Legislators back gay rights -- and survive
chief-t...@gay-bible.org
Monday, January 24, 2005
Legislators back gay rights -- and survive
By Deb Price / The Detroit News
When Carl Sciortino's phone calls and letters went unanswered, he
decided to visit his state representative to find out where the
lawmaker stood on same-sex marriage.
That day in late 2003 turned out to be quite fateful for both the young
gay constituent and for longtime Massachusetts state Rep. Vincent
Ciampa. During an hour-long conversation, Sciortino (pronounced
Shore-TEE-no) finally got his answer: Ciampa favored amending the state
constitution to outlaw gay marriage.
"He wasn't trying to be insulting," Sciortino recalls. "But he didn't
understand (that gay families are real families with real needs)."
Sciortino decided it was time for the district just north of Boston to
have a representative who does understand. And today, he's the lawmaker
and Ciampa is his constituent.
Sciortino beat Ciampa not just once, in the Democratic primary, but
twice, after the sore loser mounted a write-in campaign for the general
election. Knocking on countless doors with his volunteers, Sciortino,
26, won on a progressive platform stressing education, health care and
equality.
In embracing the candidate determined to keep marriage legal in
Massachusetts, Sciortino's district sent a message that lawmakers
nationwide would be wise to heed: Don't assume that being anti-gay is
politically safe; don't assume that being gay-friendly is politically
dangerous.
In fact, contrary to the threats hurled by anti-gay zealots, state
lawmakers who stood up to prejudice were overwhelmingly re-elected, a
new study of the 2004 election shows.
An in-depth survey of all 22 states where legislators voted on bills,
constitutional amendments or resolutions involving same-sex marriage
and then faced the voters in November reveals that only 1.7 percent of
those lawmakers lost because they opposed discrimination. (See
"Standing Up for Equality" at hrc.org.)
Ninety-four percent of lawmakers who opposed discriminatory measures
were re-elected (a slightly higher rate than the National Conference of
State Legislators found in 1994 in its most recent analysis of
re-election rates for state officeholders). Just 36 of 640 lost, and
nearly all of those defeats had nothing to do with gay marriage. Ten of
the 36 actually lost to someone who was even more supportive of gay
rights.
And, contrary to dire predictions that gay-friendly African-American
state lawmakers would suffer at the ballot box, 97 percent were
returned, according to the analysis by the Human Rights Campaign and
the Equality Federation. Meanwhile, 100 percent of Latino,
Asian-American and Native American state lawmakers who voted against
discrimination were re-elected.
"Voting against discrimination is good policy and good politics,"
concludes HRC national field director Seth Kilbourn.
The report's findings couldn't be more timely. Here's what to expect
during the legislative sessions now getting under way:
States whose lawmakers are definitely going to consider amending their
state constitutions to ban gay marriage are Kansas, Massachusetts,
Texas and Virginia.
In addition, lawmakers are likely to face marriage measures in Alabama,
California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Maine,
Minnesota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin.
Lawmakers who think their political ambition somehow justifies voting
against equal treatment of gay couples ought to think again: Of the
Republicans who opposed marriage discrimination, 95 percent advanced to
the general election. Of the Southerners, 98 percent were re-elected,
the report found. Likewise, 93 percent of the gay-friendly lawmakers in
states that President Bush carried won re-election.
In every corner of the nation, state lawmakers have stood up for equal
rights, then won re-election. There's no excuse for any legislator to
ignore gay families' needs.
--end of news article
--
Lavender-Velvet Revolution
http://www.gay-bible.org