Boston Globe reports that the campaign of Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker released a statement last night about the position of his running mate, Karyn Polito, on marriage equality. The Globe quotes Baker campaign spokesman Tim Buckley as saying:
Karyn supported civil unions at a time when most Republicans did not. Like many, including President Obama, Karyn’s position has evolved, and she now supports the existing [same-sex marriage] law and will not work to undo the progress achieved over the last decade.
This statement comes up short in several ways. First, same-sex marriage isn’t the be-all and end-all of the struggle for LGBT legal equality in Massachusetts. Numerous other issues remain to be addressed, including the protection of transgender people from discrimination in public accommodations. As I pointed out recently, Karyn Polito has voted against LGBT legal equality every chance she got:
During her 10 years in the state House, Polito voted for a constitutional amendment that would have defined civil marriage as exclusively heterosexual, voted against repeal of the law preventing non-resident same-sex couples from marrying in Massachusetts, voted against protecting transgender people under the state’s hate crimes and anti-discrimination laws, co-sponsored an anti-gay “parent’s rights” bill penned by anti-LGBT hate group president Brian Camenker, and filed an official complaint when the Registry of Motor Vehicles began allowing transgender people to change the sex designation on their drivers license without proof of sex reassignment surgery.
By speaking only of marriage equality, the Baker-Polito campaign apparently hopes that the press and the public will forget that other LGBT-related legislation is likely to be introduced during the next gubernatorial term, and that Karyn Polito’s history tells us that she will stridently oppose it.
Second, Karyn Polito wants brownie points for having supported separate-but-equal civil unions? Really? She clearly still doesn’t accept the judicial reasoning that brought marriage equality, not civil unions, to the state:
The dissimilitude between the terms ‘civil marriage’ and ‘civil union’ is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status. …For no rational reason the marriage laws of the Commonwealth discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain. …Maintaining a second-class citizen status for same-sex couples by excluding them from the institution of civil marriage is the constitutional infirmity at issue.
And finally, saying that she will no longer oppose the marriage quality law is like saying she won’t try to stop the sun from rising. Nobody in their right mind would pretend that the Massachusetts marriage equality law can be reversed at this point. All her statement tells us is that she’s calculated the odds on that particular issue. It does nothing to assure LGBT people and our allies that she will cease opposing LGBT legal equality in other forms.
If Karyn Polito can give a convincing answer as to why it’s inappropriate to refer to transgender anti-discrimination bills as “bathroom bills“, and go on to explain why her previous vote opposing legal protections for transgender people was wrong, then I might believe that she has had a genuine change of view and intentions. Until then, it’s just more winking and nodding and hoping people will forget her long and terrible anti-LGBT voting record.
One more thing: Why is the Baker campaign speaking for Karyn Polito? Do they prefer to look patronizing rather than risk Polito mucking it up by speaking for herself? What kind of Lt. Gov. would Polito make if she needs and/or allows Big Daddy Charlie to speak for her? Ick.
I know this is old turf, but I’ll run it up the flagpole again.
We could redefine “marriage”, for legal purposes, to be “civil union”. We could make ALL laws pertaining to health care access, inheritance, property ownership, etc., refer to “civil union” rather than “marriage”. We could make the ceremony performed in a place of worship have approximately the same legal standing as a confirmation, bar mitzvah, or even baptism — important for believers, and utterly meaningless in law.
I fully support the LGBT equality movement. I long ago stopped caring, myself, which term (“civil union” or “marriage”) is used to guarantee equal rights. Since I am hetero, I’m perfectly happy to defer to the experiences those who are not.
In my view, the REAL question is why the GOP is STILL fanning the flames of a “wedge issue” like this, what that says about the GOP as people, and what that means for Massachusetts.
I despise politicians and parties who intentionally and consciously use bigotry and prejudice to advance their agenda. I see little or no difference between targeting Blacks, Hispanics, immigrants, or atheists, and targeting the LGBT community.
Such actions are, in my view, an absolute abomination.
Nobody’s really proposed to do this, and they certainly didn’t in 2003-04. The question is equality. IF the state called everyone’s legal union a marriage, that’s providing equal rights. IF the state called everyone’s legal union a civil union and abolished civil “marriage,” OK. If the same term is applied to everyone, it doesn’t matter much what term it is.
