ThinkProgress Logo

LGBT

State Marriage Watch: The Battlegrounds For Marriage Equality In 2011

By Igor Volsky on Jan 11, 2011 at 7:00 pm

With the Republican majority in Congress showing little interest in taking up equality legislation, most of efforts to expand marriage to gay and lesbian Americans will likely occur in the states, where lawmakers will be looking to advance marriage initiatives or scale them back. Today, the Wonk Room is unveiling ‘State Marriage Watch,’ a semi-regular feature that will chronicle the latest marriage advancements in the states and conservative efforts to beat them back. What follows is a summary of the latest developments in the marriage battleground states of Rhode Island, Maryland, New York, California, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Wyoming, Iowa, and New Mexico.

- RHODE ISLAND: Last week, lawmakers introduced legislation in the House and Senate that expands civil marriage to gay and lesbian residents, but excludes religious institutions from being required to wed same-sex couples. On Friday, Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas J. Tobin lashed out at newly minted Governor Chafee (I) and legislative leaders, calling same-sex marriage “morally wrong and detrimental to the well-being of our state.” Chafee has since reiterated his support for marriage, saying “Our foundation here in Rhode Island was built on tolerance and acceptance, and this is an area I want to move our state forward on, by building on our strengths of centuries ago.” A Brown University poll from 2009 found that 60 percent of state residents supported same-sex marriage, with 63 percent of self-identified Catholics saying they support marriage equality, and only 32 percent opposed. Meanwhile, the local chapter “of the National Organization for Marriage is launching a $100,000 TV advertising campaign” aimed at defeating the legalization of marriage in the state.

- MARYLAND: Since Attorney General Douglas Gansler issued an opinion allowing the state to recognize unions performed elsewhere — thus permitting couples to simply travel to DC — advocates are hoping that lawmakers interested in maintaining marriage revenues in the state may be more inclined to support marriage equality. Still, moderate Democrats in Maryland have yet to embrace the policy and last week, the Senate’s minority leader announced that he plans to “introduce a bill that would create civil unions for gay and straight couples,” possibly clouding the marriage issue. Advocates predict that a marriage bill will easily make it out of the Senate, but will face challenges in the House. During his re-election bid, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) said that he would sign a marriage bill and has since reiterated his support.

- NEW YORK: Marriage advocates believe that “the chances are better than ever to legalize same-sex marriage, even in a Republican-controlled Senate.” A marriage initiative passed the state Assembly last year, but failed in the Senate by eight votes. In November, two opponents of marriage equality lost their seats and advocates say that they have gained at least two pro-marriage votes. Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos has “promised to bring the issue to the floor again” this year.

- CALIFORNIA: The Proposition 8 case remains in limbo after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals punted the appeal of Judge Vaughn Walker’s historic ruling against the measure to the California Supreme Court, noting that it could not rule on the constitutionality of the measure until the higher court confirmed the standing of the plaintiffs.

- NEW HAMPSHIRE: Republicans are in control of both houses and have enough votes to override a veto by Democratic Gov. John Lynch, who signed a marriage law in 2009. Conservative lawmakers could seek to pass “a repeal through the legislature, or send a constitutional amendment to voters in 2012.” At least four draft bills have already been filed, including two from Rep. David Bates (R) which would “return the marriage law to exactly what it was four years ago” “but also has a caveat so marriages performed the past year would remain legal.” Meanwhile, the Let New Hampshire Vote group is also pushing for “a constitutional amendment to take up a vote on the law in 2012.”

- MINNESOTA: Social conservatives are pressuring Republicans to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriages in the state. On Friday, the Minnesota Family Council will host a marriage amendment course for legislators. Last week, members of the new Republican majority blocked a rules amendment “that would have made balancing Minnesota’s budget the House’s top priority this session” and made it more difficult for conservatives to purse social legislation.

