dems pretty much have the gay and gay-friendly vote sewn up. Obama knows that bringing our issues to the fore will result in anti-gay rhetoric spouting from his own party, during an election year. Why risk that?
8.
Steve | February 11, 2012 at 8:14 am
It's not so much about them being black. It's about them being so ultra-religious. But in many ways religion is inextricably linked to the African American identity.
9.
Sheryl_Carver | February 11, 2012 at 9:00 am
Thanks for that link – very interesting & seems to summarize the situation & describe in lay terms how Prop 8's legal journey could unfold.
On a side note, I wonder how many people who were all for legal discrimination against blacks changed their minds over the years after seeing that the world did not end, & regretted their anti-equality stance. Am guessing the same percentage, whatever that is, will apply to the anti-LGBT equality folks as our march toward full civil rights progresses.
10.
bythesea | February 11, 2012 at 9:18 am
If a Santorum or Romney wins the election we can be sure that they won't make SCOTUS or federal judge appointments that have even a possibility of supporting equality as justices, while Obama certainly will. I prefer someone who won't block the way over a person sworn to be dedicated to blocking us for decades to come, whether or not Obama "evolves" before or after the election.
11.
Steve | February 11, 2012 at 12:21 pm
It's pure politics. Just pandering in the way that Republicans pander to the evangelicals. When he is reelected and has nothing to lose anymore, he'll suddenly evolve
12.
Fluffyskunk | February 13, 2012 at 4:41 am
Nice monolithic Them, there. Because no gay people are black, and no black people are gay. And no gay people are religious, and no religious people are gay…
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.