The worst vote of Earl Blumenauer's career
Kari Chisholm
Twenty minutes ago, Congressman Earl Blumenauer tweeted:
On July 12, 1996 I cast the worst vote of my political career, today I begin to make it right.
What's he talking about?
In 1996, Blumenauer voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It was and is a vote that's always perplexed many of his fans and supporters.
Today, he's posted a blog about it on Huffington Post:
On July 12, 1996 I cast the worst vote of my political career. Having served in public office since 1973, that says something. While I've made other mistakes, this was different: it was a deliberate vote that I knew to be poor public policy and was against my values. I've been a strong champion of civil rights and protections based on sexual orientation since I chaired the first legislative hearing on anti-discrimination legislation in 1973. Even worse, this vote was cast after careful consideration.Having given it much thought, I was convinced that by voting for this one federal statute against the recognition of same-sex marriage, it would somehow take the steam out of the Newt Gingrich-Tom Delay Congress, which was using the homophobic right-wing agenda to mobilize their base at the expense of millions of gay, lesbian, transgendered, and bisexual Americans. My hope was to simply move on and get to more pressing business at hand, including smaller steps for equality based on sexual orientation, like legislation against employment discrimination.
Since I was an outspoken supporter of anti-discrimination, I assumed that my calculations would be understood by my friends in the community and that we would lay this obnoxious political vendetta to rest. Wrong on all counts.
Read the rest over at HuffPo. It's worth reading.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Sep 15, '09
Rep. Blumenauer on video responding to questions about DOMA back in July:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_srb7u0acbA
2:33 p.m.
Sep 15, '09
[Full disclosure: My firm built Blumenauer's campaign website, but I speak only for myself.]
Sep 15, '09
Earl was right. DOMA did blunt the effort to pass a Constitutional Amendment to pass a prohibition against gay marriage. And I believe it would have passed then. So it was a tactical retreat, but in the long run it may have saved the issue for victory on another day. It's a lot easier to undue DOMA than it is to undue an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Sep 15, '09
Sorry Earl, hate is not a progressive value. The vote you casted is appalling.
3:56 p.m.
Sep 15, '09
I was labor commissioner when DOMA passed and shortly after that was invited to speak to the Log Cabin Republicans, many of whom were friends of mine. I remember explaining the vote then by saying, "The whole idea behind this bill was that the Republicans were trying to embarrass the Democrats by forcing them to vote against it. So Democrats said, 'We'll show you. We'll embarrass ourselves!' and voted for it, too."
I've thought from the beginning that the truly inexcusable part of DOMA was prohibiting the federal government from recognizing same sex marriages irrespective of state law, so that same sex couples couldn't file joint tax returns, exclude spousal health insurance benefits from taxable income, receive spousal social security benefits, receive spousal protections under ERISA, etc.
Repealing the provision that a same sex marriage in Vermont doesn't have to be recognized as a marriage in Virginia or Ohio or New Mexico would be a big political problem for Democrats.
Providing that same sex marriages, domestic partnerships, civil unions, etc., that are valid under state law would be recognized as a marriage for purposes of federal law but still allowing state to decide whether or not to recognize a same sex marriage, domestic partnership, civil union, etc., would correct that injustice and be a significant move toward equity without reigniting the whole gay marriage debate across the country, where it still cannot win.
I don't doubt that Earl is being very sincere about this, but it is also a fairly safe position for him to take politically. For many of his Democratic colleagues it is not. I do think there is a win available here, even if many regard it as half a loaf.
Sep 15, '09
If it took Earl 13 years to come out against his vote back then I have a few words or phrases:
Opportunist Hack Safe haven seeker Gutless
There are others that would probably not register well with RW and some others. Blumenauer is not my representative. I don't have a vote for him, but if I did it would have been against his opponent long ago.
It is politically expedient now to come out and explain away a "yes" vote on DOMA 13 years ago. He has waited far too long for any sympathy or kudos. Unlike Steve Novick who came out within weeks of a concern being raised about a private club, Blumenauer waited until the democrats were firmly in control at the state and federal level and several states had even moved in opposition to DOMA.
I fail to see the political courage here.
