While it’s certainly great news that Teresa Paiva Weed said she will allow the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote on marriage equality if and when it passes the House next month, the committee isn’t exactly the legislative equivalent of the Castro District. In fact, it’s pretty anti-equality.
Of the seven returning members, only two are solid votes for marriage equality: Democrat Donna Nesselbush and Republican Dawson Hodgson.
Democrat Erin Lynch was on the fence when I asked her toward the end of the last legislative session, but some say she has moved closer to being a firm yes. On the other hand, a contentious primary may have moved Democrat Paul Jabour farther away. Last session he told me “prefers” civil unions to marriage.
The remaining members of the committee – Democrats Maryellen Goodwin, Harold Metts and William Walaska – have all been solidly against marriage equality. And perhaps no one is more set against it than committee Chairman Michael McCaffrey.
“I think you know what my position is on this,” he told me when I asked him last session.
However, with two vacancies on Senate Judiciary, the balance of power on the committee is likely to shift back towards equality. Rhoda Perry, the progressive Democrat who retired, is likely to be replaced with her heir apparent Gayle Goldin. And Paiva Weed couldn’t find anyone more anti-equality than was Glen Shibley, who lost to Lou Raptakis.
Leadership can always vote on a committee, if it wishes, so Paiva Weed could always step in and swing the balance back against equality, but I don’t guess she will.
The Senate President might have a blind spot when it comes to marriage equality but it’s hard to not see that the politics of it have reached a tipping point.
As a constituent of Sen. Jabour, I fully expect he will vote yes. He said that if his district made it clear to him that we supported marriage, then he’d vote yes. and we’ve made it clear to him. Over and over.
If I’m not mistaken, the Senate President, Senate Majority Leader, and Senate Minority Leader are all ex-officio members of all committees. There are three more solid NO votes if necessary. This thing is going nowhere. And Paiva Weed is actually pretty smart to let it go. She won’t get banged for not calling a vote. And the issue will be killed (presumably early on). Pretty sly move on her part, even though I don’t agree with her position.
I think Joe’s analysis is sad but likely true. My state Senator, Dominic Ruggerio, the majority leader, though strongly tied to labor is still opposed to marriage equality and probably not convincable to change of his position. Its symbolic of an older generation of labor leaders out of touch with younger thinking that contributes to the declining perception of the labor movement.
I hope the MERI folks will re-think their reflexive opposition to a referendum. I understand reluctance to put rights to a vote, but it would be a meaure to EXPAND rights, what’s wrong with that, and likely to be the only way to get it passed (as Marriage Equality Maine just did.) In general, I have more confidence in the people of Rhode Island than I do of the legislature.
I’ve always felt that once one state approved SSM at the ballot (or defeated a move to put it in a state constitution), the ballgame was over – the fear and intimidation would be broken. I don’t think proponents of SSM have anything to fear from a vote anymore. The fear that DePetro, Yorke and Cianci can swing any vote their way no longer holds true. If opponents of SSM want to put this to a statewide vote, time to let them put their $ where their mouths are. If Paiva-Weed, McCaffrey, Metts, etc. want to put a companion referendum on the ballot making SSM unconstitutional, let ‘em, if they want to chance their political capital.
Barry, I’m also a Ruggerio constituent, and have always wondered why conservatives, when they complain about union influence in the GA, always seem to give him a free pass. Maybe his stance against SSM is the reason why.
“Barry, I’m also a Ruggerio constituent, and have always wondered why conservatives, when they complain about union influence in the GA, always seem to give him a free pass.”
You’ve never heard him called Rubbers Ruggerio? I don’t think he’s getting a pass from conservatives.
“Rubbers” was coined by those staunch conservatives Philippe and Jorge.