GODLESS WEDNESDAY: Most Americans Believe In Church-State Separation

A new poll from the Pew Research Center re-affirms the notion that most Americans believe that religion and government policy should be separated. This idea is usually described as a "wall between church and state." More than twice as many support church-state separation than those that think the two should be intertwined.

When it comes to religion’s role in government policy, most Americans think the two should be kept separate from one another. About two-thirds (65%) say religion should be kept separate from government policies, compared with 32% who say government policies should support religious values and beliefs. 

A narrow majority of Republicans and Republican leaners (54%) say religion should be kept separate from government policies. However, conservative Republicans are evenly split; 49% say government policies should support religious values and beliefs, while 48% think religion should be kept separate from policy. By roughly two-to-one (67% to 31%), moderate and liberal Republicans say religion should be kept separate from government policy. 

Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, 76% think religion should be kept separate from government policies. A wide 86% majority of liberal Democrats say this; a somewhat smaller majority of conservative and moderate Democrats (69%) take this view. 

White evangelical Protestants are one group where a narrow majority says government policies should support religion: 54% say this, while 43% say religion should be kept separate from policy. In comparison, majorities of both black Protestants (55%) and white mainline Protestants (70%) think religion should be separate from government policy.

In fact the only sub-group that supports the idea that government should support religion are white Evangelical protestants. And, coincidentally, members of this group voted overwhelmingly for the Trump-Pence 2016 ticket and the Trump administration has multiple members of this group in the Cabinet (Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III and Vice-President Mike Pence). What impact this will have on public policy is extremely worrying to godless people like yours truly.

SATURDAY POLITICS: Graphic Shows Dramatic Increase In Partisanship Over Time

The above graphic is taken from the scholarly article "The Rise of Partisanship and Super-Cooperators in the U.S. House of Representatives" by Andris et al appearing in PLOS One.

An excerpt from the Discussion section is perfect for today's Saturday Politics post:

The key line is "Our analysis shows that has been increasing exponentially for 60 years, and has had negative effects on Congressional productivity."

Hat/tip to Politico.

Rep. David Jolly (FL-13) Becomes 8th Republican To Endorse Marriage Equality

Congressman David Jolly, Republican of Florida, became just the 8th member of his party currently serving in Congress to endorse marriage equality today. Just like Congressman Charlie Den of Pennsylvania did this past May, Rep. Jolly announced his position in light of a recent ruling striking down his state's ban on marriage equality.

Last week, a state judge struck down Florida's state constitutional ban on marriage equality. (Since it was just a state judge, and only applied in one county, I didn't even cover the news here at MadProfessah.com). No same-sex couples were able to get married as a result of the decision.

However, the more interesting political fallout of last week's marriage ruling was that Rep. Jolly (who recently won a special election to be the newest member of Congress a few months ago) was asked about his position on marriage equality and answered thusly:

“As a matter of my Christian faith, I believe in traditional marriage," said Jolly in a statement to The Post. "But as a matter of Constitutional principle I believe in a form of limited government that protects personal liberty. To me, that means that the sanctity of one’s marriage should be defined by their faith and by their church, not by their state. Accordingly, I believe it is fully appropriate for a state to recognize both traditional marriage as well as same-sex marriage, and therefore I support the recent decision by a Monroe County Circuit Judge.”

Peculiarly, even though there are just 4 members of Congress who have endorsed marriage equality, half of them are in the Senate. Just a few weeks ago Senator Susan Collins announced she is in favor of marriage equality (which her state has had since 2012). Jolly joins his fellow Floridian Republican Congressmember Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in supporting marriage equality, which is significant since all the other House Republicans who support marriage equality represent states which already have marriage equality, something Florida does not. Yet.

QUEER QUOTE: Pennsylvania Republican Congressman Announces Support For Marriage Equality

Big news out of Pennsylvania! Last week the state became the 19th to become a marriage equality state when the Governor decided not to appeal a federal judge's ruling striking down the Keystone State's ban on marriage equality.

