Comments on: Maryland’s equal marriage bill does NOT pass

By: Helen in Ireland

Helen in Ireland — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 23:41:32 +0000

Re : the ads – Andrew said:
‘Oh my god people! They have explained this before. They do not select the ads, a company basically pulls words from the site and ads that match are put there by an ad company. If you click on it, the site gets a few cents.’

Wait – so, if you click on Michelle Bachmann’s advert, you are actually raising funds for BTB?

*rubs hands in anticipation; smiles gloating smile*

Oh, what delicious irony!!

By: Amicus

Amicus — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 13:58:59 +0000

@Theo – your observation is probably tactically correct. However, your assumption that our opponents will let us choose the time of referendum may not be. Accordingly, it’s still my view that our side should put up a referendum. If I had good wording for one, I’d put it up. It might be something like, “no official shall declare a civil marriage contract or enactment of civil marriage law to be exclusively his or her particular religious belief.” Not perfect, by a long shot, I know, but I can also think of others: “No new law on civil marriage is permissible if it continues to allow divorce but prohibits gays and lesbians.” more? “No gay or lesbian child shall be denied at law the recognition that they are full citizens”.

I’m sure there are better out there. These are off the top of my head. (Yes, I know referenda are costly).

By: Other Fred in the UK

Other Fred in the UK — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 00:31:53 +0000

I am sorry I have yet to find anything related to politicians that has ‘nothing to do with the next election’.

I am not sure why the analysis should be that different during next year’s session, assuming the bill still does not have enough support to pass. Unless enough incumbents can be unseated is it actually in gay Marylanders’ best interests to force politicians to, in effect, publicly state they are against marriage equality?

By: Hyhybt

Hyhybt — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 22:47:56 +0000

This has nothing to do with the next election, though: they have next year’s session first, and it’s there that this can be pulled back up and put through a vote without bothering the senate again or having to get people to vote differently than they already have.

That’s when we need a vote to see who to re-elect.

By: Other Fred in the UK

Other Fred in the UK — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 20:36:15 +0000

it will be easier for legislators to change their minds (a good thing, when the current count is against you) if they’re not on record already as voting the other way

In principle, I disapprove of a legislative wheeze like this and think there should have been a vote to expose those Democrats who only claim to believe in equality (and to force the hand of any Republicans who know the logical conclusion of their principles will be unpopular). However, in practice, Hyhybt has a very good point, how many opponents could be realistically replaced by allies at the next election?

By: ZRAinSWVA

ZRAinSWVA — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 12:49:44 +0000

So much for the ‘powerful homosexual lobby’. If we needed more ammunition for the DOMA case, they just gave it to us.

By: Rob in San Diego

Rob in San Diego — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 09:28:04 +0000

I thought we had this one in the bag? I thought we had all the votes, What happened?

By: Mark H.

Mark H. — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 07:25:53 +0000

Even more offensive, now the ads are showing a lady in sexy lingerie. Do we need any further proof of the lesbian bias in BTB’s coverage?

By: Hyhybt

Hyhybt — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 04:36:43 +0000

Timothy Kinkaid: I don’t like the ‘not yet’ approach either… but as my state wouldn’t even consider such a bill, and probably, if left to itself, won’t for another ten years… well, Marylanders’ having to wait *one* more year, when the law would take effect at the same time anyway, doesn’t seem so bad :)

Jeremy: having read more, one *legitimate* reason for not voting is that the bill is still alive for next year. It won’t have to start over, and it will be easier for legislators to change their minds (a good thing, when the current count is against you) if they’re not on record already as voting the other way.

By: LostChoi

LostChoi — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 00:17:52 +0000

Oh my god @Andrew! Thanks for the explanation (and the histrionics).