- The Mayor...
- Stuff I am reading from around the interwebs
- Supreme Court Hands Tom Corbett an Enourmous Amount of Power to Protect Pennsylvanians. Will he Use it?
- ONE GETS LIFT-OFF ON GLOBAL RECRUITMENT DRIVE AS U2 360 WORLD TOUR OPENS
- The Shrinking of our Shrinking: Will Philly Grow Next Year?
- Don't Cut Loose World's Poorest
- Franken Wins
- Federal Court Enjoins Confidentiality Provision of Ethics Act. Philly Repercussions to Follow?
- Workers Report Back from Fight for Healthcare for All
- Watch out world, here we come
Good news! Guv will veto slavery
The Inky reports:
Said Chuck Ardo, Gov. Rendell's press secretary, "I can tell you unequivocally that if a pro-slavery bill were to reach the governor's desk, this governor would certainly veto it."
Have you been following this story? An African-American preacher, among many other crazy conservatives, testified at a hearing on Monday FOR a bill that would BAN same-sex marriage, civil unions, and possibly domestic partnership in the state constitution.
Sen. Fumo shot back that this was wrong, even if the legislature passed it. The preacher challenged him, and Fumo said that if there was a secret ballot, the legislature would likely pass a pro-slavery bill [apparently to make the point that majority opinion is not always morally right].
As a result, Fumo has gotten himself and this bill into the headlines.
The appropriations committee is scheduled to vote on it on Monday, and there is a very good chance it will pass. After that, it goes the Senate floor, where it is also likely to pass. That means the only way to stop it from going onto the ballot next year, where it will help pull out conservative R voters, is in the House. Scary huh?
It's interesting then that there has not been much in-depth coverage of the likelihood of this bill's passage which is pretty depressing for someone who is actually being denied most of the rights being discussed already, and will now see even more taken away. It's certainly a regional economic development prohibiter worthy of a lot of attention (remember City Council has already passed a resolution in opposition, with the dissent of the Rs and Anna Verna).
And there's also been very little probing coverage of what Fumo said and why.
It's some reflection (as of course is Obama and Wright and Clinton and all of the surface-level race conversation at the national level) of how bad Americans are at talking about and thinking about and dealing with racism and oppression. And obviously Fumo messed up. He was being really hyperbolic to make a point and he stepped over the line and offended his colleagues who can't believe that he thinks that of them.
And African-American legislators aren't happy either. From a John Baer column:
But Black Caucus Chairman Rep. Thaddeus Kirkland tells me: "It was very insensitive from such a senior senator. It's unfortunate folks don't stick to the issue at hand . . . to equate it [a gay marriage ban] with slavery is wrong."
Asked if he thinks the Legislature is racist, Kirkland said, "No, I don't."
Senate GOP Leader Dominic Pileggi said that if Fumo actually believes a majority of the Senate would vote to reinstate slavery, "It's hard to see how that wouldn't require an apology."
But this where there could be a bit more probing done by the reporters covering this.
Like, hmm. Raise your hand if you think it's plausible that there are racist members of the state legislature.
I mean Rep. Kirkland has to say that, and to accuse colleagues of being willing to vote to reenact slavery is pretty offensive, but come on...no racists in the state legislature?
And this from Sen. Anthony Williams (my Senator) about Fumo:
"Totally unacceptable," said fellow Philly Sen. Anthony Williams, a member of the Pennsylvania Legislative Black Caucus.
"And my view of my colleagues is they are not closet racists," he said, "They may not know everything about black culture . . . [but] I don't know the Amish and I don't hate them."
Ok. Sure.
I mean racist or not, when it comes to service to African-Americans by the state Senate particularly, how well are people of color doing? Take a look at the state of PA job growth, African American unemployment rates, housing rights, protection from predatory lending, wage growth, access to capital, access to quality education...and well, the Senate is not exactly performing at 110%.
But does this have much to do with the issue at hand? Yes and No.
Yes in the sense that you can never compartmentalize oppression or ignore a chance to make connection, but no in the sense that Fumo has made potential allies wary of him at a time when his leadership is needed by making a pretty outrageous statement.