5:34 p.m.
Sep 15, '09
Kurt-
I work for Earl and as many in the GLBT community can tell you he has long ago apologized for that vote and put both time, money, and action on doing the right thing on civil right issues.
Today's post and introduction of this legislation is the first real chance we have of seeing DOMA repealed. Some will argue that even this will be tough, but with majorities in the House, Senate, and a President on the record saying he wants DOMA repealed we are going to try.
Sep 15, '09
Willie, thanks for another view. as I said, he isn't my representative so I've paid little attention to him. If, as you state he long ago apologized for the vote, then what was todays message other than political granstanding and breast beating?
5:50 p.m.
Sep 15, '09
@Kurt-
I think his post today was to show a wider audience that it is all right to change your position on DOMA (like many in the country have) and to help lead the charge to try and get some of the 36 Democratic House members who voted for DOMA in 1996 and who are still in Congress to work us to make it happen.
7:06 p.m.
Sep 15, '09
The General Synod of the United Church of Christ endorsed marriage equality in 2005. Sadly, Christians – not politicians – have been responsible for much of the discrimination faced by the gay community. The good news is that is changing. Rep. Blumenauer is to be commended for his own decision.
Sep 15, '09
I believe Earl did what he thought was right. Bill Clinton has said DOMA was to head off a constitutional amendment. Anyone have evidence to the contrary given the political climate at the time?
But did I see on CSPAN today what sounded like Earl acting as the presiding officer, but with a beard?
Why a beard?
Sep 15, '09
LT-"I believe Earl did what he thought was right. Bill Clinton has said DOMA was to head off a constitutional amendment. Anyone have evidence to the contrary given the political climate at the time?"
I believe what Bill Clinton said here was accurate. The gay community was the replacement for the communist for the right wing after the fall of the Soviet Union and end of the cold war. And the climate of 1990s was extremely hostile to gay rights. We dodged a bullet when a constitutional amendment against gay marriage wasn't passed.
8:52 p.m.
Sep 15, '09
LT -- According to a recent story in the O, Earl returned from a three-week trip to Mozambique - where his daughter is in the Peace Corps - with a beard.
Sep 15, '09
If he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, would Oregon have more jobs?
Sep 15, '09
Interesting that homosexuals feel the need to try to change a fundamentally religious practice.
Legally, we restrict marriage in all kinds of ways.
A father cannot marry his daughter, nor a mother her son.
Siblings cannot marry.
Two men cannot marry three women.
It is nonsense to say that homosexuals are being deprived of a 'civil right' when marriage has never been simply 'two people who want to be together'.
Go ahead and bring up the homosexual marriage issue again. It's a big loser for Dems at the polls.
Big.
Sep 15, '09
Earl's apology is worse than Novick's self-flagelation over his book club membership. What's the deal with all the fake apologies? Surely there can't be a dearth of examples that make you look human and NOT self-servingly ridiculous at the same time...
Sep 15, '09
Good to see Earl acknowledge when he's made a mistake--let's hope he keeps it up and apologizes for his votes to: -repeal Glass-Steagall in 1999, paving the way for today's economic crisis -pass various free trade agreements, paving the way for today's economic crisis -pay for illegal and immoral wars, paving the way for today's economic crisis
Sep 15, '09
Thanks for putting your bigotry front and center, Joe White. Gay couples seeking marriage are more like a filial couple- or siblings, or a group marriage- than a heterosexual couple? Nope. A right to marry for gay couples is as obvious as basic arithmetic for most people under 30. Enjoy the (rapidly diminishing) votes of anti-gay old folks as Republicans do their best to extinguish themselves. This one's written on the wall: demographics are a bitch.
Sep 15, '09
Joe, I believe the recognition of (civil) marriage between two individuals is pretty darn common in nearly all nations of the world, and increasingly in many nations those two individuals may be of the same gender. In America, where citizens enjoy "equal protection under the laws" and "the pursuit of happiness" we should expand those protections, opportunities and benefits to same-sex couples or collectively we are hypocrites. Do you feel you are being discriminated against because you cannot legally marry someone based on the criteria you mentioned?
