December
2005
State Senator Alberta Darling shows lack of courage by supporting anti-gay referrendum
Imagine for a second if there was going to be a referrendum on the ballot opposing giving brunettes the ability to marry. Many people would be up in arms at how utterly dimwitted our legislators who voted to authorize such a referrendum were. Their leaving the legislature after the next election would be a predetermined assumption.
But discrimination is alive and well in the Wisconsin State Legislature and even those that say they oppose discrimination are going along with the mob. It’s like saying, no, I don’t support the KKK but I’ll happily sew sheets for them, make them torches and water their horses !
That’s why it’s so surprising that my Senator, Alberta Darling, is giving her vote to those who seek the agenda of discrimination. No this time it’s not against brunettes or an ethnic group. Simply put, Darling is aiding the forces of hate by voting to put a divisive question on the ballot that is passed, will single out gay people and say they cannot marry in Wisconsin.
Normally this would simply be hard-edged wedge issue designed to motivate religious right conservatives to come out to vote against gay people. If that doesn’t seem crazy enough, there’s more. Right now gay people cannot wed anyway. That’s right — if you want to marry someone of the same gender in Wisconsin, it is illegal. So what would this referrendum do? It would define marriage as between a man and a woman instead of between a husband and a wife.
Confused?
Yeah we all are. Clearly the goal of this referrendum is more about politics than it is about policy. By placing this question on the November ballot, the GOP hopes to increase voter turnout among conservative christians — there’s an oxymoron in and of itself. With the ways that conservatives have been acting over the past decade or two there is nothing christian about their actions.
Here's an interesting tidbit from Grassroots Northshore: A Surprise Party for Alberta Darling Senator Disappoints on Single Sex Marriage Issue
With a whopping four hour notice, State Senator granted an audience to opponents to the proposed Single Sex Marriage ban constitutional amendment. Fully expecting a handful to attend, Alberta was treated to a bit of surprise. Thanks to alerts from the Milwaukee LGBT Community Center and GRNS, she was met by over 40 people at the North Shore Presbyterian Church parlor. Alberta breezed in and in the spirit of open mindedness immediately announced she was voting to send the unlighted amendment to public referendum, coincidently during next year's gubernatorial election. How convenient. But the crowd took this opportunity to express their anger, their disappointment and their tearful fears. What set the assemblage off at the end was Alberta saying she really did not support the concept of the amendment. Think of it. We send people to the state legislature to lead, not pander to the fears and intolerance of some voters, even if it appears to be a majority. If the office holder cannot show the willingness to lead, then it is time for someone who understands what the job is about.
Jim McGuigan
Jim McGuigan, Watchdogging Wisconsin
RSS feed
Link
On November 5, 2005, Texas became the 19th state to add a gay marriage ban to its constitution when voters approved it in a ballot referendum. The amendment, Proposition 2, as it was called, passed with the full support of the KKK, which held a rally at the state capitol in Austin Nov. 5.
“Having the Klan involved probably doesn’t help my cause,’’ said Texas State Rep. Warren Chisum, who wrote the amendment. “This is one of those deals where you can’t control who signs up on your side.’’
No, Rep. Chisum doesn’t support the Klan, and neither does Sen. Alberta Darling.
But both politicians have, unconscionably, sadly and very true to what Jim writes above, helped stitch and sew the sheets of hatred for them.
The politics of the new century seem to be the politics of fear and hate. Alberta Darling is just the latest to show her lack of spine. It is intersting that someone who confesses to not agree with a piece of legislation puts it forth anyway. When she votes for reviving the death penalty we wont have to worry about another term for her.
Farewell, and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
We received an interesting response from Senator Darlings office. Here’s what they said:
SENATOR DARLING’S OFFICE RESPONDS TO OUR COLUMN:
Publishers Note: We have chosen to publish, word for word, the response of one of Senator Darling’s staffers. She could have done it herself with the “reply to comment” section but chose not to.
[...] ot.com/2005/12/debunking-arguments-for-hate-amendment.html”>opposition to the gay bashing amendment. The conservative blogs are far more divided. Most of those who support the amendment d [...]