But Fumo did say some other stuff at the hearing that was great, like this from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
The hearing turned at times into a verbal sparring match between Sen. Vince Fumo, D-Philadelphia, and various advocates for the amendment who argued that homosexuality is immoral and that government should encourage relationships that involve procreation. They said same-sex unions would undermine God's plan and cause traditional marriage to become undervalued and obsolete.
Mr. Fumo railed back, calling those arguments ignorant.
"If two homosexuals are allowed to get married, is that going to affect your marriage? Your marriage is that weak you're going to get a divorce over that?" he said to Philadelphian James Horn, a father of eight who testified in favor of the constitutional amendment.
Or this from the Harrisburg Patriot-News:
Throughout the hearing, advocates and opponents interrupted testimony with applause and heckling so often that committee Chairman Gib Armstrong, R-Lancaster, struggled to keep control of the hearing with the raucous crowd's outbursts.
That proved even more of a challenge during a lively exchange between former gubernatorial candidate Peg Luksik of the Pro-Life Coalition, who supported the amendment, and Sen. Vince Fumo, D-Philadelphia, who opposed it.
"This amendment is attempting to formalize in the constitution discrimination against people who are of the same sex and want to live together," Fumo said.
Luksik said marriage is an institution that "needs and deserves additional protections because of the attacks that have been made by judges across the country that have sought to redefine the institution of marriage." That's why the state's 1996 marriage-protection law is no longer enough, she said.
But yeah, the slavery comment was over the top...which reminds me, at the end of the day, you gotta love John Dougherty for saying this (from Inky):
"It obviously doesn't help with the advancement of gay rights," Dougherty said. "But maybe he is smarter than everyone else. Maybe he is looking to set up an insanity defense for his trial."
I am not sure if it does hurt the advancement of gay rights, rabid homophobia among Senate Republicans and handful of Dems is doing just fine thank you, but yea, Fumo is kinda nutty. It's gonna be a fun 7 months before he leaves office.
And meanwhile, Inquirer and Daily news: can you actually cover the rest of the action on the bill as in depth as you have covered Fumo? Jesus, is it too much to ask that our newspapers cover the issues as well as the antics?











New Young Philly Politics subhead
Thanks Ed!
Well, I am pleased that Ed Rendell would veto an act that returns slavery. Great! I mean, sure, maybe that is... expected, given that PA passed an emancipation act in... 1780.
Seriously, the fact that Rendell even issued the statement is a little surreal.
That said, Ed, given the actual topic at hand- bigotry against the LGBT community- maybe your statement should focus elsewhere?
While Fumo may be wrong that
While Fumo may be wrong that the legislature would vote for slavery, I do think the point he was making by analogizing slavery to a ban on gay marriage is appropriate.
I've had discussions with so-called "Progressives" who are against gay rights generally and gay marriage specifically. The argument they use to hide their blatant homophobia basically boils down to because same-sex marriage is not the "law of the land," they cannot support it.
Now obviously slavery was also once the "law of the land" so by the reasoning they use to justify why the can't support same-sex marriage would also have them come out as pro-slavery.
If I had to guess, I think this was the point Fumo was making.
Poll numbers
From the Inquirer's "Reader Feedback" survey next to this article:
Answer to the question, "Should Vince Fumo be disciplined?"
No 60.8% (592 votes)
Yes 39.2% (920 votes)
Total votes 1512
Looks like Fumo gets out of it!
No manipulation and no push...the undecideds break rather easily...no Ray - you cannot see the crosstabs...
More polling
From the Equality Advocates website:
public support
Those poll results suggest to me that we just have to make the case stronger to folks that anti-marriage bills like 1250 are about discrimination more than they are about the institution of marriage. I had to convince my mother of that in Massachusetts, but once I talked with her a little bit she got it and wore a "No Discrimination in the Constitution" button on her coat for the entire winter. Some people are just going to be homophobic no matter what, but the pro-LGBT support for 1400 makes me think that this is perhaps not the case for the majority of the state. And writing discrimination into a Constitution is a big deal.