Republican Congressman Charlie Dent told the Washington Post he now supports marriage equality:

"Life is too short to have the force of government stand in the way of two adults whose pursuit of happiness includes marriage.[...]"As a Republican, I value equality, personal freedom and a more limited role for government in our lives. I believe this philosophy should apply to the issue of marriage as well."

Congressman  Dent is one of the very few Republican federal officeholders who have publicly announced their support for marriage equality. The others are: U.S. Senator Rob Portman (R-OH), U.S. Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL), U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-IL) and Congressman Mark Hanna (R-NY).

Virginia Legislature Unanimously Repeals State's Sodomy Ban

 The Virginia legislature is very closely divided along partisan lines in a purple state that appears to be trending blue but which has been controlled by conservatives (both Republican and Democrat) for  along time. So, it was pretty surprising that legislators in both houses have been able to pass a measure (any measure) unanimously. What was the topic that garnered such unanimity? Repealing the state's archaic Crime Against Nature law which purported to criminalize oral and anal sex among consenting adults (even married ones!) despite the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas which invalidated all such laws across the nation.

Repeal of the statute was necessary because the 4th U.S. Circuit explicitly rejected former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's bizarre notion that the sodomy ban was still able to used to criminalize oral or anal sex between consenting adults.

The Washington Blade reports:

Garrett and others pushing the bill said it was needed because a ruling last year by the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond declaring the sodomy statute unconstitutional and unenforceable made it unclear whether prostitution involving oral or anal sex could be prosecuted. 

Others, including former Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, argued that the appeals court ruling, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, would prevent the prosecution of adults seeking to have consensual oral sex with minors between the age of 15 and 18. 

Virginia’s existing criminal code addressing prostitution and non-forcible sex was linked to the sodomy statute, which for years defined sodomy as a criminal felony regardless of whether the sex was between consenting adults in private.

It should be noted that there are several states that still have sodomy laws on the books, more than 11 years after Lawrence struck them all down as unconstitutional: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah.

Hat/tip to Think Progress.

SATURDAY POLITICS: Gallup Poll Says Americans 23% Liberal, 34% Moderate, 38% Conservative

The latest Gallup poll indicates that the percentage of Americans who identify as Liberal has reached an all-time high of 23%. That's the good news, but the bad news is that the percentage who identify as conservative is still the plurality in America, at 38%, a full four percentage points ahead of the moderate fraction of the population.

Gallup summarizes the implication of the polls as reflecting the increase in political polarization we have experienced recently.

Americans' perceptions of their political views -- if not the views themselves -- are undergoing unmistakable change, contributing to greater political polarization in the country. Now, the plurality of Democrats consider themselves to be politically liberal, whereas a decade ago, Democrats were most likely to say they were moderate. That could be because Democrats are now more comfortable calling themselves "liberal" -- a term that was less popular in the recent past -- even if their current and past views on issues are similar. But it could also reflect an evolution in their views to favor more traditionally liberal issue positions.

Meanwhile, Republicans, who have always been overwhelmingly conservative, have become increasingly so. One manifestation of that may have been a series of primary election challenges for long-serving GOP members of Congress by candidates aligned with the Tea Party movement.

These data confirm the tendency for Americans who identify with the two major parties to be more ideologically homogeneous than was the case in the past, a tendency that appears to be matched by the increasing polarization between Democratic and Republican members of Congress.

The changes in ideological identification among party groups has resulted in a rise in the percentage of Americans overall who call themselves liberal and a decrease in the percentage of moderates. Even though the percentage of conservatives has generally held steady, the rise in liberal identification leaves conservatives with their smallest advantage over liberals in the last two decades. If the trends in Democratic self-identification continue, that gap will likely continue to shrink over time, and could lead to further polarization in U.S. politics.

Hat/tip to Talking Points Memo.

Democrats (Finally) Change Filibuster Rules On Presidential Appointments

The Democratic majority in the United States Senate has finally acted to limit partisan filibusters of presidential appointments, voting 52-48 to change the operating rules of the Senate, by deploying what was previously known as the "nuclear option."

