Gay Patriot Header Image

Senate Democrats Block Vote On Gay Rights Legislation

Posted by GayPatriot at 9:09 pm - January 29, 2007.
Filed under: 110th Congress, Conservative Ideas, Gay America, Gay Politics, Hypocrite Rights Campaign, Log Cabin (Republicans), National Politics, Noble Republicans

Hello, hello?!?  What delicious irony and duplicity do I see here?  A Republican United States Senator (Gordon Smith of Oregon) has introduced an important, real-life gay rights proposal…

GOP Senator Gordon Smith’s amendment would ease the tax burden for domestic partner benefits.  The Domestic Partner Health Benefits Equity Act would correct an unfair provision in the tax code that blocks self-employed people from deducting their domestic partner’s health insurance premium costs.

But the supposedly gay-friendly DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED United States Senate is putting the kabash on the Smith’s legislation.

Senator Smith was prevented from offering his amendment during a recent Finance Committee hearing because Democrat Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) threatened to rule it out of order.  Now Smith has introduced his amendment to the entire Senate, but Baucus is still threatening to use arcane Senate rules to stop the amendment.

What universe did we just get transported to?  The one where a Republican Senator offers common sense, pro-gay legislation and where the Democrats stand in the way?  The same universe that has seen gay people offer time and treasure to the Democrat Party for decades yet has gotten nothing in return except a Democrat President who signed off on two of the most anti-gay policies in our lifetime?  Oh yeah…. we’ve been living in that universe already… silly me.

Bravo to new Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon for taking on the Democrats and standing with Senator Smith.  Unfortunately (yet not surprisingly), the two self-important big national gay rights groups are silent on the issue. 

The Hypocrite Rights Campaign is too busy wading into the “Grey’s Anatomy” scandal as well as advertising their XM Radio program.  Interestingly, the HRC was all too vocal about the legislation last year when Smith and US Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) introduced it to a Republican-controlled Senate.  Now that the Democrats have the power, will HRC be satisfied?  Probably.

And over at the National (Socialist) Gay & Lesbian Task Force – they are taking up their webspace bashing the President on Iraq and advertising their YouTube video.  Compelling and important stuff there!  Oooooooooooo.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

24 Comments »

  1. This is the last place I’d expect to see someone like Gordon Smith being defended.

    I suppose the only reason his name isn’t listed next to those of Olympia Snowe and Chuck Hagel in that cute li’l Excel spreadsheet is that there wasn’t enough room in the column.

    Comment by vaara — January 29, 2007 @ 10:57 pm - January 29, 2007

  2. It’s sad to see self-loathing gays like vaara, lester and the other unwitting stooges spewing hate against the Community. Just more victims of the BusHitler McHaliburton chimptatorship. Free beer and Mumia!!!!

    Comment by BoBo — January 30, 2007 @ 12:03 am - January 30, 2007

  3. How about actually reporting the whole story?

    Baucus said the partner amendment could jeopardize a compromise package of tax relief amendments for small businesses that Republicans have demanded as a condition for backing the minimum wage bill, according to Baucus spokesperson Carol Guthrie.

    And

    “[Guthrie] assured his colleagues, including Senator Smith, that he would welcome the full consideration of this amendment at another time,” Guthrie said. “Senator Smith seemed to understand that.”

    And

    A spokesperson for the National Stonewall Democrats, which represents gay Democrats, called Smith’s attempt to add the domestic partners measure to the minimum wage bill a publicity stunt aimed at portraying himself as being more moderate than he is for his 2008 re-election bid.

    Stonewall Democrats spokesperson John Marble noted that Smith voted for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and “maintains an overall dismal record on issues that impact LGBT families.”

    “It is important to point out the irony in which Senator Smith fully supports efforts to amend the United States Constitution to permanently remove the very protections that this amendment seeks to extend,” Marble said.

    Just a reminder that Senator Smith received a 33 in HRCs last scorecard. It’s obvious that this is more a Republican stunt than a true effort at equalizing the social standing of gay partnerships.

    Comment by Just A Question — January 30, 2007 @ 12:41 am - January 30, 2007

  4. GOP Senator Gordon Smith’s amendment would ease the tax burden for domestic partner benefits.

    What else do you need to know?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 30, 2007 @ 1:23 am - January 30, 2007

  5. But hardly any gay people take advantage of those benefits anyway, so what’s the point?

    Oh, wait… that was a different topic.