As for the Fumo comment, to me this is part of a bigger conversation/controversy. I've heard a lot of people making claims that the LGBT civil rights movement is or is not like the African American civil rights movement of the 1960s. I think we all have to be really careful when we make comparisons. I think we have a lot to gain from referencing the past and other civil rights movements - especially if we try to build real alliances along with making those references - but I think it's really important to avoid saying that one oppression is the same as another - because that's just not true and it can sound dismissive. Oppression is oppression, but how it plays out socially and historically varies.
Go Fumo!
There I said it and it may be the last and only time those words come from me (though as Ray points out it may be a fun 7 months so who knows). "Tradition" and the "law of the land" is a dodge on these "defense of marriage" acts. They have to do with inventing brand new ways to institutionalize discrimination plain and simple.
The folks that mouth those platitudes are no different than Southerners who defend the Confederate flag as a symbol of "Southern heritage" without acknowledging that the Confederacy was invented as political institution specifically to protect slavery as an institution of oppression (and for white slave owners economic opportunity).
For State Sen. Williams (also my Senator) and others bristling at anybody suggesting that some current members the PA State Legislator might be willing to vote to institutionalize discrimination and oppression I quote the great Coretta Scott King on homophobia and "defense of marriage" laws.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Gay marriage- two parts of a complicated issue
To start with an on-topic reference, good on Fumo for his comment. The problem is, he used hyperbole in a society where most people can't spell or define the word.
As for gay marriage, most people would agree that there are two political/communal parts to the institution of marriage. The first is, quite simply, a matter of a contract. Contract law, it is almost universally agreed, is the concern of the government. The other part of marriage is sacramental/religious. It is widely- albeit not universally- agreed that all sacramental/religious issues are no concern whatsoever of the state, except where they explicitly come into conflict with civil or criminal law.
The answer to the gay marriage issue is to create a clear concept of civil marriage. While civil marriage does exist in the US- that's precisely what you get when you're married by a Justice of the Peace, or a Judge, or the Captain of a ship, etc.- the sacramental/religious part of marriage tends to get tangled up with civil marriage, so that people fail to see how you can have one without the other. What to do? Simple, really: create a clear, civil-only marriage, with no expectation at all that there needs to be or even should be a religious/sacramental portion. That way, a gay couple could unite in a civil marriage, thereby gaining the benefits which come with marriage (although why anyone would work so hard to get in-laws is beyond me). If they want, they can also have their union sanctified by a religious order which agrees with the concept- Reform Judaism, and various Protestant Christian groups, for instance.
-Z
Right
But the people leading the fight for "marriage protection" are not accidentally mixing up civil marriage for sacramental marriage. They are intentionally using misleading sacramental language to take away others civil rights pre-emptively. That's not OK.
Some of the voters may be just "getting confused" but the people who write and vote for these bills know exactly what they are doing. They are passing new constitutionally mandated forms of civil discrimination behind a religious fig leaf. And while they are at it they are also infringing on the divergent religious beliefs of the increasing number of congregations which do perform same-sex sacraments. So much for not establishing an "official religion", eh?
I'm beginning to think its time to start reminding some of our Philadelphia-area State Senators that any breath wasted griping about Fumo's hyperbole is breath they should be using to denounce the whats wrong with SB 1250 loudly and clearly. Its absurd to think that bill actually has a chance of passing in 2008. Absurd.
In fact if anyone is interested in sending any of them a friendly letter reminding them of this please feel free to make liberal use of the Coretta Scott King quotes upthread. There are even more on the page linked to in her name.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Ah, but...
... if they're using sacramental language to justify civil discrimination, they're mixing metaphors, so to speak. If you want to make a logical argument against a civil measure, you need to use a civil argument. To do otherwise is illogical.
Of course, humans have only the most passing familiarity with logic, so I'm hardly surprised that people wish to mix their metaphors to justify their own bias.
-Z
If the gay marriage ban does pass the senate...
It is very important that it be sent the State Committee. Babette Josephs will kill the ban in her committee, I urge all of you to call your legislators and the leadership and let them know you want this to be sent to her committee.