Progressives are generally thrilled with the rule change and this graphic depicting the current makeup of the federal judiciary is the main reason why:

These results are summarized by Campaign for America's Future:

When Obama came into office, Republican appointess held 59.4% of the filled judicial seats. But just this month, Democrats took a one-seat edge and now hold 50.06% of the seats. 

(The shift was little noted in the media. USA Today flagged that Democrats reached a tie on November 1. Soon after, the Senate filled two vacancies, while one new vacancy was createdwhen a Democratic judge moved to “senior” status.) 

But while Dems now hold that paper-thin edge, there are 93 vacancies on the table. (Plus another 18 judges have announced they will vacate their seats in the near future.) 

If Republicans dare Democrats into scrapping the filibuster for judicial nominations, President Obama can move to fill all those vacancies, which would give Democrats control of more than 55% of the judiciary.

It would indeed be a great thing if the federal judiciary actually was occupied by people who thought it was their job to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority and enforce constitutional liberties and civil rights instead of the  fraud of "original intent."

HISTORY! Senate Cloture Vote on ENDA Succeeds 61-30

As expected, the United States Senate was able to achieve cloture on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) by a vote of 61-30. This means that it is very likely that the measure will pass the body when that vote is taken in few days.

The Washington Blade reports:

By a vote of 61-30, senators invoked cloture on the legislation as Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) presided. The vote enables up to 30 hours of debate and amendments before a vote for final passage, which is expected Wednesday.

Joining 54 sponsors of the bill in voting for ENDA, whose chief sponsor is Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), on the Democratic side were Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), who previously articulated support for ENDA. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), an ENDA co-sponsor, didn’t vote.

On the Republican side, additional votes came from Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.). Other votes came from Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who voted for the bill in committee, and Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), who previously articulated support earlier in the day. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who also voted for ENDA in committee, didn’t vote.

Including the Republican original co-sponsors of ENDA — Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) — the bill had seven Republicans votes. As he indicated he would, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) voted “no” after entering the Senate following [openly lesbian] Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), apparently after a conversation with her.

It will be interesting if all 7 of the Republicans who voted in favor of invoking cloture will also vote in favor of the actual legislation. One can make the argument that one was just in favor of the measure going forward for debate on the Senate floor (that's what cloture means) without actually supporting the measure itself but I dpoubt that most Republican Senators constituents would be forgiving of such apostasy.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Congress Ends Government Shutdown And Raises Debt Limit

The Congress passed a bipartisan agreement to end the shutdown of the federal government and allow it to borrow money to finance the national debt. The U.S. House passed the measure 285-144 and the U.S. Senate passed it 81-18. The agreement was brokered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and passed the House with the vote of every single Democratic member (198) and was opposed by a majority (144) of the Republican Congressional majority.

The federal government is funded through January 15, 2014 and the debt ceiling is lifted until around February 7, 2014.

Coalition Launched To Fight Indiana Marriage Equality Ban

A bipartisan coalition of individuals and organizations called Freedom Indiana was launched this week to defeat a proposed state constitutional amendment (or min-DOMA) to prohibit marriage equality in the Hoosier state. The Republican-controlled legislature has passed the measure once and needs to do so again in order to get the discriminatory amendment on the November 2014 statewide ballot.

From the press release:

Freedom Indiana campaign to oppose marriage amendment

Bipartisan statewide organization to support the integrity of the Indiana Constitution, promote liberty and fairness for all Hoosiers 

INDIANAPOLIS -- A coalition of Indiana businesses and groups today announced the formation of Freedom Indiana, a bipartisan statewide organization that opposes the amendment that would permanently alter the Indiana Constitution to define marriage and could potentially affect hundreds of rights under current Indiana law. 

Marriage already is strictly defined as between a man and woman under Indiana law.