Meg, research shows that if Earl had voted against DOMA in 1996, we would have zero unemployment in Oregon, 100% of our school children would graduate from high school and go on to earn Masters Degrees in college, Al Gore would have been seated as President in 2001, and puppy dogs would poop gold coins. Curse you Earl Blumenauer, if only you had voted against it, if only...
Sep 15, '09
I have known people married in a church that refuses to marry any couple which does not complete their preparation for marriage course.
Why not allow churches to set their own rules for who they will marry? Until there is national legislation, such things as going across state lines and doing federal taxes won't change anyway.
And I see nothing to be gained if churches are required to marry anyone who walks in their door. There needs to be a way to recognize same sex couples and also allow church traditions to continue.
Sep 15, '09
Although I have been one of Sen. Wyden's critics on health care (and remain so), here I cannot cast the first stone. I was teaching at the U. of Minnesota at the time this happened and I remembered how disappointed I was when Paul Wellstone, of all people, voted for DOMA. He wept as he explained it the same way and apologized. Some people called him a coward then and an opportunist. Since the LGBT community was split on the strategy of how to handle this (IIRC), albeit understandably bitterly disappointed by the way that society's bigotry expressed itself and by the way that the Democratic party was powerless to interpose itself between that bigotry and the law . . . I, like many on the left, was left without a strategy.
So now it seems facile and opportunistic to jump on Wyden for a choice that none of us had to make, a choice that in some ways turned out to be a winning (albeit wretched gag-me-with-a-spoon) strategy. The conservative bigoted right simply outmaneuvered the left and put us in an untenable (for that moment) position.
The moment has changed, and now it is clear that the bigoted few are in the declining demographic minority. Their children simply don't see what the big deal is. It must be bitter for them to know in their hearts that they have lost this battle for all time.
The decision is up to the LGBT community of course, but I think that Wyden, in light of his whole career, deserves to be forgiven that vote for that moment.
Sep 15, '09
"And I see nothing to be gained if churches are required to marry anyone who walks in their door."
Well, lucky for you, jump for joy, NOBODY has ever proposed such a thing.
Churches are free to marry whomever they please, and to deny marriage to whomever they reject.
Nothing changes if civil, secular, same-sex marriages are recognized by the state.
Look no further than Massachusetts to see that churches are still free. The difference, now, is that same-sex couples are no longer discriminated against by the state.
But I know that you choose to ignore these basic facts, because you've been posting bigoted misinformation here for years and have ignored any and all corrections.
11:34 p.m.
Sep 15, '09
LT wrote: "And I see nothing to be gained if churches are required to marry anyone who walks in their door. "
Oh fer cryin' out loud, LT, are you TRYING to confuse people and play right into the hands of the righties?!
Not a single gay-marriage bill or court decision has mandated such a thing. Not in MA, not in Multnomah County, not in San Francisco, not in Iowa, not anywhere.
Of all the absurd strawmen you've set up to knock down, this is easily the most ridiculous one.
Sep 15, '09
It is not a "...fundamentally religious practice." It is a function of the State. I don't see church issuing marriage licenses.
Sep 16, '09
Wyden voted against DOMA. What are you talking about Joe (Hill)?
12:40 a.m.
Sep 16, '09
I'm back in the classroom teaching the kids rational and social choice theory. Wow it's hard to avoid seeing this through that lens, as a strategic political choice at the time, now the ability to change that position because of a changed political climate.
I don't think that says anything one way or another about Earl, other than he, and many others, voted strategically for DOMA because they thought it was their second best (worst) choice.
Sorry. Professor talk late at night grading papers ...
Sep 16, '09
Earl is a hack. Look at his votes on this, and his positions on, say, Gaza, and he is just towing the quasi-"progressive" party line, without any thoughts of his own. Sure, he adjusts for the times. Big deal. I'm sure we can all regret for things we did decades ago.
Earl doesn't speak loudly, forcefully, or effectively enough. Maybe with a little fire under his butt he could be more effective. But I doubt it.
The bow-tie hokum... he and George Will can ride the L back to 1960s-era Baby Boomer media tricks. The times they are indeed a-changin'... and little boy Earl and his "soulful" renunciations and re-examinations can exit stage left. Time for new blood.
