Senator Levin avoids discussing the Federalist Society

Last week I wrote Senators Levin and Stabenow about my concerns regarding the Federalist Society. I'm sure all of us have been under the impression that the courts are independent of political agendas. Our impression is fading fast thanks to conservative efforts to corrupt the courts.


Liberal minded justices such as Earl Warren interpreted the law his own way, he was not a member of a liberal effort to influence the courts. Conservatives have for decades resented justice Warren's liberal viewpoints and have been trying to convince people that he was a member of a liberal machine, entirely false. Conservatives also obviously believe their own delusion and have felt the need to see their delusion (political influence of independent courts) realized with the creation of the conservative Federalist Society in the 80's. So truth be told, it is conservatives not liberals who are bringing politics into the courts to their detriment. The Federalist Society is to blame and nominee Priscilla Owen (former Episcopalian who left the church because of its support for homosexuals) is the organizations newest success story.



I am very concerned that the successful efforts of the Federalist Society will become common place and there wont be fair justice in the courts. I had hoped Senator Levin would comment on the society and agree that it is corrupting the courts and act against it. But his staff only offer the dry, non confrontational letter to my concerns. Poor effort Senator Levin


Dear Mr. Lathrop:

Thank you for contacting me about the appointment of judges to the federal bench. I appreciate hearing your views on this matter.

The Constitution established three separate but equal branches of government. Among the checks and balances provided for in the Constitution, it gives the President the authority to nominate individuals to the Supreme Court and to other federal courts and gives the Senate the responsibility of carefully evaluating judicial nominees and exercising independent judgment in deciding whether to confirm them. The Senate's constitutional duty to advise and consent on the President's nominations to the federal courts is particularly important given that these are lifetime positions.

Overall, the agreement reached by a bipartisan group of 14 Senators on May 23, 2005, to avert the so-called "nuclear option" was a positive outcome. For more than 200 years, the rules and traditions of the United States Senate have protected minority rights and the system of checks and balances through the right of senators to extended debate. Senate rules require 60 votes to end debate in the Senate and to bring a matter to a vote whether that matter is legislative, ratification of a treaty or the confirmation of a nomination. Throughout the Senate's history, this rule has served not only to protect the minority, but also to encourage senators in the majority and the minority to work out their differences. The agreement reached on May 23rd preserves the traditions of the Senate and does not break the Senate's rules to amend the rules, as the "nuclear option" would have done.

More than 200 of President Bush's nominees have been considered by the full Senate, and only a handful have failed to achieve confirmation. Over 95 percent of President Bush's nominees have been confirmed, resulting in the lowest vacancy rate in the federal courts in over 13 years. This contrasts with more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees who were denied even a vote in the Republican controlled Judiciary Committee and therefore were blocked. One independent observer of the nominations process, political scientist Sheldon Goldman of the University of Massachusetts, concluded that "the Bush administration has been spectacularly successful in getting the overwhelming proportion of its judicial nominations confirmed."

With regard to the few judicial nominees of President Bush who were brought to the Senate floor but did not achieve confirmation, each of them has either failed to demonstrate a record or demeanor worthy of a lifetime appointment or demonstrated views that placed them outside the mainstream of the American legal profession. After careful consideration, I could not support these nominees. I will continue to give full and fair consideration to each of the President's judicial nominees as they come before the Senate for confirmation.

Thank you again for contacting me.


Sincerely,
Carl Levin

Im live on TPM Cafe

Well it didnt take long to get published at the cafe. My first article is here.

My first contribution to TPM Cafe

Josh Marshall of the internet's most popular liberal blog, Talking Points Memo, has started a new blog TPM Cafe. I have enjoyed reading Josh's monologue at TPM but have always felt he should share. My blog at least allows for comments to my posts, his does not. His new blog is even better because now we his readers can contribute fully. I joined and posted the article below. The article didnt post automatically I guess Josh reads the article and decides to post it. So if Josh feels my article is worthy of posting I'll be grateful to him. In the mean time I have it here for your reading pleasure.

Yes, I wrote and called the Daily Show to get them to interview Senator Leticia Van de Putte because I'm sure they would do the story right.

Democrat legalizes sex

The same sex marriage debate has gotten everyone in government talking about sex. Visiting your state congress during its debate will turn your trip from a dull one to a very interesting one indeed. Recently Texas debated the same sex issue and one Democrat considered an interesting approach to defeating anti-same sex marriage legislation, mandating sexual intercourse for heterosexual couples.

Throughout the nation state legislators are debating and defeating or adopting same sex marriage rights. Homosexuals are losing the fight and sympathetic Democrats may or may not lose on Election Day as well. The same-sex marriage issue is the make it or break it issue for the Democratic Party.