Freedom Indiana will immediately undertake a grassroots campaign focused on the 2014 legislative session, where Indiana lawmakers can choose either to table or vote down the amendment or send it to voters for a statewide referendum next November. Freedom Indiana is committed to protecting the Indiana Constitution by defeating the amendment should it appear on the ballot.

Coalition partners include Eli Lilly and Company, Cummins, Indiana Equality Action, Freedom to Marry, Gill Action, American Unity Fund, American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and Human Rights Campaign.

“The goals of Freedom Indiana are aligned with Lilly’s long-held position that HJR6 is bad for business and bad for our state,” said Robert Smith, director of corporate responsibility for Eli Lilly and Company. “As a global biopharmaceutical company that must retain and attract the very best talent in the world, embedding this proposed amendment into Indiana’s constitution will produce difficult and unnecessary challenges. We’re happy to partner with Cummins and several other important organizations to address our common goal of keeping Indiana a welcoming state for everyone.”

"Cummins has a long history of commitment to diversity and treating all people with dignity and respect," stated Marya Rose, Chief Administrative Officer for Cummins.  "We feel strongly that this amendment, which is unnecessary given Indiana law today, will enshrine inequality into the Indiana Constitution and negatively impact the thousands of Cummins employees who live and work in Indiana as well as harm our efforts to retain and attract the best talent here. Diversity is a core company value at Cummins and we are pleased to join the other partners of Freedom Indiana to ensure that we treat all people in Indiana with dignity and respect."

A study earlier this year by students at the IU Maurer School of Law found a significant number of rights and obligations related to marriage that could be permanently denied under the proposed amendment.

"We will make sure lawmakers and voters know that we shouldn't be tinkering with the Indiana Constitution to deny freedoms to certain individuals," said Indiana Equality Action president Chris Paulsen. "We're Hoosiers, and our core values include liberty and fairness. This amendment runs counter to both and may also create a litany of unintended legal consequences."

Freedom Indiana is run by an independent board of directors headed by Indiana Equality Action executive director Rick Sutton. The coalition includes Indiana businesses, community, civil rights and faith leaders, advocates for fairness, former and current lawmakers and Hoosiers who believe we must take a strong stand for freedom if we want our state and its residents to prosper.

The Indiana Freedom campaign is managed by veteran political operative Megan Robertson, who has worked for the Indiana Republican Party, Marion County Republican Party and on two GOP presidential campaigns. She managed Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard's successful 2011 campaign.

“Indiana has always been a welcoming community known for our ‘Hoosier Hospitality’,” Robertson said.  “This amendment directly contradicts the reputation that has helped us recruit jobs and economic investment for our state.  The Freedom Indiana campaign brings together those who have an interest in preserving our freedoms and moving our state forward regardless of political affiliation.”

The campaign currently is headquartered in Indianapolis with plans to establish regional headquarters in the coming months. 

Freedom Indiana is a bipartisan statewide organization that champions liberty for all Hoosiers. The organization is opposed to an amendment that would permanently alter the Indiana Constitution to define marriage and could potentially affect hundreds of rights related to marriage under current Indiana law. Freedom Indiana launched in August 2013.

If the good guys can stop an anti-gay marriage amendment in Indiana that would probably mean the demise of the anti-gay marriage movement and would signal that all future action in this area would most likely be positive, which would be somewhat of a surprise and perhaps increase momentum towards the day when marriage equality is a nationwide reality.

U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) Endorses Marriage Equality

Lisa Murkowski, the Senior United States Senator from Alaska, made history today as the 3rd Republican U.S. Senator to publicly announce her support for marriage equality. Murkowski is considered a somewhat moderate member of her caucus, and is also the first Republican female Senator to endorse marriage equality. The other two Republican senators who support full marriage rights for same-sex couples are Mark Kirk of Illinois (2nd Republican Senator to do so) and Rob Portman of Ohio (first Republican to do so, in response to his son's coming out as gay).

