PDA

View Full Version : Queer enablers in NC despise democracy



glockmail
05-23-2007, 12:32 PM
Gay-marriage opponents win - then lose
Amendment bill to ban it was heading for full House vote before speaker blocked it http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ/MGArticle/WSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173351309941
Opponents of same-sex marriage won a surprising victory yesterday at the N.C. House of Representatives - only to see it reversed a few hours later in a procedural move by House Speaker Joe Hackney.

At issue is a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would define marriage as “the union of one man and one woman at one time.”

……..

But Hackney, a Democrat from Orange County, likely prevented a vote on the bill anytime this year by reassigning it to another legislative committee rather than allowing the House to debate it and vote on it.

……

The unusual procedural showdown was about more than parliamentary rules. It illustrates the political divisiveness of the issue of same-sex marriage, and it is the most high-profile instance to date of Hackney using his power as speaker to block a piece of legislation.

……

An amendment to the constitution would have to be approved by a majority of the state’s voters in a statewide referendum. Before that could happen, it would have to be passed by three-fifths of both the House and Senate.

In the House, supporters say they believe that they have enough votes to pass it by a three-fifths approval if it came up for a vote. Sixty-three legislators - which is an unusually high number - have sponsored the bill.

Supporters of the amendment called Hackney’s blocking action undemocratic.

……..

Advocates for gay rights said yesterday that they believe Hackney made the right call.

“We’re glad that Speaker Hackney showed the leadership to prevent it from going to the voters,” said Ian Palmquist, the executive director of Equality North Carolina.
….

Doniston
05-23-2007, 10:11 PM
Gay-marriage opponents win - then lose
Amendment bill to ban it was heading for full House vote before speaker blocked it http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ/MGArticle/WSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173351309941 Unfortunately, a lot of states (and the US Congress) have these procedural rules which get in the way of passing and/or considering bills.

gabosaurus
05-24-2007, 01:39 AM
WTF is a "queer enabler" anyway?
Does starting an illegal war make Dubya and his buddies "death enablers"?
Do posts like this make Glock a "bullshit enabler"?

Perhaps someone can clarify this for me.

manu1959
05-24-2007, 01:47 AM
WTF is a "queer enabler" anyway?
Does starting an illegal war make Dubya and his buddies "death enablers"?
Do posts like this make Glock a "bullshit enabler"?

Perhaps someone can clarify this for me.

no the dems in congress that voted to let bush go to war are death enablers....

Pale Rider
05-24-2007, 02:45 AM
WTF is a "queer enabler" anyway?

Perhaps someone can clarify this for me.

YOU.

glockmail
05-24-2007, 08:48 AM
WTF is a "queer enabler" anyway?
Does starting an illegal war make Dubya and his buddies "death enablers"?
Do posts like this make Glock a "bullshit enabler"?

Perhaps someone can clarify this for me.

In this case, it's an anti-democratic Democrat legislator and a gay support group.

5stringJeff
05-24-2007, 11:24 AM
Procedural workings like this are used all the time by smart politicians. This one might backfire, but it's nothing new.

Doniston
05-24-2007, 05:12 PM
no the dems in congress that voted to let bush go to war are death enablers.... How about the Reps who WANTED bush to go to war???