Marriage Equality Committee vote set for Wednesday
The Senate Executive Committee will vote on the marriage bill on Wednesday. Which means, once it passed out of committee (which it should), it could be set for a vote on Thursday. Ask your Senator to support HB75, but we would also like you to send a note of encouragement towards Senators Cathy Cloutier and Bethany Hall Long. Their contact information can be found here.
As a reminder, here is our most likely whip count.
What is the basis of counting Marshall as a yes vote? Marshall voted in favor of an anti-gay constitutional amendment in 2009. Every other “yes” vote on the chart above voted no on the amendment (or did not vote at all), except Marshall.
What are you talking about, Dale? Show me some facts. Marshall voted for civil unions and for the equal rights measure in 2009.
Presumably Dale is referring to SS1 for SB27 (2009) – The Venables Constitutional Marriage Amendment: http://www.legis.delaware.gov/LIS/LIS145.NSF/7712cf7cc0e9227a852568470077336f/7fa5170be4528b4c85257585006fa835?OpenDocument
Marshall was a yes. Hall-Long voted present.
That said, Tony DeLuca also voted yes on that amendment in 2009 and was pro-marriage equality by last September. People change. So it’s not definitive evidence either way for this year.
Many of the New York legislators who voted against equality in 2009 reversed it in 2011. It’s all politics. But it would be nice to see a definitive position from the undecideds and Marshall.
A vote in favor of a constitutional amendment banning SSM is presumptive evidence of a no vote today.
It may not be conclusive evidence. There is the possibility that Marshall has shifted his position. But we would want to see something to demonstrate that. As CR points out, in NY in 2011, several Dems and several Repubs did change their positions that they held in 2009. But nobody counted them as yes votes until they gave a real indication that they had changed their views. Prior to that, they were counted as nos or at best “in play.”
To date, Marshall has not said he has changed his position. So I asked DE Liberal what is the basis for his placing Marshall on the “yes” side of the chart. I have asked twice and have received no response from DE Liberal. This does not inspire confidence in his chart.
He voted for civil unions in 2011.
He considers this a ‘civil rights matter, pure and simple’.
And, yes, I’m quoting him.
But I’m sure that he would welcome supporters urging him to support the bill.
I’ve contacted my senator on this. Has everyone else? If not, now’s the time.
Unfortunately, those of us trapped in “red America” in parts of Sussex County don’t get much of a voice with our Senators….pretty sure I can’t change Gary Simpson’s mind on this matter, but I did email. No response of course.
No response from Lopez, either. He is a no vote but needs to learn something about constituent services.
Ditto on Lopez, I also reached out to him and received no response. I didn’t expect to change his mind but an acknowledgement that he received and read my correspondence. I was moved from Joe Booth / RBK district to Lopez/Smyck by redistricting. While I rarely ever agreed with Booth/King, I always got a prompt response to any call or email.
Danny Short was always very prompt in responding to me. Now, I have received nothing from Simpson / Kenton on two issues in the Milford area. Very disappointing.
It probably has more to do with the way they have been treated by the Sussex GOP when they cast votes they don’t agree with. I fear the days are gone where we could discuss issues with our Reps/Senators no matter of party affiliation. Any GOP official in Sussex must fear the primary if they go against the far right, so I worry we will no longer even be able to have the discussions we had in the past.
“Any GOP official in Sussex must fear the primary if they go against the far right…”
Serves ’em right for getting in bed with the kooks in the first place. I forget who formulated the three laws of life, but wasn’t one of them “never go to bed with someone who has more problems than you do”? The “sane” Republicans ignored that advice, so they can now live with the consequences.
Told ya the mistress would win! 😉
What gets me is that it wouldn’t be an issue if the two Dems weren’t in the “no” column. We mock the Republicans for primarying their people, but we continue to pretend that it is ok to have Democrats who vote like Republicans….why? Why wasn’t Venables primaried out of office years ago? I’d rather an honest Republican than a Democrat who votes like one ALL of the time. Why are they not “scared” of voting with their party?
You can be mad on this one issue that democrats are voting like republicans, but you must also see the broader picture that if these democrats did vote like progressives, they’d be replaced by republicans eventually giving the R’s more clout in both chambers. Then where would we be?
The focus needs to be on educating the constituents so that they agree that allowing the rights stated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution apply to all our citizens, trumps what one dumb backwards preacher thinks one single verse of scripture says…
mm…
Please name a D in Venables district who could win both a primary and a general.
Waiting…
and that’s why he has not been primaried. It’s generally accepted his seat goes to the R’s forever whenever he vacates it.
Also while he may vote R more than we’d like he still votes D on some issue and also helps ensure the majority.
I cannot think of a major, controversial issue in which he has ever voted with his party. Has anyone ever actually TRIED to challenge him? Agreed that the district will go Republican, but part of the problem in western Sussex is that the party doesn’t invest much because the area isn’t necessary for a majority. There is a ton of untapped minority voter potential in the Seaford/Laurel area. If fully registered and encouraged/inspired to come out to vote en masse, the Democrats could have a chance in that area.
Dem or Republican the northern Dems are not going to like a senator from that district. So might as well have a Dem.
Even if someone Primaried him, the Dems would not like that person.
The “Dems” in that district, even the ones who are too uninspired to vote regularly are not what a northern Dem would consider a Dem.
I know this sounds defeatist, but it’s the truth. The worst part is that all of the statewide electeds are obsessed with winning over this part of Sussex, but it’s fruitless.
It’s not to demean or degrade the value of Western Sussex dems, but they just aren’t in line and don’t represent the state of Delaware as a whole.
I agree that the minority vote could change things up, but there just isn’t an infrastructure for that. Anyone who is involved is way too territorial and there isn’t any young blood. Way too many chefs.
Plus, Venables has made clear that this is his last term, a two-year term at that. Dan Short will likely be his successor…unless he’s not right wing enough for the looney tunes.
While this may very well be Senator Venables’ last term, it is far from a done deal that Representative Danny Short is his sucessor. I have it on good authority that there will be a Republican primary with as many as three conservatives running. I have it on even better authority (the Sussex Democratic Chair) that there is a well-qualified Democrat ready to jump into the race. As conservative as this district is, the 21st Senatorial District was caried on 2012 by Democrats Tom Carper, John Carney, and Jack Markell
Good!
Does anyone think the fact that Rhode Island just enacted marriage equality yesterday will have any impact on Wednesday’s vote on HB75 to do the same thing in Delaware? Do state senators really want to say that they couldn’t pass marriage equality in the First State when the even more Catholic Ocean State could?