Wednesday, February 11, 2004
‘The Senate compromise appears to be gaining steam ...’: Two plans are now out there on the gay-marriage issue to be taken up today by lawmakers at our allegedly august constitutional convention, whatever. ... Constitutional Plan No. 1 (backed by Speaker Finneran): In effect an up-or-down vote on gay marriage in 2006. Constitutional Plan No. II (the Senate compromise): A vote to define marriage as that between a man and a woman, while giving gays civil-union rights.
... Here’s why Finneran’s adamant opposition to gay marriage may backfire in his and other opponents’ faces: There’s a, oh, 50-50 chance, in a simple up-or-down vote on the issue, that the public may approve gay marriage in two years. But the Senate ‘compromise’ plan, which Finneran opposes, would almost certainly pass, thus outlawing gay marriages but approving civil unions. So by risking it all on an up-or-down vote, Finneran is probably killing the only sure way to outlaw gay marriages. ...
... I’m for gay-marriage rights, but I’d vote for the Senate plan just to get the civil-union law on the books and get the damn court-imposed issue out of the way. A lot of other people would too. Others would vote for it because of the heterosexual definition of marriage. It’s a smart, practical, have-it-both-ways compromise by senators. ... Just a thought: Gay rights activists might rethink their strategy. How? By boldly supporting Finneran and Romney on the strict up-or-down vote. Think about it. It would be a huge gamble, but it could pay off in two years. It could also lose. ... I love the gamble option for purely selfish, non-civil-rights reasons. It would make the 2006 vote so absurdly apocalyptic in tone. Fun to watch and cover, etc. ... Hmmmmm. Are you thinking what I’m thinking? Go for it, Speaker!
Hats off to Sen. Kerry: Very impressive wins. He’s got the nomination wrapped up by the looks of it. ... Early and obvious odds-on-favorite: Bush. But, if someone gives me decent odds, I wouldn’t mind putting a few bucks on a guy who has lived, breathed and dreamed his entire adult life about becoming president.
... Here’s why Finneran’s adamant opposition to gay marriage may backfire in his and other opponents’ faces: There’s a, oh, 50-50 chance, in a simple up-or-down vote on the issue, that the public may approve gay marriage in two years. But the Senate ‘compromise’ plan, which Finneran opposes, would almost certainly pass, thus outlawing gay marriages but approving civil unions. So by risking it all on an up-or-down vote, Finneran is probably killing the only sure way to outlaw gay marriages. ...
... I’m for gay-marriage rights, but I’d vote for the Senate plan just to get the civil-union law on the books and get the damn court-imposed issue out of the way. A lot of other people would too. Others would vote for it because of the heterosexual definition of marriage. It’s a smart, practical, have-it-both-ways compromise by senators. ... Just a thought: Gay rights activists might rethink their strategy. How? By boldly supporting Finneran and Romney on the strict up-or-down vote. Think about it. It would be a huge gamble, but it could pay off in two years. It could also lose. ... I love the gamble option for purely selfish, non-civil-rights reasons. It would make the 2006 vote so absurdly apocalyptic in tone. Fun to watch and cover, etc. ... Hmmmmm. Are you thinking what I’m thinking? Go for it, Speaker!
Hats off to Sen. Kerry: Very impressive wins. He’s got the nomination wrapped up by the looks of it. ... Early and obvious odds-on-favorite: Bush. But, if someone gives me decent odds, I wouldn’t mind putting a few bucks on a guy who has lived, breathed and dreamed his entire adult life about becoming president.
