Why Gay Rights Supporters Should Oppose Senators Cloutier and Connor in 2012
Three years. In Cathy Cloutier ‘Have A Great Day’ time, we’re talking 1095 not-so-great days, give or take.
Senator Dori Connor and Senator Cathy Cloutier cost gays three years of equal rights, free of discrimination. How is it, you may ask, that two senators who have sought and received endorsements from gay rights groups ended up denying gays the basic rights that Connor and Cloutier claimed to support?
Here’s how. On March 24, 2005, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed HS1/HB 36 (Oberle), which would have “prohibit(ed) discrimination against persons on the basis of sexual orientation in housing, employment, public works contracting, public accommodations, and insurance and grants Superior Court exclusive criminal jurisdiction over violations of equal accommodations, fair housing and employment discrimination…”.
On April 13, 2005, President Pro-Tempore Thurman Adams placed the bill in his own Senate Executive Committee. By placing the bill there, Adams made clear his intent to make sure that this bill would never see the light of day. At least not while he was around. And there it languished until 2006. The bill had enough votes to pass, but it was going nowhere as long as it was in the Senate Executive Committee.
It was in this context that several senators got together to form a coalition to petition the bill out of committee. A majority of all senators, 11 out of 21, was required to get the bill out of committee. The official format to do so was and is a petition with sufficient signatories. By spring of 2006, 11 senators had given their verbal pledge to petition the bill out of committee. Two of those senators were Dori Connor and Cathy Cloutier. All that remained was the seemingly pro-forma matter of signing the petition. The 11 senators had agreed to meet immediately after the Senate broke for party caucus on that fateful day so that all 11 could sign it in the presence of the others, neat and simple. With 11 signatures, it was possible that the bill would become law by the end of the day. It was right there.
Nine senators showed up. Two disappeared, Senator Dori Connor and Senator Cathy Cloutier. Supporters of the bill desperately scoured Legislative Hall to find them. They were nowhere to be found. By breaking their word to their fellow senators and to the gay rights community, Dori Connor and Cathy Cloutier killed an end to discrimination based on sexual orientation for the remainder of Thurman Adams’ reign as President Pro-Tem. When the Senate reconvened that day, a ring of strange ( well, unfamiliar and strange) people circled Cathy Cloutier’s desk. They prevented other senators from speaking to her. To this day, neither she nor Dori Connor have ever publicly explained their abandonment of the gay community.
Yet, to this day, Senators Connor and Cloutier portray themselves as gay rights supporters. They seek support from gay rights organizations. And, they’ve received support in the past.
The only act that they can cite to support this is that, in 2009, when Sen. Adams died and the successor to HS1/HB 36 was finally voted on, they voted yes. The point that must be made is that there were enough votes in the State Senate to pass this bill in 2006, not to mention 2009. The only impact that Connor and Cloutier have had on the cause of gay rights has been to deny supporters the right to be free from discrimination based on sexual orientation from 2006 to 2009. And, had Adams not passed away, they still might be waiting thanks to the Houdini pulled by Connor and Cloutier in 2006.
Which brings us to 2011. With bipartisan support from both chambers of the Delaware General Assembly, and with the strong endorsement of Gov. Jack Markell, Senator Dave Sokola introduces SB 30, which would legalize civil unions in Delaware.
(An aside, but an important one): Check out the sponsors on both HS1/HB36 and SB 30. Nowhere will you find the names of Cloutier or Connor. Now, I’ve said in the past that being a sponsor isn’t really important as long as you support the bill. But alleged gay rights supporters Cloutier and Connor effectively killed the anti-discrimination legislation in 2006, and, in 2011…, (end of aside).
In April of 2011, neither Dori Connor nor Cathy Cloutier even bothered to show up to vote on SB 30. The vote was by no means a sure thing at that point, and SB 30 could well have been defeated. Both have barely plausible excuses, made all the less plausible by their history of not showing up when it comes to equal rights for gays. Sen. Connor’s excuse was that she was staying with her mother, who had had a fall. She was offered both care for her mother and a ride to and from Dover, but she demurred.
Cloutier missed session to bury her father. How DARE I even question this reason? Well, here’s why it smells real funny to me. Her father died in January. (You will recall that Cloutier also missed the session challenging DeLuca’s Pro-Tem position because she was caring for her father in December.) The Senate schedule for the entire session was already posted by January. All senators knew then which days they’d be in session and which days they’d be off. So did Cathy Cloutier. On the very day that Sen. Sokola announced that SB 30 would be on the agenda, Sen. Cloutier got up AFTERWARDS and announced that she would not be present. Why? She had to bury her father. Here’s the rub: Her father was not buried on the day of the vote (Thursday), he was buried the day after (Friday). All it would’ve taken for Cloutier to be present was an early morning flight from Philly to Boston, of which there are plenty. As a State Senator, all it would have taken was for Cloutier to make sure the burial was scheduled during a time that did not conflict with session. Her surrogates, who called Al’s show last week, argued that she didn’t have any say in the matter. A state senator, who is about my age (aka, no spring chicken), has no influence within the family as to when a burial will take place? A burial taking place three months after the passing? Really? And she doesn’t show up because it would inconvenience her travel plans?