Sep 16, '09
Earl has nothing much to be ashamed of. In 1996 gay marriage was a far out idea - I thought the whole concept was ludicrous. Over the past 13 years I've "evolved", changed my mind, been convinced by factual and moral arguments, and now support gay marriage. And, according to polling data, my evolution is not alone.
Real change takes time, and some people, understandably, become impatient. But the alternative - a sweeping Supreme Court decision in 1996 outlawing bans on gay marriage, would have been a disaster. Roe v. Wade is proof of that - if the Supreme Court had not so ruled I believe that abortion would never have become the divisive issue, leading to murder, that it has become, and would be legal in all 50 states anyway.
Sep 16, '09
If you want all of your politician to be perfect you will be looking for a very long time.
Sep 16, '09
Brynn, you are right, of course, and my apologies. I meant Earl Blumenauer. Chalk it up to brain freeze. I meant Blumenauer should be given a pass. My bad, completely, sorry for the confusion.
Sep 16, '09
They all cast this kind of political voting all of the time-
For example, the ACORN vote in the Senate the other day- looks like Wyden & Merkely both voted yes. Just politics and not the right thing to do. I see no one complaining about that.
Sep 16, '09
Blumenauer is not a member of the Progressive Caucus because...he's not a progressive. He voted for the last "supplemental" for war funding, as he has several times before, even though he vowed not to. He is opposed to impeachment of war criminals. He is in favor of unqualified support for Israeli crimes, failing to even support calls for a ceasefire in the vicious attacks on Lebanon and Gaza.
The "worst vote" of his career? I'd pick his original vote for unending Bush slaughter and torture in 2001. (Barbara Lee, the only member of Congress with a soul, knew that it authorized Bush to use military force against "anyone associated" with 9/11, i.e., anyone Bush chose.)
If you're progressives, then support progressives and demand that they take progressive positions on those issues most important to their constituents. Blumenauer is not a progressive.
Sep 17, '09
Re: "If you want all of your politician to be perfect you will be looking for a very long time."
We need a truth and reconciliation movement in this country more than anything, more than an end to occupation, more than an end to racism or sexism or economic polarization. Because both major parties are deeply responsible for continuing crimes against humanity, and neither is willing to take responsibility for its own crimes.
Sep 17, '09
And exactly why is it essential to allow gays to marry? I have yet to hear a coherent argument about where this 'right' is fundamental to our Constitution or why our law making body should be obliged to force the majority of Americans to kowtow to the ludicrous demands of the minority. Whatever happened to the ideal of democracy? Why do the arguments in favor of this questionable behavior consist only of vilifying your opponents and calling them names? Is it because you haven't been able to make your case? Yeah, yeah, your enemies are right wing homophobic fanatics, and that means you can do whatever you wish even if you are in the minority. I personally am tired to death of your assaults upon my religion and my viewpoints as though I'm the one who is intolerant.
8:02 p.m.
Sep 17, '09
Emmit,
Earl B joined the Progressive Caucus for the first time this session. You may be saying it's misnamed, but he is a member of the so-named group.
Sep 17, '09
Emmit Goldman wrote:
"Barbara Lee, the only member of Congress with a soul"
Yeah right.
Lee was right and the whole country was wrong.
Emmit Goldman wrote:
"knew that it authorized Bush to use military force against "anyone associated" with 9/11"
No, it authorized the PRESIDENT to defend the country, no matter who the President was.
If Bush and Cheney had been assasinated the next day by terrorists, whoever succeeded them as President was given that authority.
Congressmen understood that when they voted.
You, with your one-note blues ballad against Bush, apparently still fail to grasp it.
Apparently very people are 'progressive' enough for you.
You should seriously think about a third party candidate.
You won't be happy until you have a candidate that really represents your views.
Or all you all talk and no action?
8:59 a.m.
Sep 18, '09
"Mike" --
I personally am tired to death of your assaults upon my religion and my viewpoints as though I'm the one who is intolerant.
No one is assaulting your religion. You are free to worship in any way you choose. Your church (or whatever religious institution) is welcome to provide marriages to anyone it wants to - and decline anyone it wants to.
