The Marriage Equality Vote in the House
Here it is in a nice chart form. Red for Republicans and Blue for Democrats. And yes, I colored Atkins red because in reality, he is a Republican. Has there been any partisan vote on a controversial issue this session where he has voted with the Democrats? No.
Four Democrats, Earl Jaques, Charles Potter, Bill Carson and Trey Paradee all voted no with the Republicans. Only one Republican voted yes: Mike Ramone. He represents an upstate New Castle County district. Paradee and Carson’s districts are downstate and more conservative, but not so conservative that they had to run scared and vote no just to stay in office since their Democratic colleagues in other Kent County districts voted yes. Likewise, Joe Miro and Debbie Hudson’s districts are upstate and in New Castle County, and they voted no even though they may suffer electoral consequences given their districts. As did Democrats Earl Jaques and Charles Potter, both of whom are in safe liberal Democratic districts, and if I have anything to say about it, both will suffer electoral consequences due to this vote. The point of all this: this was not a vote that was given to district constituencies. This was a vote of personal principle. Those voting no are of the mind that equality is for me and not for thee. That makes them ill suited for office.
Sympathetic as I am to any dismissal of Atkins, you can’t count him as part of the majority and give him a vote at your conventions and then toss him because he’s an alcoholic idiot you’re not proud of.
I am surprised by Spiegelman. He’s young. Always a bit of a douche and a loser, so I am upset to see my former district represented by someone with so few accomplishments. Sigh.
I haven’t spoken to Potter, but I have spoken to Jaques for several months about this bill. I got the impression that he was/is pissed at the marriage equality advocates for lying to him. I have heard the lies myself.
Many of the same exact people that made promises to legislators that civil unions would be the last visit to the well at the state level have been pretending that they made no such promises. I was told that there would be no move for same-sex marriage in October by a person that should have known. The reason given to me at the time was that they had made promises to legislators that they would not. Further, the person said that they believed that DOMA would have to be struck down or repealed before anything else could happen.
This conversation was in a meeting with Jaques and a state senator who shall remain nameless. But they both agreed wholeheartedly with the statement.
Personally, I would have tried to see past this betrayal, but I think that there has also been a lot of pressure on these legislators by the conservative churches of the area. Those two factors made Jaques decision months ago. Anyone that would have asked him in January would likely have been told the exact same story, it hasn’t changed.
I would prefer not to count him as part of the majority. The majority does not depend on him (i.e. he is no Joe Lieberman or James Jeffords). And I am not aware of any vote at a convention given to Atkins. Are you talking about endorsements from local representative committees?
Heragrain, Why not?
Geek,
That does not answer my question. Is Jaques for marriage equality or not. Does he believe everyone is equal under the law and entitled to all the benefits, privileges, and obligations no matter their sexual orientation, or not?
Your answer points to Jaques acting on a personal animus without any understanding of the politics of the situation. I would respect him more if he just said he was against marriage equality. I would then work with every fiber in my being to defeat him in the next election, but at least I would respect him. But if his feeling betrayed is the reason for his vote, then not only do I not respect him anymore, he should possibly give thought to resigning.
Let me ask you this… Did MLK ever go to legislators and say “This is the last time I will come to you looking for a vote”? I would doubt it. Because he would have known that would be a promise broken.
I agree that I personally would have tried to see past it, but I wonder if it was John Atkins coming back to the well after misbehaving you would be supportive. The lobbyists burned a bridge. And honestly, they haven’t even seemed conciliatory about it. My impression is that they have just gone on as if they never made a single promise.
I would also point out that your first question was not about politics. It was about what is right. I am arguing that this was politics and political miscalculation. I wonder if Jaques would have voted for it if he was the deciding vote…
If John Atkins voted for marriage equality I would see it as a proof that God exists and performs miracles.
Listen, I don’t have first hand knowledge of what promises were made, but there is one thing that is a clear fact: the momentum for acceptance of and public approval for marriage equality has been on a skyrocketing trajectory up. The facts on the ground and the politics of what was possible in 2009/10 changed drastically over the last three years. And I am not talking about Democratic control of the legislature and the Governor’s chair. That was true in 2009/10. I am talking about public approval of it. I am sure when certain promises were made in 2009/10, they were sincere. The plan was not to get civil unions passed, wait two years and then get gay marriage passed. Instead, an opportunity arose.
If Jaques does not see that, whoa boy is he ignorant of the politics of this.
Should the lobbyists apologize? Sure. But that does not change the fact that Jaques should not be letting a personal animus affect his vote.
One can also make that case that his single vote didn’t make any difference to the final outcome. But babies and bathwater and all that jazz…
one of them 4 D “No”s is knee deep trying to cut a deal/trade of votes for a Casino in NCC methinks.
You mean Potter, of course.
Thankfully, it did not change the final outcome. What it changes is Jaques’ electoral future. His seat is now in jeopardy should a Progressive challenge him.
Having not been involved with the lobbying, I can’t comment on the promises made as well. Certainly though there’s a point to be made in noticing the change in the political winds. What I do know is that Jaques disappointed constituents, myself included. What also bothered me was his lack of response to emails and written letters. All respectfully written, all asking for the courtesy of a reply. Hell, even a form letter would have been something. Yet the response to a private citizen in his district: complete silence. That’s not acceptable. At least have the courage of your convictions, and if your convictions are that you think it’s okay to be petty with people’s freedoms because of what a lobbyist promised you, then own it. I have more respect for those who voted against the bill because of (in my mind) misplaced religiously motivated animus than the callowness of what you’ve described happening LG.