Hey, look, I know I can’t win here. Sen. Liane Sorenson called Al’s show last week to tell me I should be ashamed of myself, and that the only reason I’m critical of Cloutier is b/c she’s my senator. Because, as you loyal readers know, I’m never critical of anyone but Cathy Cloutier, right? Her surrogates tried to portray her as the victim of some vicious unwarranted criticism. I’m sorry, but Cathy has effectively been playing the victim for her entire political career.
Well, I’m really gonna piss ’em off now. Cathy Cloutier has been a public official for something like 15 years. I’m sorry that Phil passed away far too soon, and pretty much everyone I know is sorry that Phil passed away too soon. But it’s time somebody pointed out that the sole reason that Cathy Cloutier holds elective office is precisely because Phil passed away too soon. Yes, she got her position the same way that Dori Connor and Nancy Cook did. But I doubt that anybody, even their detractors, would argue that Cook and Connor did not demonstrate the capacity to serve effectively as senators. I ask all those who know and like Cathy Cloutier (and I know it sounds hard to believe, but I really like her as a person, she’s hard not to like) to honestly ask yourselves whether, absent the fact that she inherited political office, would you seriously even consider her as a potential elected official? A nice lady who wants you to have a great day, yes, with issues not unlike issues that every other family faces at one time or another, but an elected official?
In other words, is there no statute of limitations for seeking reelection by making people feel sorry for you? I mean, Phil’s got his own bleeping statue at the library. Get over it already.
Which brings me back to gay rights supporters. Did you know that Cathy Cloutier has an A-Plus ranking from the National Rifle Association? Do you know how she got that rating? She always votes the NRA position, and, in fact, would never dare to go against what they tell her to do. Maybe she’s a true NRA believer, maybe she’s not, but never let it be said that Cathy doesn’t identify powerful supporters and cozy up to them. Why then, in Yahweh’s name, should you buy any bullshit story she feeds you now? Unlike the NRA, she screwed you, as did Dori Connor. TWICE! Faking empathy is no substitute for being there when people are depending on you, and they weren’t.
It’s a cliche, but it’s true. Actions speak louder than words. By dint of their actions and inaction, Senators Dori Connor and Cathy Cloutier have demonstrated their unworthiness for support from the equal rights community. Hold them accountable.
Tags: Civil Unions; Equal Rights for Gays; Sen. Cathy Cloutier; Sen. Dori Connor;, El Somnambulo; Steve Tanzer
Representatives of the Gill Foundation were present in Leg Hall the day before the Senate vote on SB 30. They did tell Cathy Cloutier that they would arrange for transportation for her and for Dori Connor so that they could vote the next day. Dori had already travelled to Pennsylvania to be with her mother, but this offer was communicated to her.
It is also correct that as of the day before the vote, Equality Delaware did not have 11 firm votes for SB 30. With Connor and Cloutier indicating they would not be on the floor for the vote, SB 30 had only 10 firm votes, and there was great pressure on 2 of those 10 from the opposition. It was later that afternoon that Senators DeLuca and then McBride said they would vote for the Bill. I was present when Deluca said ” You only have 10 votes. I will be the 11th”. Neither Cloutier nor Connor knew of these commitments until the actual votes were cast. Though Senator Marshall votes for the bill, he never indicated to any of the bill’s supporters that he would be a “yes”.
Finally, as to statements that “gay rights organizations” had supported Cloutier and Connor in the past, there are only 2 “gay rights organizations” that endorse for state legislative seats: Delaware Liberty Fund, which is non-partisan, and Barbara Gittings Delaware Stonewall Democrats, which is not permitted by its by-laws to endorse candidates outside of the Democratic Party. The DLF has endorsed Cloutier and Connor in the past and did endorse Cloutier in 2010. Stonewall has not and cannot endorse either. Contrary to rumor, in 2010 Stonewall endorsed Cloutier’s Democratic opponent, Chris Counihan. In a letter sent to Liane Sorenson just yesterday, thanking her for her support of SB 30 and her votes against the amendments, I, as Stonewall president, repeated that Stonewall is not permitted to endorse Republicans, but would not support a canidate running against her in 2012 out of respect for her prime sponsorship of SB 30 and support for LGBT legislation in the past. No similar letters were sent to any other Republican legislator.
Great post. Based on the events of 2006 alone, it isn’t just gay rights supporters who should oppose those two, but anybody who thinks elected officials should act with honor and integrity.
Thanks, Mitch, for adding a lot to the story. And, frankly, I agree with your pledge to Liane Sorenson. You can count on her, and I think it’s only right that gay rights supporters return the favor.