But a decade ago Polito was for “marriages” for opposite-sex couples and “civil unions” for same-sex couples. As the SJC pointed out, that’s not equal. Particularly in a culture where the term “marriage” still has meaning for many people, it sends a clear signal of second-class status.
As to your main point, amen. But cue the conservatives who will equate calling out bigotry with appealing to it.
how does a civil union differ from what has been done almost forever at JPs and City Halls for people who didn’t want a church service? They always called it a wedding and marriage. If it wasn’t for the same sex aspect of the issue, we never would have given a thought to it. It’s just semantics to me.
What you get in city hall: a marriage.
What you get at church: holy matrimony.
“Marriage” is and has been a civil term.
In Massachusetts today, here is how the “officiant” participates in “marriage” (emphasis mine):
I’ve been married twice in a church and once at city hall (Brookline). I’ve also been an “officiant for a day”. I note that no such entanglement between city hall and the church (or synagogue) exists for the many other equally sacred and equally solemn rituals that mark life passages for believers.
I agree with and like your distinction between “holy matrimony” and “marriage”. I would like our laws to reflect that distinction. My only point in this thread was to observe that “civil union” could be substituted for “marriage”, as a civil process, and solve the legal aspects of this problem.
The connotations and religious implications would, of course, be little affected.
But while this solution would please everyone in theory from my atheist friend offended that he has to “marry” his (female) life partner to get benefits to my conservative evangelical and Catholic friends and relatives to most gays I know-its still too difficult to pass off. Rather than go through the hassle of creating that its easier just to say civil marriage for all and spiritual marriage for those that want it ascribed to their traditions.
It’s been a few days and they are already hiding Polito, Baker won’t let her speak about her nutty positions in public:
So the “GOP Insider” basically said she’s full of it and “Everybody tells me I’m a great guy” Charlie Baker is behind it.
Maybe Baker should of held out to see if Loscoco was going to run for Lt. Guv.
Not letting her speak for herself. It’s pretty cynical to put her on the ticket hoping that hardline conservatives will know where she “really” stands and you’ll score points with them, while hiding her (in the closet?) and finessing her views lest she offend anyone else in the electorate.
…why someone could not challenge Polito for the LG nomination if she’s seen as dragging down the ticket. For that matter, there’s nothing this early that says Charlie Baker has to be the top nominee either.
over his anti-equality challengers for US Senate earlier this year. So maybe someone will come forward. Or *would* come forward, if the MA-GOP had any depth to their bench…
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!
“Like many, including President Obama, Karyn’s position has evolved…”
Remember 2010 Scotty commercial in which B7W footage of JFK morphs into Scott Brown?
John Connolly “joked” that people who question his assertions of being a “teacher” are like birthers questioning Obama’s birthplace.
But they don’t compare themselves to Republicans. Why is that?
Seriously, someone would need to a spineless arthropod or drag themselves along in a puddle of their own slime in order to even begin the logical comparison to the typical Republican slug.
Need the name of the bidge?
Once again, the alleged independant running to the defence of your HERO, George (Thanks Dad) Bush (43).
As you have probably noticed, all of DFW’s Democratic positions are in the past, e.g., I believes he claims to have voted for Obama, but he has never taken even a minor position recently that lies outside the Republican mainstream. So yes, he’s functionally a Republican. Let’s accept that and stop trying to convince him he’s a Republican. Otherwise one ends up like a codependent embarking on the hopeless task of convincing an alcoholic that she’s an alcoholic.
But mike_cote, you’ve got to recognize that this pretending to be non-Republican is a potent weapon in the Troll Arsenal. It guarantees response. It guarantees outrage. Best of all, it guarantees attention.
Might I suggest that you decline too this most delicious and tempting bait?
Remember when Tom Reilly picked Marie St. Fleur as his running mate early in the game to kind of get a jump in the 2006 Democratic primary for governor, but then Reilly’s bold move backfired when Rep. St Fleur’s personal problems came to light?
Since the day that this was announced, I have hoped that we are witnessing a similar bad decision by Baker.
Either run as a social liberal or run as a social conservative. Trotting out a social conservative female to say she adds “balance” while simultaneously downplaying all the aspects about her voters find offensive is the height of cheap flip flopping politicians. How have they not just alienated the base they were trying to excite while winning no swing voters?
I don’t know. There’s a chance that this somewhat deceptive move could work. We at BMG may have over-refined tastes when it comes to candidates.
An unforced error too; he could have just let the voters decide.