Alert reader Laurel posted a clip last week of Colorado Democratic House candidate Angie Paccione’s response to a question about marriage equality in a recent TV debate. I promoted it with the comment, “Leaders must lead.”
Paccione, as you can see, takes a no-nonsense position on the issue. She lost by three points against an incumbent in a heavily Republican district. The post sparked a lively discussion which you can read here. One of the last comments was from Paccione herself, in which she offers some thoughts on how best to approach this issue, and promises to come see us here in Massachusetts:
Angie Paccione responds…
I want to thank Laurel for this post and for the kind words…wish I could have had your vote!
Fact Check is wrong. “Talk about gay marriage and we lose.” What if our civil rights activists had said such things in the 60s???
This morning I received a few e-mails from your readers…including one of your State Representatives! (Glad they read your blog!)
At the end of my post is my response to one of those e-mails.
My answer at the debate comes from the heart…not some campaign strategy…
My opponent is the AUTHOR of the Federal Marriage Amendment!!! This congressional district has only 25% Democrats!!! She won by 2.5% of the vote and only 45.6% of the vote…a 3rd party got 11%.
I was very clear for the 18 month campaign that I stood for marriage equality. Let’s have the courage to stand FOR what’s right!!!
Here is my e-mail response…your reader asked if I would come speak in Mass at an event…
“Thanks for the kind words. I’ve been following the events in Mass…with great disappointment.
I am bi-racial…there was a time in our nation’s history when my parents could not get married. There were courageous souls who fought that good fight. It’s on their shoulders that I stand. I am inspired and encouraged by their example.
You must not be discouraged. And you must tell your friends to continue to fight! There may be small defeats along the way, but those who fight for civil rights know the road may be long…MLK Jr said the arc of history bends toward justice…we don’t know where we are on that arc, but we know where it bends!!!
Stay strong! You have allies everywhere!
You might enjoy watching one of my commercials from the campaign…it’s up on YouTube.com. Search for “Paccione” and then check the one called either “Are you kidding me?” Or “positive priorities”
As for speaking in Mass…just let me know where to be and I will gladly stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you. Remember, I ran against the AUTHOR of the federal marriage amendment!!!
Stay in touch!
-Angie”
Sorry for the long post!
The e-mail she included in her letter was one she sent to me in response to my mailing her.
<
p>
I was very moved by her astounding resolve on this issue and now refer to SSM as marriage equality.
<
p>
I would hope that on May 17th 2007, Ms.Paccione would have dug her way out of the snow and comes to our Commonwealth to speak.
<
p>
Although the details haven’t been ironed out, I’m sure that she would be welcomed with open arms.
<
p>
We need more voices like hers if we are to win this battle.
<
p>
Thank you Ms. Paccione for taking the time to keep up to date on what is happening here in Ma.
<
p>
<
p>
Paccione: “In the Colorado legislature, I helped pass the strongest illegal immigration laws in the country. I’m against amnesty of any kind.”
<
p>
Wonder if that’s also from the heart. If she visits MA, keep her away from Mitt’s lawn!
<
p>
2. As presented above, the suggestion seems to be “Run with an unequivocal liberal message and you’ll be fine.”
<
p>
But they left out the part that she chose to push hard right* on another civil rights issue.
<
p>
3. Question for you BMG Liberals: if you had to choose, would you take pro-gay-marriage and tough-on-illegals, or pro-civil-unions and pro-amnesty?
<
p>
Just asking.
<
p>
*Her R opponent still trashed Paccione as “soft on immigration,” just as despite, Kerry’s move for civil unions and against gay marriage, Bush still attacked him.
The two issues, marriage equality and immigration, are not mutually exclusive or synnergistic because, at the moment, they are played out in differnt layers of governmnet. Immigration is solely federal territiry. There are huge federal benefits/responsibilities that some with marriage, but unless/until federal DOMA is repealed, marriage equality will remain a state-level issue. So, no need to make false priotities between them.
typo allowance is on a sldiing scal
<
p>
1 typo per post: “process liberals”
<
p>
2 typos per post: everyone else
<
p>
0 typos per post: critics of the Governor
<
p>
ernie boch 3 is grandfathered in at unlimited.
If by a “liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people – their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties – someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “liberal.”
– President John F. Kennedy
<
p>
Marriage equality and immigration are two seperate issues.
<
p>
In the case of marriage equality:
<
p>
“As presented above, the suggestion seems to be “Run with an unequivocal liberal message and you’ll be fine.”
<
p>
The message is marriage equality means equality for all…unequivocally.
marriage equality with out job equality, housing equality, or voting equality doesn’t really leave you with much: it’s only a useful right if you are accepted as a member of the society.
Without marriage equality at the state level, two committed spouses are considered legal strangers.