I didn’t know which way DeLuca, Marshall or McBride would go, either. Of the three, I figured that Marshall was the most likely ‘yes’. But, if the vote passed with just 11 yeas with Marshall as 11, you can bet the Diocese would’ve come down on him big time as I’m sure they were pressuring him right up to the vote. Probably why he kept quiet. Was pleasantly surprised with both DeLuca and McBride.
Of course, the point being that neither Connor nor Cloutier had any intention of being there, even if it meant the bill’s defeat.
ES, the wonderful thing about your posts is that you cover all the bases, often making your conclusions incontrovertibly correct.
Oh, let a dead horse rest in peace. Where were the Log Cabin Republicans when you needed them?
To paraphrase DG’s comment, “Amen!”
Does Delaware even have a Log Cabin chapter? The only events I’ve ever heard of were from the DC group holding fundraisers in Rehoboth.
Great reporting, good work. Always a good read. I’ll be linking to this one, for sure.
Thanks, Bulo.
Just read the bill in question here. (HS1/HB36, not SB 30)
I agree that government, in any form, should treat every individual the same, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious convictions, political ideology, et cetera.
However, why is it okay to force private individuals to cater to those who they don’t like, for whatever reason? Freedom to associate means freedom to not associate as well.
Right, Question. Time to dust off those ‘No Niggers Allowed’ signs.
El Somnambulo, your racism is revolting.
Question, The key words are “private individuals”. These aren’t private individuals, they are elected officials and as such are required to represent their constituencies to the best of their ability. Not showing up is not representing. And, if they believe their constituents don’t support equal rights for all then they have the right to vote against. They don’t have the right to have it both ways.
However, why is it okay to force private individuals to cater to those who they don’t like, for whatever reason?
Answer: it is not. Where do you see this happening?
Auntie Dem: Sorry, you misunderstood me. I was asking about the actual content of the 2005 bill, not commenting on the two politicians. I agree that those two were foolish and destructive to the democratic process in not showing up to vote. What are they getting paid for, anyway?
Anon: Under the current law it is illegal. Could, for example, a grocer choose to only sell to blacks/whites/asians/etc? Could a homosexual bed and breakfast owner choose to refuse service to a straight couple?
You are citing businesses (“public accommodations”), not private individuals. The grocer and the B&B owners are free to legally hate people as much as they want when acting as private individuals.
Sussex County is now characterized by a dumbass from MD, George Parrish “Jerk of a Clerk”. To coin a phrase “Memorable Asshole”
How is a privately owned business a public accommodation? Public implies that it is owned by the community and not private individuals.
“How is a privately owned business a public accommodation? ”
Smarter people than you answered this a long time ago.
Delaware Right To Marry has organized a fundraising page through Act Blue to build a war chest to defeat those who voted against the Civil Unions bill. If you really want to make a difference on this topic please contribute:
https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/delawaremarriagepoll?refcode=mainsite
Thank you El and Mitch….. good reading and good research. We need to hold our legislators accountable especially when they say one thing in private and act differently in public.
Thanks to both of you.
jpconnorjr, nevermind.
Suggesting that they ran out of the state to miss a vote is politically a non starter. One had to attend a funeral and the other attend to her ailing mother. Pretty good excuses and, really, for most people, family comes first. Always.
Its pretty crass to suggest she could of flown up later for the funeral. Really? I mean sure, she could have taken a morning flight, dropped dad off in the hole and be back in time for tea. Its a funeral. For her father. Let it go.
Now if you have some evidence that there was no funeral in Michigan or Maine, or wher ever it was, then have at it.
The first missed opportunity is valid. Get them on record as to why they didn’t sign on. And get them on record officially stating how they would have voted for civil unions. Don’t hold your breath for a comment though.The reality is that Republican’ts are scared, even more so that Castle got knocked out by the tea baggers. Its open war and the crazies are on the rise in that party.
And no, there is no Log Cabin Republican’t or GOProud group in Delaware. There are more greedy gays than you may realize, however, who seem perfectly fine having the D’s push for equality, just as long as they get to keep their money.
Well, it WOULD be crass if they hadn’t established a pattern of behavior…and if they hadn’t been offered all kinds of assistance to make it to Dover to vote…and if the funeral couldn’t have easily been scheduled for a non-session day, taking place, as it did, three months after her dad’s death.
I agree with you that they’ll make themselves out to be victims as a result of the circumstances surrounding the session vote. Which is why I want everyone to understand those circumstances. Because if, once again, gays were denied rights because of Cloutier’s and Connor’s absences, said absences would have once again caused that denial. Who would be the victims then? Not Connor and Cloutier. We don’t even know if they would have voted for the bill had they been there. And being absent is the same as casting a ‘no’ vote because 11 yeas are required for passage.
You’re right, though. Until and unless they explain their 2006 disappearances, they’ve got no case to make to the equal rights community…especially when placed in context with their absences this year.