Averages of fifty percent of the members of the Democratic aisle of state legislations have voted against same-sex marriage bans. Practically every Republican in the debating states has voted for the ban and Republicans aren’t ashamed to use their position to win them seats in their state congresses. Only time will tell if Democratic support for same-sex rights will help or hurt the Democratic Party.

In Texas where same-sex advocates know they’ll lose before the debate even begins, one Democratic Senator was brave enough to try a novel approach to defeating anti-same-sex legislation. Leticia Van de Putte (D) along with nine other Democratic Senators dissented against the majority opinion (21) on banning same-sex rights. Weeks before the state house had passed the ban by a vote of 101-29. All twenty nine no votes were Democrats. The ban of same-sex rights is a done deal in Texas all that is needed next is the sure to be realized support of the Texas voters.

How then to defeat legislation that discriminates? Senate Democrats tried delaying tactics but you can’t delay forever. Democrats instead made several attempts to amend the bill with language sure to shock and disgust the Republican majority and hopefully cause the defeat of the entire bill. Senator Jaun Hinojasa (D) introduced amendment no 7 which stated, “This state may not recognize a marriage if either party to the marriage has previously been married three or more times in this state or in another jurisdiction." Multiply married and divorced Republican and Democratic constituents are sure to object to that idea. Senator Hinojasa withdrew the amendment.

It was Senator Van de Putte’s amendment that is oh so revealing of her interests and her sense of humor that lightened the mood of the contentious three hour debate. President Bush speaks of his mandate and apparently Senator Van de Putte is in favor of the concept of mandates and so a mandate for sex in the Texas State constitution might be desired by Texas voters greatly desiring to be mandated upon. Amendment no 8 of House Joint Resolution Six is one such mandate that many Americans might possibly desire. It mandates that, “A union in this state, of one man and one woman, must include some sexual intercourse.”

Sexually deprived husbands (and wives) are rejoicing over this one.

Unfortunately Senator Van de Putte withdrew the amendment possibly because it’s just too silly of an idea or would turn out to be the Democrats worse election nightmare; the moral Republican majority would have a field day with this one.

ACU ratings of Michigan politicians

The American Conservative Union annually rates politicians on how they vote on issues the ACU supports. Politicians with a hundred percent can be viewed the most conservative or at least in agreement with the ACU.

Name, Party, 2004 rating, 2003 rating, lifetime rating, years of service
Senators:

Carl Levin	D	0	25	7	26
Debbie Stabenow	D	8	20	11	4

Representatives

Dave CAMP	R	88	88	89	14
John Conyers	D	0	10	5	34
John Dingell	D	4	24	12	34
Vernon EHLERS	R	67	72	71	11
Peter HOEKSTRA	R	96	82	90	12
Dale Kildee	D	16	28	12	28
Carolyn Kilpatrick	D	4	12	5	8
Joe KNOLLENBERG	R	84	88	89	12
Sander Levin	D	0	16	3	22
Thaddeus McCOTTER	R	88	92	90	2
Candice Miller	R	84	88	86	2
Michael Rogers	R	92	88	90	4
Nick SMITH	R	100	96	91	12
Bart Stupak	D	16	38	22	12
Fred UPTON	R	76	80	74	18

Senator Stabenow responds to my filibuster letter

Senator Stabenow's response feels more personal. I like how she is considerate of respecting the religious views of people. I agree that the faith of a person should not be a point of consideration when selecting people.

Thank you . . .

. . for contacting me regarding your support for the filibuster rule of the Senate in relation to judicial nominations, also known as the "nuclear option." I understand your concerns about the increased role of partisan politics in the judicial appointment process.

You might be interested to know that the Senate has confirmed 205 of President Bush's judicial nominations to date, which is an over 95% confirmation rate. Only 10 of President Bush's nominees have faced serious opposition to their confirmation. As a result, we currently have the lowest court vacancy rate since Ronald Reagan was President.

As you know, Senator Frist has indicated that he will pursue the "nuclear option" this Congress. This would be a fundamental change in our constitutional system of checks and balances. Because federal judges receive lifetime appointments to a separate branch of government, our founders created two distinct steps in the selection process. The President nominates judges and the U.S. Senate must agree through the "advice and consent" process. Keeping the checks and balances in this process is critical to the American democratic tradition that minority views will be
represented and heard.

At a time when countries like Iraq are struggling to establish their own free democracies using the American system of checks and balances, I believe our country should not be weakening our own democracy. For these reasons, I do not support changing the filibuster rule.

Also, I am deeply dismayed that some have suggested that the opposition to the ten Presidential nominees is because they are people of faith. The personal faith of nominees was not used against the 205 judges that we have already confirmed, nor is it being used against those few nominations that are being opposed.