    In any case, since Brown is a RINO and thus, presumably, the evilest thing next to the arch-fiend Hillary herself, this is a Democrat-vs.-Democrat issue, isn’t it?

    Comment by vaara — January 30, 2007 @ 2:50 am - January 30, 2007

  6. Smith is a RINO, I meant. Not Brown. I guess I was just picturing those NGLTF Kommandos in their brown uniforms and swastika armbands marching around Dupont Circle demanding that all Jews be thrown into ovens…

    that is what you meant by that “National (Socialist)” jibe, right?

    Comment by vaara — January 30, 2007 @ 2:56 am - January 30, 2007

  7. Translation:

    (1) Bruce’s point, that a Democratic Congress is once again blocking gay rights according to its sense of convenience, stands.

    (2) vaara can neither answer nor handle it, and hence, resorts to hand-waving tactics.

    Neither surprises any smart reader of this blog.

    Comment by Calarato — January 30, 2007 @ 3:01 am - January 30, 2007

  8. As for “National (Socialist) Gay and Lesbian Task Force” - I’d figure the jibe probably refers to these facts:

    (1) The NGLTF is often, or usually, more interested in pushing a Left / neo-Socialist agenda than they are in actual gay rights.

    (2) Socialism, and Left politics generally, have a great deal in common with fascism, e.g., German National Socialism… by no means limited to the constant attempts to berate or silence those who think differently from them, the promulgation of speech codes, etc.

    That’s plenty right there. So, I wouldn’t know - or assume - if Bruce had also meant to suggest that the NGLTF has in any way joined the increasingly apparent anti-Semitism of the Left. (The latter noticed by observers here, here, here, and a great many other places, as it has clearly been on the rise.)

    Comment by Calarato — January 30, 2007 @ 3:42 am - January 30, 2007

  9. Does it really matter where the senator that introduced the bill stands on the political spectrum?

    Seems to me the fact that the democrats, who are promoted as “pro gay rights” doesn’t seem to interested in living up to that definition.

    Maybe it is time gay groups stop backing parties and start backing individuals that support gay rights.

    Comment by just me — January 30, 2007 @ 6:24 am - January 30, 2007

  10. Bruce, thanks for pointing this out. I am still amazed that loyal, water carrying gays like vaara and the other lower-case-clan here will pimp and defend endlessly the shortcomings of ANY Democrat on pro-gay rights proposals brought forward by GOPers.

    And JAQ, dear, your point about the ranking Dem thinking an amendment of this nature could kill the tax relief bill… bunk. Anyone over 20 with a moderate sense of what “works” in Congress or the Senate knows that everything is fluid right up to the point of it being readied for the Prez’s signature.

    It’ll kill the delicate legislative compromise that’s been reached to date? Bunk.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 30, 2007 @ 7:29 am - January 30, 2007

  11. On the face of it, I applaud Smith for proposing the bill, and condemn Baucus for opposing it. I would like to know more about it to see what else is going on. Maybe we can one of those silly spreadsheets for this issue as well.

    My big problem here is that appears that ONE senator has the power to block a bill. I’ve always been a huge critic when one @$$hole senator, usually someone like Byrd has the power to do that.

    I do want to take issue with GP’s comment about DADT and DOMA. First, I have never been a fan of Clinton’s. He originally was going to allow gays in the military, no strings attached, but compromised. However, he is the first President where a gay person could enter the military and not automatically be dismissed for being gay. As for DOMA, yeah, that was awful. But to my knowledge, the current President has not proposed repealing those acts. Further, if my memory is correct, he also wanted to go beyond DOMA and twice proposed an amendment. Too bad where we still have to choose between the lesser of two evils when it comes to gay rights.

    Comment by Pat — January 30, 2007 @ 8:00 am - January 30, 2007

  12. That’s the same Max Baucus who maligned a Senate candidate for being “gay”, right?

    No wonder Stonewall is humping his leg. As long as he’s “their” homophobe, it don’t matter.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 30, 2007 @ 8:06 am - January 30, 2007

  13. “Too bad where we still have to choose between the lesser of two evils when it comes to gay rights.