- WYOMING: State law already defines marriage as a union between a man and woman, but recognizes marriages performed in other states. Republicans are sponsoring legislation that would “prohibit Wyoming from recognizing same-sex marriages and specify that “no court in Wyoming would have jurisdiction over same-sex marriage.” Governor Matt Mead, a Republican, “campaigned on a platform that included favoring defining marriage as only between a man and a woman” and said he would consider signing such a bill into law. Rep. Cathy Connolly, a Democrat who is a lesbian and an opponent of the measure, will introduce two bills to legalize same-sex marriages and establish civil unions. The marriage bill would change existing Wyoming law’s definition of marriage from a civil contract “between a male and a female person” to a contract between “two natural persons.”

- IOWA: Lawmakers have already announced they’ll introduce a resolution that will begin the process of placing a marriage referendum on the ballot and say they have enough support in “the Republican-controlled House to win passage.” Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal has promised to block the effort in the Senate. Former gubernatorial candidate Vander Plaats is also fundraising “towards efforts to force an impeachment or resignation of the remaining four high court justices,” an effort that is not supported by Governor-elect Terry Branstad (R-IA).

- NEW MEXICO: Last week, New Mexico Attorney General Gary King issued an opinion arguing that the state should recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Supporters of marriage cheered the decision, but conceded that it would not likely change state law, given Governor Susanna Martinez’s opposition to same-sex marriage. Now, some fear that King’s opinion may actually galvanize opponents to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. “‘People are energized,’ said Sharer, who repeatedly, over the past decade, has pushed legislation defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The lawmaker said he had planned to reintroduce the so-called Defense of Marriage Act even before King’s office issued the opinion.” There are currently 34 Democrats and 36 Republicans in the New Mexico House and 27 Democrats and 15 Republicans in the Senate.

Economy

Conservative Statehouses Hand Out Corporate Tax Breaks While Raising Taxes On Low-Income Citizens

By Guest Blogger on Jan 11, 2011 at 6:00 pm

Govs. Rick Snyder (R-MI), Chris Christie (R-NJ), Rick Scott (R-FL) and Nathan Deal (R-GA)

Just days after calling for unity and “shared sacrifice” in their inaugural speeches, conservative governors, joined by legislators across the county, have proposed new tax cuts for business and top-earners alongside cuts to critical expenditures for low-income working families and tax increases on the working poor. As the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy writes, in the face of massive budget shortfalls and declining revenue, many states “are poised to enact harmful cuts in existing state taxes that could weaken states’ ability to provide core public services for years to come.” “The threats to state tax fairness and adequacy are mounting by the day,” ITEP noted.

Budget proposals in the following states are particularly alarming:

Michigan: The state’s Earned Income Tax Credit, overwhelmingly passed in 2006, is being threatened by legislators eager to fill budget shortfalls at the expense of low-income working families. EITC has been recognized at the federal and state level as extremely effective in reducing poverty and rewarding work. But Michigan’s legislative leaders are considering cutting EITC while supporting Gov. Rick Snyder’s (R) proposal to implement a new series of expensive business taxes that could cost the cash-strapped state $3.3 billion.

New Jersey: Gov. Chris Christie (R) set the precedent for Michigan lawmakers last year when he reduced funding for the state’s EITC program to close a budget shortfall, even while implementing a series of lucrative tax cuts for large corporations. Now, Christie is considering cutting the state’s Medicaid program and is calling to abolish a cap on college tuition increases at the state’s public universities — a cap Christie’s own administration implemented last year.

Florida: Gov. Rick Scott (R), despite facing a $2.5 billion budget shortfall, has proposed eliminating his state’s corporate income tax and reducing property taxes, making Florida’s regressive tax system even more unfair for its low-income residents. Tax cuts for corporations will be offset by deep cuts to Florida’s already “lean” budget, including a proposed $1.8 billion cut to the state’s Medicaid program.