After talking with Ms. Tormey, we decided to post this to clarify the record about the meeting, Sen. Darling’s vote, and the heart of the criticism of Sen. Darling.
1) Sen. Darling’s chief of staff clearly meant to email Jim about this post, but sent it to me because, to be fair, my email address was the one she had. There is no Mr. David at Watchdog, which, we hope, will do nothing to curb your enthusiasm.
2) There was a meeting on Dec. 5th, one day prior to the vote on the gay marriage ban. Patrick Flaherty and the No on Amendment Coalition had about four hours to mobilize an audience for Sen. Darling, and a crowd of 40 people made it to the meeting. That’s a heck of a turnout.
3) Some people in the audience felt they should have had more notice about the meeting, but as of the end of the Friday before the meeting (when Sen. Darling says she agreed to meet) the details hadn’t been confirmed. Hence the complaint — not from me or from Jim McGuigan — from Grass Roots North Shore, members of which attended the meeting and are Sen. Darling’s constituents. We at WatchdogMilwaukee simply reported it. Our interest is in what she said at the meeting, and that’s the crux of the criticism of Sen. Darling.
4) Sen. Darling’s chief of staff would, of course, prefer that the discussion be about whether or not Sen. Darling is responsive to her constituents instead of about the issue of supporting the Republican Party of Wisconsin’s attack on gay citizens of our state and our state Constitution. She would like this to be considered a “personal issue.” We say it is a constitutional issue.
5) Sen. Darling acknowledges that she does support civil unions and domestic partnerships, but when I asked Ms. Tormey why she did not support Sen. Hanson’s amendment to drop the denial of legal status to relationships “substantially similar” to marriage, she replied that “no one knows what substantially similar means.”
This has been the Family Research Institute (the christian fringe group pushing this) and the Republican Party of Wisconsin’s sleazy, disingenuous rhetoric about the language of their “Defense of Marriage Act.” Health insurance companies and the Michigan courts have already defined domestic partnerships and civil unions to be “substantially similar” to marriage, which is why people file to get them — and why Republicans fought tooth and nail to stop Gov. Doyle from extending health care benefits to domestic partners working in the UW System. And we have not forgotten that Mark Gundrum, the far right Assembly Rep. from New Berlin who wrote this bill, is on the record stating that he wanted to get “Defense of Marriage” on the books “before the courts rule that it is illegal.”
Sen. Darling is fully aware of all of these developments, but lacked the courage to stand up to her party on “Defense of Marriage.” She is not pandering to the conservatives she represents in Ozaukee and Washington County — she is pandering to the Republican Party of Wisconsin out of fear that the party might abandon her and run Assembly Rep. Kurt Gielow (R-Mequon) or Rep. Suzanne Jeskewitz (R-Menomonee Falls) against her. The Party does not tolerate moderates, as evidenced by the fact that two of the Republican moderates were Darling’s colleagues in the Senate, Mary Panzer (West Bend) and Peggy Rosenzweig (Wauwatosa) are no longer in the Senate. They were attacked from the right in the Republican primary by candidates who had the full backing of the Republican Pary of Wisconsin.
Socially moderate conservatives throughout the state should be alarmed by these developments. Instead of engaging in debate about the scheduling of meetings, Sen. Alberta Darling should have stood up for her beliefs and appealed to the moderates throughout her district who want nothing to do with the religious right’s attacks on the civil rights of Wisconsin citizens. Moderate conservatives, like any other voters, need strong leaders.
But Sen. Darling failed to lead. She pandered to the far right wing that controls the Republican Party, and voted counter to her own views — which is the very heart of our criticism of Sen. Darling.
She’s a Republican is she not? She lives in River Hills which is hardly a hotbed of liberalism. What ever happened to the Republicans who wanted government to stop meddling in people’s personal lives? Have they gone the way of the Dinosaurs? Oh, that’s right, Dinaosaurs are a hoax perpetrated by god-hating scientists.