    We’re choosing between the lesser of two evils for every single issue and election in this country. Both parties suck.

    Comment by Mike — January 30, 2007 @ 8:38 am - January 30, 2007

  14. a Democratic Congress is once again blocking gay rights according to its sense of convenience

    So when was the last time? This Congress has been in session for less than four weeks. And the last time we had a Democratic Congress was 1994.

    In passing, I see that among the policies supported by NGLTF on its homepage is the repeal of DADT. Is that a Nazi cause too?

    Getting back to Smith’s amendment, how do you know it’s not a “poison pill” meant to kill the minimum-wage bill? That would be a good thing, right?

    Comment by vaara — January 30, 2007 @ 10:04 am - January 30, 2007

  15. A quick follow-up question before I go to work:

    Let’s say the minimum-wage bill were to reach the Senate floor, with Smith’s provision intact.

    Would you support the bill, or not?

    Comment by vaara — January 30, 2007 @ 10:16 am - January 30, 2007

  16. vaara, fyi: the Smith amendment can’t be a killer amendment because it takes 60 votes for the Senate to approve the tax relief bill that the minimum wage provision is a part of… the Senate Democrat leadership has to accept a series of amendments in order to secure GOP support.

    Why should BigLabor or the HouseDems have a clean bill on the issue of minimum wage hikes when that’s rarely been a tradition or result of legislative politics? Oh…. because BigLabor says so? Because Dems have to prove they can deliver on their 100 hours agenda? LOL.

    For myself, if the tax relief/minimum wage bill reaches the Senate floor with any gay rights provision (even if watered down) it’s still a better bill than originally envisioned by Dems and I’d support it.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 30, 2007 @ 11:09 am - January 30, 2007

  17. #15 - Technically, M-Matt, you are correct about the 60 votes. However, the 60 votes are needed in the Senate to invoke cloture on any floor arguments about the bill. The bill itself only needs 51 votes to pass.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 30, 2007 @ 11:11 am - January 30, 2007

  18. Peter, you’re Right as Reagan. But the reality is that the Senate does need 60 votes before a bill can pass because the opposition is almost always willing to filibuster –there are few issues where the opposition of any issue accepts a reasonable standard of informed dissent and loyal opposition… they want their position to win. Period.

    Just like the blue slips for judicial nominees… it’s all about moving forward on near perfect consensus or not moving ahead without 60 votes.

    And on the Wage Bill, 60 is the magic number long before the vote.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 30, 2007 @ 11:23 am - January 30, 2007

  19. We’re choosing between the lesser of two evils for every single issue and election in this country. Both parties suck.

    This is why gay groups should be focusing on and supporting only those candidates that promote their legislative agenda.

    Supporting a party, because you “think” it is better than the other party in the end gets members in congress the group supported that votes against their agenda, and it ends up leaving out members that are supportive.

    Comment by just me — January 30, 2007 @ 4:11 pm - January 30, 2007

  20. JM, I agree.

    Comment by Calarato — January 30, 2007 @ 4:45 pm - January 30, 2007

  21. When did the GOP become such a staunch supporter of Domestic Partnerships?

    Comment by Elais — January 30, 2007 @ 7:57 pm - January 30, 2007

  22. #11 “He was the first President (Clintion) where a gay person could enter yhe military, etc.”

    At my Army physical in 1942, the psychologist wrote in my army record, “He has no desire for women.” That did not keep me from serving 4 years - 3 overseas. Although there was no sexual activity, there were many guys in all branches of the militaryat that time

    Comment by John W — January 31, 2007 @ 3:17 am - January 31, 2007

  23. #22 - John, you mean they didn’t try to give you a Section 8 discharge? I’m surprised. The way the libtards paint gay/lesbian history, you were supposed to be excluded and be all consumed with hatred and villification of the “military-industrial complex.”

    But hey, it’s not like they ever went through it the way you did, correct?

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 31, 2007 @ 3:23 pm - January 31, 2007

  24. Didn’t the official ban on gays in the military not start until after WWII?

    Comment by Attmay — February 2, 2007 @ 12:30 am - February 2, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Live preview of comment




 

Bad Behavior has blocked 24124 access attempts in the last 7 days.