Georgia: Friday, a bi-partisan Georgia panel proposed balancing the state’s budget through deeply regressive tax increases on groceries, water and phone service, while cutting the state’s personal and corporate income taxes. Higher sales taxes, especially on essentials, will dramatically shift the state’s tax burden away from large corporations and towards the poor, working families, and seniors. The panel has an ally in Gov. Nathan Deal (R), who campaigned on lowering corporate rates, and Republicans in the legislature have been long-time supporters of a more consumption-based approach to taxation.

As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has noted, deep spending cuts coupled with generous corporate tax credits not only punish low-income families, they stall economic recovery and are largely ineffective in promoting growth and job creation. Instead, states need to pursue smarter, more equitable cuts, fair revenue increases, and, as stimulus funds begin to run out, the federal government may need to provide additional relief for state budgets. But in the 112th Congress, this type of support seems unlikely: the recently passed tax cut deal, along with House Republicans’ pledge to cut discretionary spending, will increase the tax burden on low-income families and widen statehouses budget shortfalls.

- Kevin Donohoe

Politics

GOP Stresses Need For Mental Health Services, Despite Pushing For Repeal Of Aid

By Igor Volsky on Jan 11, 2011 at 5:30 pm

Following Saturday’s tragic shooting in Tucson, Arizona, some Republicans have argued that 22-year old assassin Jared Lee Loughner was more affected by his mental illness than the nation’s lax gun control laws or Washington’s divisive and often times violent political rhetoric. “What will solve this problem is removing the politics from it and getting after the crux of this problem and that is somebody who needed mental health services and or legal intervention much earlier in his cycle toward violence,” Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) said this afternoon on MSNBC:

ROGERS: If we want to solve this kind of thing from happening, we have to intervene with somebody who has expressed tendencies toward violence, who has a pretty strong history of mental illness. And right now, we’re not talking about that at all. Everybody is talking about ‘oh, this is about people having guns, this is about political speech.’ None of that had a factor here. When you look at the evidence that has been collected up, this wasn’t about politics…If we want to solve this from happening in the future, you can talk about all the gun laws you want — that’s not going to do it. A bad guy is going to get a gun. What we have to do is intervene earlier in that cycle of violence when they have this kind of mental disability.

Watch it:

Newly-elected Rep. Allen West (R-FL) struck a similar note on his Facebook page, saying “The shooter was a very disturbed individual and it appears there were so many warning signs that he was going to do something horrible. We should be focusing on the mental health crisis in our country, not politics.” Indeed, as Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) pointed out this morning, the Tuscon shooting highlights the poor state of the nation’s mental health safety net, which often falls victim to state budget cuts during periods of economic hardship. Congress did not address the issue until 1996, and has been increasing access to mental services ever since — despite Republican opposition.

Fourteen years ago, the late Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN) secured passage of a “partial parity” law that “stopped insurance plans from being allowed to pay less to treat mental ailments as opposed to physical ones.” But the industry soon gamed the law by “limiting the number of mental health visits or days in the hospital.” On June 17, 2008, President Bush extended MHPA through the end of 2008, but didn’t sign full parity legislation until later that year as part of the TARP measure. At the time, 146 Republicans voted against full mental health parity, including now House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), and Rogers.

President Obama’s health reform legislation — which all Republicans now want to repeal — would go even further in helping Americans with mental illness. By 2014, families and individuals will be able to enroll in insurance through an expanded Medicaid program or the exchanges, where private companies will have to offer mental health and substance use disorder services as part of the essential package of benefits. The law also expands parity to a much wider pool, “making it possible for millions more people to get the same coverage for substance abuse and illnesses like bipolar disorder, major depression and schizophrenia as they would for, say, diabetes or cancer.” As Michael J. Fitzpatrick, executive director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, or NAMI, told the New York Times shortly after reform was signed into law, reform “can change the mental health system in America and really give families and individuals an opportunity to get a level of access to care we could only fantasize about before this became law.”