Here is an excerpt from the statement on her official Senate website:

The Supreme Court is set to make a pair of decisions on the topic of marriage equality shortly, and the national conversation on this issue is picking back up. This is a significant moment for our nation when it comes to rethinking our society’s priorities and the role of government in Americans’ private lives and decisions, so I want to be absolutely clear with Alaskans. I am a life-long Republican because I believe in promoting freedom and limiting the reach of government.  When government does act, I believe it should encourage family values.  I support the right of all Americans to marry the person they love and choose because I believe doing so promotes both values:  it keeps politicians out of the most private and personal aspects of peoples’ lives – while also encouraging more families to form and more adults to make a lifetime commitment to one another.  While my support for same sex civil marriage is something I believe in, I am equally committed to guaranteeing that religious freedoms remain inviolate, so that churches and other religious institutions can continue to determine and practice their own definition of marriage.

With the notion of marriage – an exclusive, emotional, binding ‘til death do you part’ tie – becoming more and more an exception to the rule given a rise in cohabitation and high rates of divorce, why should the federal government be telling adults who love one another that they cannot get married, simply because they happen to be gay?   I believe when there are so many forces pulling our society apart, we need more commitment to marriage, not less.

This thinking is consistent with what I hear from more and more Alaskans especially our younger generations.  Like the majority of Alaskans, I supported a constitutional amendment in 1998 defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, but my thinking has evolved as America has witnessed a clear cultural shift.  Fifteen years after that vote, I find that when one looks closer at the issue, you quickly realize that same sex unions or civil marriages are consistent with the independent mindset of our state – and they deserve a hands-off approach from our federal policies.

I think as the Supreme Court cases get released there will be a flood of similar statements as politicians use the opportunity of a major change from the United States Supreme Court towards LGBT equality to articulate their opinion change on LGBT equality as well.

ENDA Now Supported By Majority of U.S. Senate!

With the addition of Tom Carper of Delaware, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) now sports the public support of 51 Senators, a clear majority of the United States Senate. However, in order to become law, the measure will almost certainly need to clear a Republican filibuster, so the real level of support necessary for passage of this key legislative priority is 60 votes.

Astonishingly, ENDA has bipartisan support with moderate Republicans (Yes, Virginia, they do exist!) Mark Kirk of Illinois and Susan Collins of Maine supporting S. 815. However, there are still 5 members of the Democratic caucus who have not signed on:

The 5 Democrats who have not publicly said whether they oppose anti-LGBT discrimination are Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Bill Nelson of Florida, Tim Johnson of South Daoka, Joe Manchin and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia. It must be noted that Machin and Pryor are two of the three remaining Democrats who do not support marriage equality (the third is Mary Landrieu of Louisiana). Oddly, Johnson and Nelson and Rockefeller all do support the right of gay people to marry the person they love but not the right of gay people to hold a job without getting fired! (Cognitive dissonance, much?)

There's no question the clamor around full civil rights for LGBT Americans is going to get louder as the month of June continues and the Supreme Court weights in on the issue in the Hollingsworth and Windsor cases by the end of the month.

PA LGBT Civil Rights Bill Introduced!

Brian Sims is the first openly LGBT person
 elected to the Pennsylvania legislature

Good news from Pennsylvania on the gay rights front. Although most of the legislative action that has been happening recently has focused on the rapid developments in marriage equality, an even more important issue facing LGBT Americans is the lack of basic civil rights protections, at the federal level and in most American states.

In fact, despite what "fact-checker" Politifact says, it is absolutely true that in 29 states you can be fired if your employer learns that you are GLB or if they even think that you might be GLB. In 34 states you can be fired due to your gender identity or gender expression. That's because as of today, there are only 21 states that laws on the books banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and 16 states that ban employment discrimination based on gender identity or gender expression.

The federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would ban employment discrimination against LGBT people nationwide if passed by Congress. Amazingly, even though we now know that there is a majority of Senators that support marriage equality, we do not know for sure that a majority of Senators supports employment non-discrimination for LGBT Americans.

