A community-driven blog featuring news and commentary on local, state, and national politics.

Donate to CT Dems

Ads on My Left Nutmeg

Contact Info

To contact the site admin email ctblogger at ctblogger@yahoo.com

Murphy & Courtney Favor Marriage Equality

by: mikect

Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 09:25:55 AM EST

( - promoted by BranfordBoy)

Chris Murphy and Joe Courtney are among only nine of 50 newly elected House and Senate Democrats to support equal marriage for gays and lesbians, according to the count of the Washington Blade. The 50 incoming Democrats are a decidedly mixed bag on gay rights, with:

13 opposing marriage equality, and two of these (Reps elect Brad Ellsworth & Nick Lampson) supporting a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage
42 opposing a constitutional amendment to ban equal marriage

The Blade could not determine any stance on civil unions among half of the new Democrats, and ten could not be verified to support any gay rights legislation.

mikect :: Murphy & Courtney Favor Marriage Equality

In an April 2005 interview with The Hill, Murphy soft pedaled his support of civil unions and was "unclear" on his position on equal marriage.

The self-defeating, cult-of-incumbency gays at the Human Rights Campaign chose to endorse Nancy Johnson, Chris Shays and Rob Simmons over their Democratic challengers. They cited the defeat of Diane Farrell as one of their "key victories," despite her positive views on gay issues. In 1996, Shays and Johnson voted in favor of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denies federal recognition of gay marriage and gives states the right to refuse recognition of same-sex marriage licenses issued by other states. (DeLauro and Dodd also voted for DOMA; Simmons & Larson were not in office.)

They also notoriously endorsed Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont, even though Lieberman supported DOMA and openly opposes equal marriage. In contrast, Lamont supported same-sex marriage rights. The HRC's endorsement of Lieberman and Republican candidates sparked a grassroots revolt, with members denouncing their actions and withholding contributions:

One gay man is reportedly so angry he is writing HRC out of his will, an action that will see the organization lose an estimated $1-million.

HRC, whose name roughly translates to "mud" in Connecticut, is fortunately irrelevant here and has no ground presence.

Local theocratic right, gay marriage opponents made a point of endorsing Lieberman because of his opposition to equal marriage. Meanwhile, Anne Stanback, Director of Love Makes a Family, was in Lamont's camp. (As a state PAC, LMF does not make federal election endorsements.)

Tags: ct-05 ct-02 courtney murphy, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Murphy & Courtney Favor Marriage Equality | 5 comments

I suspect HRC is a front group or at least lost its way (0.00 / 0)

Jeff Trandahl is on some board of advisors or something for them. The person who outed Foley was fired from HRC immediately after doing so, because they figured out he was posting on the website he created while at work. (Misusing company property or some such technically defensible nonsense).

It defies credulity to think they are in any way currently legitimate if they support Lieberman when he took blatantly anti-gay groups such as the Hispanic clergymen who endorsed him days before the election.

I think there's more to understand about this group, and whether it has been gutted from its original intent and filled in with cardboard figures - or something.

Do you know if this is a front group? Did it ever take creditable stances?

by: greenpeas @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 08:38:36 AM CST

Incumbency protection PACs (0.00 / 0)

HRC has been around since 1980, and is one of the major national gay rights organizations. They call themselves the largest. I used to be on their e-mail list and participated in their action alerts - until their endorsements this year. I don't think it is a "front group," but, like many self-styled "progressive" PACs, its de facto mission is to protect its relationships with incumbents, not to elect candidates that support its agenda.

True story: Years ago, a friend of mine who was a Congressional candidate confronted a staffer at the League of Conservation Voters in DC about their endorsement of a Democrat who had, by the League's own measure, a poor environmental voting record. The staffer said, "Yeah, people at the grassroots don't understand that. But we understand that here."

by: mikect @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 08:52:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Can you trust any organization? (0.00 / 0)

They all seem to defy common sense. The only conclusion is that these interest groups, even the so-called progressive ones, are just another part of the problem.

by: snorwich @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 12:16:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

NO, I think it is of value to be clear what they're about (0.00 / 0)

I doorknocked to a diehard GOP lady's house - first she said she would never vote for anything but a GOP candidate, and then announced "they're all bums".

Well, net net, she had just given me the reason not to vote, or not to try to find variability in "bumminess". Knowing qualitatively what these organizations are about and what does/doesn't work about them seems to me to have value.

I think Tom Swan and CCAG should have a seal of approval - frankly, if that man said a group was okay, I'd believe him no questions asked.

by: greenpeas @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 13:05:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

We have to our homework (0.00 / 0)

Being an informed voter is no different than being an informed consumer, because making an uniformed vote/purchase can have adverse effects for quite some time. After this election, my suspicion level of organizations has increased to a level never before registered.

by: snorwich @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 14:45:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]