Thank you again for contacting me about this important matter. If ever I can be of assistance to you or your family, please let me know.



Sincerely,
Debbie Stabenow
United States Senator

Dr James C Dobson- Un American

The constitution grants to all Americans the right of free speech. As an American with a 370 year heritage of defending American values I feel that I must take it upon myself to speak out against Americans who attack and corrupt American values. One such corrupting American is Dr. James C. Dobson. All of us who value personal freedoms granted to us by our founding fathers must be vigilant against attacks to our freedoms and if need be declare corrupters of American values as Un-American. And so I declare that:

Dr. James C. Dobson is Un-American

Dr. Dobson’s crime is the demand for the elimination of the filibuster, the free speech right of the minority voice. We can all be confident in believing that if Dr. Dobson’s political ambitions were in the minority camp (they are), he would definitely not call for the elimination of his right, the filibuster. He doesn’t hesitate to call for its elimination when it works against him however. For the moment he has found allies with the minority members of the majority party and has joined with them to corrupt the system to their advantage. The consequence of this attack on American values and traditions will be our continued loss of freedoms under the Bush administration.

On Monday moderates of both parties compromised and traded off, the filibuster will remain but a few nominees must be given a vote and the remainder can be filibustered. Compromise is an American tradition. Failure to compromise is tyrannical.

The ambitions of the tyrant are clearly to advance a conservative agenda- my comments are in parenthesis

“This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats. Only three of President Bush’s nominees will be given the courtesy of an up-or-down vote, and its business as usual for all the rest. The rules that blocked conservative nominees remain in effect, and nothing of significance has changed. Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist would never have served on the U. S. Supreme Court if this agreement had been in place during their confirmations. The unconstitutional filibuster survives in the arsenal of Senate liberals.”

"We are grateful to Majority Leader Frist for courageously fighting to defend the vital principle of basic fairness. (eliminating the filibuster is not fair, to state the contrary is to act as a tyrant and a buffoon) That principle has now gone down to defeat. We share the disappointment, outrage and sense of abandonment felt by millions of conservative Americans who helped put Republicans in power last November. I am certain that these voters will remember both Democrats and Republicans who betrayed their trust.”

A law whose purpose is to protect fairness of our right of free speech is truly American. Anyone who intends to eliminate such a law is Un-American plain and simple.

Sen Levin responds to my filibuster letter

I guess I can count on Mr Levin for a response to my concerns. His response reads like a form letter but at least its a response and the correct one too.


Dear Mr. Lathrop:

Thank you for contacting me about the threat by the majority in the Senate to use extraordinary and unprecedented parliamentary procedures, the so-called "nuclear option", to end the Senate filibuster.

For more than 200 years, the rules and traditions of the United States Senate have protected minority rights and the system of checks and balances through the right of senators to extended debate. Currently, it requires 60 votes to end debate in the Senate and to bring a matter to a vote whether that matter is legislative, ratification of a treaty or the confirmation of a nomination. Throughout the Senate's history, this rule has served not only to protect the minority, but also to encourage senators in the majority and the minority to work out their differences.

With respect to nominations, the need to gain the support of at least 60 senators has historically encouraged presidents of both parties to take this into consideration and select judicial nominees who are in the mainstream and who can attract the support of members of both parties. This is particularly important because federal judges hold lifetime positions.

Since the start of the Bush administration, the Senate has been carrying out its constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on the president's nominations to the federal courts. The Senate has confirmed more than 200 of President Bush's judicial nominees, resulting in the lowest vacancy rate in the federal courts in over 13 years. Only 10 of the president's nominees have not been confirmed. This compares to more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees who were blocked by Republicans in the Senate Judiciary Committee from even getting a confirmation vote.

The right of extended debate in the Senate is an integral part of our system of checks and balances and an important historic protection of the rights of the minority in our country. I oppose the so-called "nuclear option", which the majority party is considering using. Under this scenerio, the presiding officer of the Senate would arbitrarily limit debate in contradiction of the Senate's rules, precedents and practices, and the majority would then uphold the ruling of the chair. If the majority wants to propose a change in the rules of the Senate, the right way to do so is to follow the long-standing procedures in the Senate's rules for changing the rules, not ripping up the rule book for a partisan advantage of the moment.


Sincerely,
Carl Levin

Texas Senate bans gay marriage

Yesterday the Texas Senate voted to constitutionally ban gay marriage by a vote of 21-9. The bill (HJR 6) was sponsored by Republican Todd Staples who commented that, "We should protect the institution of marriage as it is defined in law today. We should hold that higher up than any other relationship.", he also makes the point that "Polygamy is against the law" with the intention to lead us to believe that his law prevents polygamy and implies that homosexuality equals polygamy.