Openly gay Democrat Brian Sims is one of 200 members of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. In fact, Brian is the first person to be elected to the Pennsylvania legislature, although Republican state Representative Mike Fleck came out last year as well.

Sims was one of the most prominent speakers at a press conference the introduction of two bills this week. Pennsylvania has famously been described by  Democratic politico James Carville as "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between."

LGBT Think Progress reports:

Currently, the state offers no protections against discrimination for the LGBT community, including in employment, housing, and public accommodations — let alone any form of legal recognition for same-sex couples. A new pair of bills (HB 300 and SB 300) introduced this week with bipartisan support from 100 state lawmakers would ensure that LGBT people have legal recourse if they experience discrimination because of their identities.

Openly gay state Rep. Brian Sims (D) said that he hopes the commonwealth will “finally evolve,” and Rep. Chris Ross (R) added that ending discrimination is not a partisan issue, because “All Pennsylvania citizens deserve to be treated with dignity.” The Republican-controlled General Assembly may stymie the bill’s progress, but a recent Susquehanna Polling survey found that more than 70 percent of Pennsylvanians support the protections, even in the conservative central regions of the state.

It's well past time that Pennsylvania, the nation's 5th largest state, had statewide LGBT protections!

Actually, of the top 10 states by population (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia) only three have laws banning sexual orientation employment discrimination by private entities (California, New York, Illinois) and only two (California, Illinois) have laws banning gender identity discrimination by private entities.

The time to pass a federal non-discrimination law (ENDA) is now!

Delaware Marriage Equality Vote Tue May 7;; Result In Doubt

The latest whip count on HB75 in the Delaware State Senate from Delaware Liberal has the marriage equality bill's fate still very much in doubt, with 10 (Democratic) Senators labeled as YES votes and 9 Senators (7 Republicans and 2 Democrats) labeled as No votes on HB 75. There are two undecided (or publicly unknown) Senators: Bethany Hall-Long (D-Newark) and Catherine Cloutier (R-Heatherbrooke). You can contact them at:

catherine.cloutier@state.de.us or 302-744-4197 or 302-577-8517bethany.hall-long@state.de.us or 302-744-4286

Even though there is more support for the marriage equality bill than opposition, it will not pass the Senate unless it has 11 confirmed votes in the 21 member body. Not voting or absences are counted as NO votes. The good thing is that the bill is now on the Senate floor, having made it through committee by a 4-2 vote on May 1. It is scheduled to be considered by the full Senate on Wednesday May 8 Tuesday May 7.

This is the last legislative step before marriage equality becomes law with Governor Markell's signature since HB 75 passed the state House by a vote of 23-18 on Wednesday April 23rd.

Since Rhode Island enacted marriage equality on Thursday May 1st, Delaware would become the 11th state to enact marriage equality if HB 75 passes on Wednesday.

If you live in Delaware or know anyone else who does, please have them contact their state Senator and the two State Senators above to let them know your thoughts on marriage equality.

Gov. Chafee (I-RI) Explains Why His State Is Enacting Marriage Equality Today

Lincoln Chafee is a former Republican United States Senator (from
1999 to 2007) and the current Independent Governor of Rhode Island

Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee has written an op-ed in today's New York Times explaining why he is going to be signing marriage equality into law today:

ON Thursday, the Rhode Island House of Representatives is expected to approve legislation to extend the right to marry to all Rhode Islanders, regardless of sexual orientation. I plan to sign the Marriage Equality Act into law immediately after the vote, on the steps of the Rhode Island State House, overlooking downtown Providence. This is the same spot where, in my 2011 inaugural address, I called for Rhode Island to embrace marriage equality.

[...]

I have been heartened in recent months to see members of my old party coming around on marriage equality, including the entire Republican caucus in the Rhode Island Senate — the first time a caucus of either party has been unanimous in its support. That reflects sound political judgment, and some values that are at least as Republican as they are Democratic, including a belief in marriage as an institution and a desire to keep government out of our personal lives.