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

Yglesias

Sell Land, Not Parking

By Matthew Yglesias on Jan 11, 2011 at 5:29 pm

Parking “privatization” seems to me to continue to drift in a kind of policy dead zone veering between two perfectly good ideas without actually hitting on either:

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa sent a letter Monday urging the City Council to move ahead with his plan to get budget revenue by leasing nine parking garages to a private company, saying he will lay off more employees if the deal is abandoned. [...] Business groups in Hollywood, Westwood and downtown have criticized the plan, fearing that a private company would hike rates and drive away customers. Villaraigosa said in his letter the city can no longer afford to manage parking garages and insisted that “the era of free parking in Los Angeles is over.”

I’m seeing two potentially good ideas here. One is that maybe the city owned parking garages are underpriced and overcrowded, in which case the city should raise prices. Another good idea is that maybe the city should sell the parking garages. A private landowner would probably keep operating them as garages for a while, but when the economy’s growing again might redevelop the parcels into some more efficient use of the land. But this kind of lease scheme—like a similar one under consideration in New Jersey—doesn’t capture the benefits of private ownership, it just introduces a new tier of rent-seekers into land use process. It’s essentially a backdoor way for the city to get a loan.

Climate Progress

Even now, ClimateDepot’s Marc Morano reiterates his call for a “hostile reaction” to climate scientists

By Joe Romm on Jan 11, 2011 at 5:15 pm

I have previously written about The rise of anti-science cyber bullying and the role played by Swift Boat smearer Marc Morano “” who believes climate scientists should be publicly beaten:

I seriously believe we should kick them while they’re down. They deserve to be publicly flogged.

Morano has never repudiated those remarks and he’s been widely criticized, including by British journalist Leo Hickman (see “UK Guardian slams Morano for cyber-bullying and for urging violence against climate scientists“).

Hickman posted a comment yesterday on the Guardian website imploring Morano to stop:

Read more

Health

GOP Stresses Need For Mental Health Services, Despite Pushing For Repeal Of Aid

By Igor Volsky on Jan 11, 2011 at 5:00 pm

Following Saturday’s tragic shooting in Tucson, Arizona, some Republicans have argued that 22-year old assassin Jared Lee Loughner was more affected by his mental illness than the nation’s lax gun control laws or Washington’s divisive and often times violent political rhetoric. “What will solve this problem is removing the politics from it and getting after the crux of this problem and that is somebody who needed mental health services and or legal intervention much earlier in his cycle toward violence,” Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) said this afternoon on MSNBC:

ROGERS: If we want to solve this kind of thing from happening, we have to intervene with somebody who has expressed tendencies toward violence, who has a pretty strong history of mental illness. And right now, we’re not talking about that at all. Everybody is talking about ‘oh, this is about people having guns, this is about political speech.’ None of that had a factor here. When you look at the evidence that has been collected up, this wasn’t about politics…If we want to solve this from happening in the future, you can talk about all the gun laws you want — that’s not going to do it. A bad guy is going to get a gun. What we have to do is intervene earlier in that cycle of violence when they have this kind of mental disability.

Watch it:

Newly-elected Rep. Allen West (R-FL) struck a similar note on his Facebook page, saying “The shooter was a very disturbed individual and it appears there were so many warning signs that he was going to do something horrible. We should be focusing on the mental health crisis in our country, not politics.” Indeed, as Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) pointed out this morning, the Tuscon shooting highlights the poor state of the nation’s mental health safety net, which often falls victim to state budget cuts during periods of economic hardship. Congress did not address the issue until 1996, and has been increasing access to mental services ever since — despite Republican opposition.

Fourteen years ago, the late Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN) secured passage of a “partial parity” law that “stopped insurance plans from being allowed to pay less to treat mental ailments as opposed to physical ones.” But the industry soon gamed the law by “limiting the number of mental health visits or days in the hospital.” On June 17, 2008, President Bush extended MHPA through the end of 2008, but didn’t sign full parity legislation until later that year as part of the TARP measure. At the time, 146 Republicans voted against full mental health parity, including now House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), and Rogers.

