Let me say right off the bat that the issue here is one that I don’t support at all, but the tactics employed by the Democrats here to block it are disgusting. Some background. A couple of weeks ago, a Maryland judge found that a state law that defines marriage as something between a man and a woman is discriminatory and unconstitutional. This caused some Maryland Republicans to get their peepees in a panic that gay people might wind up treated like actual human beings, so Delegate Dwyer introduced a bill that would put an amendment banning gay marriage on the ballot for the voters to decide. This initiative was slated to die in committee, but Del. Dwyer, busy little homophobe that he is, managed to get 47 signatures from other delegates petitioning that the bill be removed from committee and placed directly on the floor of the house. Before he could present this petition, one he had properly obtained in full compliance with the procedural rules of the Maryland legislature, House Speaker Michael E. Busch declared a recess and shut down the legislature so they wouldn’t have to debate the issue in open session. The bill then died in committee that afternoon (and in a very clever way. Democrats managed to attach a rider that allowed civil unions to the bill, and then nobody voted for it. Not the Republicans nor the Democrats. hehe. All in accordance with the rules)
WTF??!?
Seriously, what the fucking fuck?? Speaker Busch, you may not like the provisions of the proposed amendment. I sure as hell don’t like the provisions of the proposed amendment, but what you did was just wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Maryland house isn’t your personal ideological playground. We citizens of the state of Maryland are not your personal serfs, standing around, hats in hand, waiting to be told how to think by your grand poo-bah-ness. If the opposition party follows the rules and gets their proposals on the ballot, then we should have the chance to vote on them, regardless of weather or not you agree with them.
Look, this is a case where I personally like the outcome. I vehemently oppose the homophobic and discriminatory DOMA and it’s state counterparts, but the rules are the rules, and you can’t just shut down the legislature in a fit of pique. (This isn’t really anything new for Busch, he’s been using every sleazy trick in his bag to keep the proposal to allow slots at Md. racetracks from being voted on for the past 4 years because he knows a majority of Marylanders support it while he personally opposes it) I am so tired of legislates who think they know whats best for the rabble imposing their will on us by hook or by crook. If a measure has enough support to make it to the floor of the house, and then on to us the voters, then LET US VOTE ON IT! Asshole.
And Governor Robert Ehrlich, a Republican also oppsed to gay marriage, also weighed in:
The spirit, not the letter.
What we essentially have here is the Republicans trying to subvert normal procedure by manoeuvering around the established committee that was due to meet and vote on the issue, and the Democrats responding by also subverting normal procedure. Both methods were legal; both were against the spirit of the system. Business as usual in American politics.
Busch also pointed out:
Citizens and interest groups had already appeared in front of the committee to put their case. Why not let the committee vote?
Wow, this OP is funny on so many levels. One would almost think it is brilliant parody if one had never read any of Dave’s posts. I mean a batshit crazy republican whining about clever use of parliamentary procedure to defeat ones opponents. I am curious Dave how did you feel about the Republican threats to employ the “Nucular Opption”?
Well, there is a difference here. The “nuclear option” was threatened but never employed, thus it can be seen as a ploy to get something through that was being obstructed. This is discussing the actual obstruction of stuff that a few people don’t want to hit the floor because they’ll lose.
Note that one is actually happening while the other never did.
Would it have been better if the Speaker only threatened a recess in response to petition being circulated, causing them to throw the petition in the trash? I don’t see it as being materially different.
I don’t really mind this, it’s just political gamesmanship. One group created some crappy legislation destined to fail. They play a game to get it voted on directly. The opposition bats it back with their own technically allowable action. Then the bill dies, just like it would have anyway.
In the final analysis this is just a fact of life for politicians. Look at some of the “untraditional” things we’ve seen just in the past couple years. The “Nuclear Option”, Texas Senators leaving the state to break Quorum or block a redistricting bill, Texas Governor threatening to re-write the rules of the state senate to achieve with a simple majority what the rules currently require a super-majority for, the “closed session” of the US Senate to discuss the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s Phase 2 report. The list goes on and on. Those of us who think all these kinds of tactics are bullshit to avoid actual conflict and compromise are just shit out of luck. Both parties do it and both suck.
Cite? If the Dems have enough of a majority to hold the Speaker’s chair and run all of the committees, isn’t it logical to assume that they could also block this on the floor? It sounds to me like the sponsor just wanted to obstruct the committee vote because he knew he’d lose. In either case, both the Speaker’s and the sponsor’s actions were with the letter of the rules. Nothing else to see here, move along…
Yep, if either party fights back, you can say “They both fight”. :rolleyes: Let’s go over your list:
Threatened by the GOP, in response to worries that a filibuster by nearly half the elected members of the Senate might succeed. Maybe you could claim that filibustering itself is something “they both do”, but then they always have, and there’s a damn good reason to have it available.
A redistricting done outside the legal practice of once every 10 years, and in clear violation of the Voting Rights Act at that. Yet it’s the fighting *back * that you deplore.
And which party is he?
No, to discuss the GOP chairman’s refusal to convene the hearings he’d promised on the administration’s use of intelligence before the Iraq invasion. He still hasn’t done it.
Perhaps both parties do it and both suck, but you wouldn’t know it from that list.
I made my stance on the redistricting issue very clear.
None of this, however, has any bearing on my current statements. I do not appreciate it when either of our suck-ass political parties in the US engage in bullshit manipulations of completely unrelated procedures/powers to influence an issue they don’t want to have to deal with head on.
Our legislative processes are fucked up enough as it is, witness some of the stupid shit which gets passed, when the process is followed directly. Influencing the process through extra little tricks like this is just going to make it even more fucked up. Sit down, talk about the fucking idea on its merits, then vote your conscience and with the best interests of your constituents as they empowered you to do. Period.
If my understanding of the issue is correct, it is by no means certain that all Democrats would vote the same way if this measure made it to the floor.
There are considerable numbers of people in Maryland who are strong Democratic voters but who also are strongly opposed to same sex marriage. And, especially in districts where this might be an important issue, the feeling seems to be that many Democratic lawmakers will vote against SSM rather than risk offending a large proportion of their consitutents.
Right here in Baltimore, for example, the city itself is a Democratic stronghold; the Republicans have basically no chance around here. But Baltimore also has a large number of Democratic voters who oppose gay marriage. And this is true among substantial groups of both black and white Democratic voters, although what i’ve read suggests that, as a whole, the black community is more strongly oppsed to SSM.
I get that, I just want to see a cite. To me, it’s also a logical assumption that the committee in question could represent a microcosm of the whole legislature, since the committee was not going to pass the bill, neither would the whole body.
This is merely an assumption, but it’s one that (unfortunately) seems reasonable, given the way this debate has developed in Maryland over the past months.
Yeah, I was beginning to think it was something like that.
Not aimed at any poster here, but it’s sad to me that the political party that immediately after its formation took a principled stand in favor of basic human rights and liberty for an oppressed people seems to have become the party of “my way or the highway” and “no, of course you’re not equal, you’re a freak”. The modern GOP doesn’t deserve to list Lincoln as their first President.
Fair enough. I don’t appreciate legislators trying to amend the constitution to make specific unconstitutional laws constitutional - IMO, that’s the height of bullshit manipulations.
Civil rights protections should never come down to a vote.