I dunno. Jaques has been surprisingly progressive or, should I say populist, than I ever thought he would be.
While I’m disappointed in his vote, I’m less surprised and unhappy with him than I am in the votes of Potter and Paradee.
I guess Potter surprises me. I will require an explanation of his vote that is not tied to the trading of votes (and if the latter is the case, he should resign). Paradee does not surprise me in the least. I actually give him props because when he sought the endorsement of the Progressive Dems, his answers to the questions painted him decidedly as a downstate conservative. So he has been honest from the start, though he prefaced his conservative opinions on the fact that his district is conservative. I would dispute that, but whatever. He has been upfront on how he would vote.
But I am still floored by Jaques, and even more so now that Liberalgeek has given us the backstory. I mean, as Krawen says, if he was against marriage equality as a matter of principle, that’s one thing. I would still be floored. But this personal betrayal reason is just so childish.
Jaques’ district is not exactly a liberal bastion.
He has taken a leadership role in putting forward several progressive pieces of legislation.
I, for one, would not be supportive of an all-out assault to defeat him. Withhold the endorsement, of course, but I don’t think you’re gonna get much better out of that district. And you COULD wind up with someone just like…Lumpy Carson.
Now, Potter just strikes me as being full of shit. He is a Friend of Dennis (and presumably Tom), but that might not stand him in good stead come 2014. THAT’s where I’d be focusing my efforts, and just might…
El Som..
It is a shame. I would agree on your characterization of Jaques. But with this one vote, it all changes now. Like I said before, I do not see how he gets the endorsement of the Progressive Dems in 2014.
Al Plant had a primary challenger in most cycles. Potter better get one in ’14.
Not a liberal bastion, yes. But it is not a conservative one either. If Jaques had voted yes, would he have been defeated on this vote alone? No. In fact, he probably picks up more votes than he loses.
Now, he loses votes and gains nothing.
John, Potter’s vote gives a primary challenger a perfect opening.
Paradee’s district isn’t particularly conservative. It is just that he ONLY hears from the conservatives in his district.
I agree, DD. Withhold the endorsement, I’m fine with that. But in terms of targets for 2014, there are better ones.
Depending on the Senate vote, there could well be a D senator with a HUGE challenge facing her. And, in her case, it will have been earned.
Whether or not Jaques is a target depends on factors not yet present: 1) a viable, credible progressive challenger, 2) Jaques’ words and actions on this issue between now and then. His vote probably loses him the Progressive endorsement for the remainder of his political career, but he can mea-culpa enough to prevent him from being challenged.
You think these Legislators care about your progressive endorsements? That’s fucking laughable.
Some do. Some don’t. Karen Peterson certainly cared. So did Bryan Townsend.
Why, yes, Melbourne, yes they do. They fill out questionnaires and they interview for the endorsements,
If they don’t do that, they’re not even considered.
But don’t let the facts get in the way of your ongoing ignorance.
Uh, next time, you need to do your homework.
And I would point out that if these legislators did not care about the endorsement, why would 40 candidates, which includes 17 current office holders, seek the endorsement?
Jacques is a freaking petulant crybaby!
Potter had a challenger last time in Victoria Kent. Get some folks to back a challenger and get a canvass team of thirty people out on the four weekends leading up to the primary. It can be done.
“Jacques is a freaking petulant crybaby!”
A politician claiming he was lied to by constituents? Theres a switch!
Delaware Dem, a whopping 17 office holders out of 62 Legislators and I’m sure your including statewide and federal seats too? Like I said fucking laughable.
Well now you are changing the goalposts, Melbourne Born (feel free to go back to Florida or Australia at any time, by the way). First you said that these legislators found the endorsement fucking laughable. And by these legislators you were referring to the ones like Potter and Jaques who are facing losing the endorsement. Now, having been shown to be an ignorant asshat, you want to compare 17 current officeholders to the whole membership of the General Assembly. Which is itself laughable since 1) No Republican is eligible for the Progressive Dem endorsement, 2) none sought it, for they are Republicans. And thus they don’t count. I don’t care about them and the feeling is mutual.
So out of curiosity what’s the percentage of Dems who sought (and the percentage of Dems currently in office) who have received the Endorsement? I ask being genuinely curious.
28 Democratic candidates for the General Assembly (Senate and House) sought the Progressive Endorsement. There are 40 Democrats in the House and Senate. However, you cannot compare the 28 to the 40 since some of those who sought our endorsement, like Ted Yacucci for instance, were running against Republicans and lost, while others were running in primaries against other Democrats (like Potter and Victoria Kent, and Paul Baumbach, Jerry Grant and Claudia Bock). Of those 28 Democratic candidates for the General Assembly who sought the endorsement, 17 were endorsed, or a 61% endorsement rate. Of the 17 running for General Assembly seats who were endorsed in 2012, 11 won and are currently in office, or a 65% success rate. And that does not include Senator Peterson, who was not endorsed in 2012 but had been endorsed previously and will probably be endorsed again in the future.
Kent was a good candidate.
I think Jacques complaint about broken promises regarding when to ask for the application and recognition of fundamental rights would have been equivalent to a legislator complaining about those damn blacks asking for the repeal of Jim Crow laws soon after the abolishment of slavery. If there is any time when it’s virtuous to break a promise, it’s when you can correct an appalling injustice and confer rights on an excluded group.
El Somnambulo:
Yeah, no biggie on Jacques. He just gratuitously crossed his party and its entire leadership to stand for discrimination. But since it is just discrimination against gay people, it isn’t *really* a deal-breaker, right? I mean, if he goes on to advocate discriminating against actual human beings, then we’ll take it seriously.