<
p>
Without marriage equality at the federal level, two committed spouses are written out of over 1400 benefits and responsibilites which include: access to family and medical leave act is your spouse is sick/dead; access to deceased spouse’s social security; ability to sponsor spouse for permanent residence status; ability to put spouse on health insurance without having to pay taxes as if it was a benefit or gift, etc.
<
p>
Marriage may be a gateway to broader acceptance in society for LGBT folks, but it is first and foremost a bundle of legal niceties that touch every part of a couple’s shared life.
the federal marriage inequality is a huge problem to couples who are denied these rights: the problem is supporting the rights of the couple but opposing the individual rights is just as problematic. if the individuals can’t work, or have no right to access the social security let alone one’s spouses, you still have a lot of barriers. my point is that these rights are all essential, but a same-sex immigrant couple has even more basic barriers to their rights as immigrants before they even get to marriage. all are important and urgent.
<
p>
as you said in your other response to me, it is a false dichotomy to talk about “immigrants” and “GLBT” as exclusive groupings: which is why I believe an attack on one is an attack on both is an attack on all.
I see what you’re saying. I think it is important though not to speak of all immigrants in one breath. Legal immigrants have rights. Not as many as citizens, but they do have them. Undocumentd immigrants don’t, for obvious reasons. SO saying “immigrants rights” is a little too vague to be useful.
<
p>
Regarding LGBT immigrants (I’ll use that term because I’ve never heard of a same-sex couple being allowed in as such, have you?), I’ll wager that which rights are most important to them varies from person to person. I think we agree that we need to address all these issues. But I don’t necessarily agree that one has to be addressed before the other or is more important than the other (other than in the eyes of an individual). Legislators certainly can walk and chew gum at the same time, so they can, and do, address both issues simultaneously. They’re multitaskers, after all.
i’m not sure i understand your point and laurel’s.
<
p>
of course they are two different issues.
<
p>
my question is: What if the only way you can run unequivocally for gay marriage in a moderate district and keep the race close is if you run hard to the right on another issue, like immigration?
A) There are no what “if’s” in equality.
that the candidate wasn’t really behind one of her stances, but took it to be “viable”. I’m not getting into that kind of arguement. The point of the original post was not the details of Paccione’s campaign, it was that FINALLY someone running for natinoal office LEFT NO ROOM FOR DOUBT that she was pro-equality on LGBT civil rights. You will find umpteen candidates taking equally strong stances for/against immigration policy. Can you show me as many who are as strong as Paccione on LGBT equality? Until you can, it is pointless to play the what if game.
That’s really ridiculous: though I think immigration is much more controversial than marriage equality, as immigrant communities are far more disenfranchised than GLBT, due to language and cultural barriers and large non-citizen populations, so as a practical political matter it’s more understandable, but the way people on both sides have dehumanized immigrants is fundamentally disgusting.
This is another false dichotomy, the way you are separating immigrant and LGBT issues. Gay people reside in every slice of society. We are immigrants (documented or not), we were slaves in ALabama, we were gassed Jews & Jehova’s Witnesses in Nazi Germany, we are everywhere.
I thought I was precisely CONNECTING immigration and LGBT issues, not “separating” them. The candidate you cited had a liberal position on gay issues and a conservative position on immigration issues.
<
p>
I happen to share her position on gay issues. Since you agree these issues might reasonably be linked, do you share her position on immigration issues?
saying LGBT people are everywhere, including being immigrants, does not conflict with the fact that policitally, immigration and marriage are delt with (at least for now) is two competely separate spheres of government.
Sorry it’s taken so long to respond…
<
p>
First, I love this comment:
“marriage equality with out job equality, housing equality, or voting equality doesn’t really leave you with much: it’s only a useful right if you are accepted as a member of the society.by: alexwill”
<
p>
Nicely put. However having the right to marry can lead to greater social acceptance. Interracial couples became more “socially acceptable” once their relationship was recognized under the law.
<
p>
As for the debate about my “conservative position” on illegal immigration…I don’t think my position is/was “conservative”.. I’m against anything that’s illegal. However I support a guest worker program and a residential visa for ag workers (rather than temporary). I don’t support “amnesty” as in no penalty. I don’t think that’s a purely conservative position. My opponent was for the border wall and the “round-up”…
<
p>
Still, as a country we need to do better in protecting the civil rights of all citizens and residents…seared into my conscience is that “poem” …
<
p>
“First they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t Jewish
<
p>
Then they came for the Communists and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist
<
p>
Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist
<
p>
Then they came for me and ther was no one left to speak out.”
<
p>
We really are in this together and when we figure that out, perhaps we will make progress in the area of social justice. I’m just trying to do my part.
<
p>
Thanks for being engaged too!!
<
p>
-Angie