The push for equality will continue to grow stronger in statehouses, courthouses and polling places in every state in America. This is, by and large, a generational issue, not a geographic one. Even in the reddest states, the rising generations are far more tolerant than their parents and grandparents. As this shift continues, marriage equality will inevitably become law in more and more states. The states that cling to their old prohibitions will then be viewed as the outliers. Like Rhode Island in recent years, they will be seen as islands of old thinking.

[...]

So tomorrow, when I sign the Marriage Equality Act into law, I will be thinking of the Rhode Islanders who have fought for decades simply to be able to marry the person they love. I will be thinking of how Rhode Island is upholding its legacy as a place founded on the principles of tolerance and diversity. But I will also be thinking, as all governors must, about the economy. With marriage equality becoming law tomorrow night in Rhode Island, we are sending a clear message that we are open for business, and that all are welcome. I hope that leaders in capitals across the country — including Washington — will soon realize that marriage equality is an issue where doing the right thing and the smart thing are one and the same.

Today Rhode Island will become the tenth state in the United States in which same-sex couples have all the rights, responsibilities and benefits of marriage that a state can bestow (including the title). That fact means that the entire region of New England (Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island) will have marriage equality.

UPDATE: Delaware Marriage Equality Vote Still Very Close

Sen. Catherine Cloutier may be the deciding vote on whether
Delaware becomes the 11th state to enact marriage equality

Good news from Delaware. After my post yesterday on the 10-10 tie in the 21-member Delaware State Senate on pending marriage equality legislation, Sen. Bruce Bushweller sent out a letter which thoughtfully outlined his reasons for voting yes on HB 75:

Underlying my decision to vote yes is my belief that the time has come for Delawareans to fully recognize the legitimacy and dignity of the long term, stable, committed and loving relationships of same sex couples as we do of opposite sex couples in the same kind of relationships.  To do otherwise is to engage in unjustified and damaging discrimination that is inconsistent with the values and principles of our democratic society.

[...]

Many opponents believe same sex, civil marriage violates their religious principles.  I have met with several religious leaders who feel this way.  While I deeply respect their views, and even more so their right to believe as they wish, I also respect the views of other religious leaders with whom I have also met who believe that civil marriage is fully consistent with their religious principles.  There are sincere, thoughtful and knowledgeable people of faith on both sides of the issue.  I should note that the bill is explicit in assuring that all religions are free to choose which marriages they will solemnize, and religious societies, clergypersons and ministers of any religion will not be required to solemnize any marriage that does not conform to its religious beliefs.

One of the last aspects I considered in reaching my decision was the fact that, by and large, heterosexual marriage – one man, one woman – has been the dominant tradition in western civilization for a long time.  The question is whether the time has come for Delaware to embrace same sex, civil marriage through our civil law.  Recognizing that HB 75 has no impact on any religious denomination’s view of marriage and that it changes only state law in this regard, and in light of the other issues described above, I concluded that, in fact, the time has come to do this.

However, with Bushweller's public yes that brings the vote tally to 10 (in the 21 member Delaware State Senate)  of the number of Democratic state senators publicly supporting marriage equality. The 11th public yes vote is Republican State Senator Catherine R. Cloutier. However, it is not clear why Cloutier is listed publicly as a yes since I am unable to find a link to a document where she says that she is voting yes. My suggestion would be that people contact Sen. Cloutier (at catherine.cloutier@state.de.us or 302-744-4197 or 302-577-8517) and thank her for voting yes on HB 75 and strongly encourage to make a public statement to that effect.

I am also told that State Senator Bethany Hall-Long is not a firm no (nor is she a public yes) on the pending marriage equality bill and that she is encouraging people to contact her (at bethany.hall-long@state.de.us or 302-744-4286). Sen. Hall-Long has a generally progressive record and voted YES on Delaware's civil union legislation 2 years ago. Respectful communication acknowledging her progressive politics and the nature of her district (which includes the college town of Newark where the University of Delaware is located) are probably good ideas.

Hat/tip to Delaware Liberal!