President Obama’s health reform law — which all Republicans now want to repeal — would go even further in helping Americans with mental illness. By 2014, families and individuals will be able to enroll in insurance through an expanded Medicaid program or the exchanges, where private companies will have to offer mental health and substance use disorder services as part of the essential package of benefits. The law also expands parity to a much wider pool, “making it possible for millions more people to get the same coverage for substance abuse and illnesses like bipolar disorder, major depression and schizophrenia as they would for, say, diabetes or cancer.” As Michael J. Fitzpatrick, executive director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, or NAMI, told the New York Times shortly after reform was signed into law, reform “can change the mental health system in America and really give families and individuals an opportunity to get a level of access to care we could only fantasize about before this became law.”

Update

The Hill is reporting that Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA), co-chair of the Congressional Mental Health Caucus, along with Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA) are “calling for a bipartisan debate on how to keep lawmakers and their staff and families safe in the wake of Saturday’s deadly shooting in Tucson. “

Yglesias

Economics and Incentives

By Matthew Yglesias on Jan 11, 2011 at 4:31 pm

I find it very unlikely that whether or not economists adopt a professional code of ethics is a big deal in the scheme of things, but Lant Pritchett’s furious objections to the idea are entertaining:

[O]nce we as economists abandon the idea (even if it is only a useful fiction) that people’s ideas, arguments, and evidence should be evaluated on the premise they are sincere claims by sincere members of the community of discourse (at least until proven otherwise) in favour of a notion that we must first examine each person’s “bias” we are on a slippery slope into an ugly mud puddle. Why single out the “financial services” industry? I write at times on education economics and I happen to know that most people writing in that area get six figure incomes from the “education services” industry. Does that bias everything I and they write? And why stop at income; what about assets? I also happen to know that many economists have a large fraction of their wealth in a long position in the “housing services” industry. Does that make everything they write about housing suspect? And why stop at income or assets; those are hardly the only personal interests that could create a bias. Suppose my child had a pre-existing condition that would make it difficult for him to get insurance without a mandate for universal coverage. That would bias my views in the health care debates, so should I therefore disclose that so everyone could filter it into their assessment of any ideas, arguments or evidence I might present? And of course, identity claims are powerful sources of motivation and “bias”. Should either men or women who write about gender and economics disclose their sex so that we can dismiss the research produced by either gender based on bias?

It’s kind of amazing how if I were to say “I think people respond to incentives” that would be banal (especially amongst a group of economists) but if you accuse a particular person of being subject to this mechanism, suddenly you’re history’s greatest monster.

It’d be crazy to imagine economists sitting around in their offices saying to themselves “I’m going to write a paper favorable to the financial services industry and then snag a five-figure payday talking to hedge fund managers in Bermuda.” But it’d be equally crazy not to see that the availability of these kind of pay days might exert a distorting influence on scholarship. All you need to assume is that people respond to incentives. And if you think that’s a problem, you might try to dream up ideas—codes of ethics and disclosure rules, for example—that aim to lean against that distortion and restore balance.

Alyssa

Taking Over the World

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Jan 11, 2011 at 4:31 pm

Commenter Jonathan pointed out that since I don’t know for sure that Kim Kardashian can’t sing, it’s probably unfair to give her a hard time for taking a crack at a singing career. He’s right. And when I think about it, I actually feel less annoyed with Kardashian’s attempts to enter an art form other than reality television than I feel exhausted by the news that James Franco’s directing movies based on both Cormac McCarthy and William Faulkner novels.

Of course, if you’ve got resources and people are willing to give you the opportunity, Franco, Kardashian, and anyone else have the right to pursue whatever they want. And no matter how much Hampton Stevens wishes it to be so, Justin Timberlake doesn’t owe it to anyone to go back to music just because we all loved FutureSex/LoveSounds so much. But I do wonder about what happens to our popular culture in a world where everyone contracts artistic schizophrenia. There’s a virtue to concentrating on what you’re best at, refining your skills and deepening your vision. If everyone has to go out and prove they can do anything, what works of art aren’t going to get made? Maybe I’m being selfish, but I’m glad Joss Whedon, for example, refined his vision of musical television shows enough to give us Doctor Horrible, rather than going off and, I don’t know, joining the Legion of Extraordinary Dancers or something.