We're talking about legal rights. And basic human rights shouldn't be up to a majority vote. If they were, the South might still be segregated.
9:00 a.m.
Sep 18, '09
Oh, and let's start using a last name, or last initial (like Mike J), or geographic identifier (Mike from Estacada), or something like (Mike the Brave). Just something to distinguish you from all the other Mikes around here.
Sep 19, '09
"kowtow to the ludicrous" "questionable behavior"
Who is assaulting who?
Sounds like there might be a pretty logical argument that those sort of comments are intolerant, at best.
Assaulting your religion?
What about all the legally recognized religious denominations that do marry the ludicrous people engaging in questionable behavior but those marriages are not legally recognized? What about their freedom of religion as a constitutional argument? And who determines what is ludicrous or questionable? You? Really? Talk about the sin of pride.
Marriage equality will not bring about the apocalypse.
We've just come from the brink of financial disaster. People need jobs, health care, education, and a clean environment. How do we tackle these potentially apocalyptic things when we have a whole lot of people living as second class citizens?
What I fail to see is what skin off your nose will come if everyone gets to play by the same rules. Is not everyone entitled to the equal pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, or does that just apply to heterosexual people of a certain religious belief?
Just for the record, when it comes to name calling and vilifying your opponent, calling people perverts, pedophiles, and reducing a loving committed relationship to "man on dog sex" isn't exactly as bad as being called on as homophobic or at worst bigoted.
We get it, you're not gay. It's not in your bandwidth. OK! It's yukky to you and you lack the compassion for your neighbor to let them live their life according to how they see fit. We get it. It's your "judgment". Its your job and calling to make sure only the pure survive.
But as Thomas Jefferson said, "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Well my fellow American and neighbor, you are in fact picking my pocket and while you may not be breaking my leg you are definitely harming me and my family personally. Your judgment of me, your voiced opinion of questionable behavior only feeds those of lesser minds who express themselves with their fists. Yes your well meaning expression of calling into question my behavior and minimizing me as ludicrous does have consequences. You give others of less civil restraint permission to feel it is acceptable to make fun of me, to ridicule me, that its ok to cause me harm.
The whole why should we kowtow to a minority, doesn't wash. It's another way of saying it's ok for a majority to exclude a group of people from the same opportunities just because they happen to be different. Is that really what this great country is about? Is that what you believe? If we are all stuck on a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean, will you be the one to throw me overboard to make room for another heterosexual?
At the end of the day I'm not vilifying you or calling you names. But I sure as hell am calling you out when you are denying me and my family the very same opportunities you have. Especially when its absolutely no skin off your nose at the end of the day. I don't want to come to your house to have dinner. I don't want to sit in your church on Sunday. I don't want you to give anything up and I am not going to throw you overboard just because you are different from me. I'm not asking you to kowtow. What I am demanding is that I have the same as you, nothing more and definitely nothing less.
I understand that the issue of marriage equality is very difficult for some. I'm sure we have instances in history when other issues were difficult for people to understand or not see the urgency of need. Only those who live under the specter of harm, usually a minority, can fully understand the urgency.
They say the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice. Can we just get a little justice?
Sep 20, '09
Kari,
Are you in favor of a father marrying his daughter, or a mother marrying her son?
How 'bout a grandfather marrying his granddaughter?
Aren't these 'basic human rights' according to your definition?
Sep 20, '09
Re: "You, with your one-note blues ballad against Bush, apparently still fail to grasp it."
Whitey, if you had been following my arguments, you would already know that I agree with you on this. (Bush, Obama, Blumenauer, et al, are all champions of bailouts for the rich and for the politics of empire.) Bush is not the problem. The problem is a viciously corrupt political system, dominated by two viciously corrupt political parties. Furthermore, you are an idiot if you think that you know whether or not I supported and worked for a third party. (I did and I continue to do so. If you were an honorable person, so would you.)
You should know by now that I am not a Democrat, and that Democrats are NOT progressive (even if the saintly war-funding Blumenauer has now decided that it's politically expedient to call himself one).
Sep 20, '09