Politics

Bloomberg Chides NRA For Fighting ‘Common Sense’ Laws ‘That Keep Guns Out Of The Hands Of Criminals’ And Kids

By Tanya Somanader on Jan 11, 2011 at 4:20 pm

Amidst all the fingerpointing surrounding the tragedy in Tucson last Saturday, a more significant issue is beginning to garner much-needed attention: sensible gun regulation. Because of the woefully inadequate gun regulations in Arizona, a mentally-ill man was able to procure a previously-banned weapon, leaving six dead and a gravely-injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) in his wake. The New York Times points out today that the “ludicrously thin membrane that now passes for gun control in this country” is due, in part, to the powerful gun lobby National Rifle Association (NRA) that “is striving for new heights of lunacy” in supporting guns on campus, in churches, in government buildings, in parks, in bars, and even in elementary school classrooms.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) gathered officials affiliated with his bipartisan Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition to outline “common-sense steps” to prevent such an incident in the future. The group offered a 40-step blueprint to crackdown on illegal guns without passing legislation last year. “The system that is supposed to protect us from dangerous and deranged people has failed once again,” Bloomberg said at today’s event. Frustrated by the NRA’s obstruction of “common sense things of enforcing federal laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals or young people is something they fight against,” Bloomberg explained that “responsible regulations” which are supported by NRA members do not jeopardize the Second Amendment but instead “protects it”:

BLOOMBERG: Rather than focus on the NRA — and I don’t understand why the common sense things of enforcing federal laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals or young people is something they fight against. But the bottom line is if you want to protect the Second Amendment in this country, I would argue you should be for responsible regulations that every poll shows a majority of gun owners and NRA members are in favor of. There just are limits. You can’t scream fire as a joke in a crowded theater and there are just places we just shouldn’t have guns. That does not take away the first amendment, it protects it. That does not take away the second amendment, I think that protects it.

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King (R-NY) joined Bloomberg at today’s event to offer “a conservative perspective” in favor of gun regulation. Viewing the lax gun control as a danger to “the fabric of society,” King pivoted away from a traditional conservative talking point to advocate for much-needed regulation, admitting “there’s a real role for the federal government” in gun control:

KING: Let me just say from a conservative perspective, we have to have a stable society, we have to keep crime down. You cannot do that if the police cannot be assured that you’re not going to have so many illegal guns out there. To have a stable and secure society we have to remove illegal guns. That’s not a liberal position, that should be a conservative position…To me, the thought that you can have illegal guns coming in from wherever, Virginia or whatever other state, the fact that you can have states where people can carry guns without any type permit and can’t be questioned or can’t be stopped, this to me undermines the fabric of society. So from a very conservative point of view of maintaining order, I believe its essential that we have these common sense regulations regarding guns, and there’s a real role for the federal government.

Watch it:

King, who announced a bill to ban guns within 1000 feet of federal officials, was “at somewhat of a loss” to explain why other Republicans don’t share his “common sense.” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), for instance, dismissed Arizona’s weak gun laws as “unrelated to the shooting,” adding that “the weapons don’t kill people; it’s the individual that kills these people.” King attempted to defend such thinking: “Part of it is a cultural difference in other parts of the country where people are raised with guns in their home.” “I don’t think they think through the full consequences of what happen when there are no reasonable regulations on weapons,” King said. “They mean well.”

The NRA, however, dismissed any attempts to bolster gun regulation as improper. “NRA strongly believes that now is not the time for political debates or policy discussions,” a NRA spokesman told Newsweek and The Daily Beast. “Indeed, anything other than prayers for the victims and their families at this time would be inappropriate.” But with Congressional members promising to pack heat and sales of the assailant’s gun of choice now shooting through the roof in Arizona, a failure to push for responsible gun regulation would be more than inappropriate. It’d be a wholesale abdication of common sense.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up