Domestic partnerships and civil unions could be interpreted as being illegal in addition to same sex marriage, the bill dclares. The voters will decide to approve or disapprove the constitutional ammendment this November.

Senate Democrats response:

"We're going to carve out a class of individuals and say you cannot share those benefits," - Eliot Shapleigh (D)

"At least they [Jim Crowe advocates] had the good sense to never write their bigotry into the state constitution. In some of our sister states, they did write that trash into their constitution, and they've had holy hell getting it out."- Rodney Ellis (D)


The no voters were: one senator was absent

1. Gonzalo Barrientos (D)
2. Rodney Ellis (D)
   
3. Mario Gallegos Jr. (D)
   
4. Juan Hinojosa (D)
   
5. Eliot Shapleigh (D)
   
6. Leticia Van de Putte (D)
   
7. Royce West (D)
8. John Whitmire (D)
9. Judith Zaffirini (D)
   

The Democrats used some unusual tactics to get this bill to fail. Several unreasonable amendments were added by Democrats in the hopes that it would fail completely such as:

• Amendment no 7- "This state may not recognize a marriage if either party to the marriage has previously been married three or more times in this state or in another jurisdiction."
  
• Amendment no 8- "A union in this state, of one man and one woman, must include some sexual intercourse." I like this idea personally!!
  

Filibuster-my letter

Senator Harry Reid

528 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Thank you for protecting the filibuster. Please feel free to read before the Senate my comments regarding the filibuster.

My grandfather the Rev John Lothropp (1584-1653) co founder of the Congregationalist faith fled England because the King and Arch-Bishop Laud were persecuting and beheading Puritans because of their religious views. America became his sanctuary of freedom in 1634 not because freedoms were to be found there but because he and every other immigrant had to define freedom and defend it. Rev. Lothropp’s creation, the institution of the Congregationalist Church, continued and continues to this day to uphold American values. The community of Barnstable MA and the Congregationalist Church honors him for defining and defending American values.

As the tyrannical power of England became ever stronger over the colonies my uncle the Rev John Lathrop (1739-1809) preached the sermon at the Old North Church, Boston that helped inspire the men to commit their protest against tyranny known as the Boston Tea Party. Rev. Lathrop’s freedom to preach was granted to him by the generations before him that defended freedom and he continued our family’s values of holding dear American values. The community of Boston MA honors him for defending American values.

During the Civil War over 400 of my relatives fought on the Union side to ensure freedom for Americans denied it. My cousin the Rev. Lucian Lathrop (1800-1873) continued our family values of defending and respecting freedom by engaging in anti-slavery activities including opening his home to runaway slaves. He learned his values, American values, from the generations before and passed them on to his children and grandchildren. The community of Sylvania, OH and the State of Ohio honors him for defending American values.

My cousin Julie Lathrop (1858-1932) fought for freedom by participating in the woman’s suffrage movement and child welfare movement because she held dear American values. Our nation honored her by making her the first woman to be appointed a department head of a Federal Department, the Federal Children's Bureau in 1912. Our federal government and the State of Illinois honors her for defending American values.

And so I am compelled to defend American values as my relatives have by answering Senator Reid’s request for the voice of the people concerning the filibuster. I have sent this letter to every Senator to ensure that American values are protected. The filibuster is not a freedom of a political party it is a freedom of the American people. When a party in the majority tries to strip the minority party of its right to unlimited debate out of a desire to dominate politically it acts as a tyrant and denies freedoms to the people. Fighting tyrants and tyrannies is an American tradition that I fully embrace and if the Democrats are silenced, I am silenced and I am compelled to fight against tyrannical endeavors and fight for my freedom. I am not alone. My voice is not the only one silenced and I am not the only one who will defend American values and freedoms.

The filibuster is my freedom which is being stripped from me and all Americans who hold dear American values and we will defend this freedom. Senator Reid understands this point entirely and so he is compelled to respect my freedom to speak unhindered, uncensored, unlimited when he asks for my response to the attack on my freedom. Senator Reid understands American values, holds them dear and defends them, he is no tyrant. It is Senator Reid who will be honored for his defense of American values as my relatives have been honored also and not the tyrant.

Since the President took office in 2001 he has preached on the need for defending freedom while he strips us of our freedoms. When I ask for information regarding who the Vice-President spoke to when the energy bill was being drafted and I am denied that information, my right to petition the government is denied me. When I raise money to send it to needy Muslims in middle-eastern countries and then my government declares me a possible terrorist, locks me up without counsel, I am denied my right of due-process. When I feel the need to protest against a government that denies me these rights by requesting a permit to assemble that is then quickly denied, my right of assembly is denied to me also. When I request that my elected officials to which I am dependent upon to serve as my representative in a debate, inquiry, etc., regarding the business of the government, my right of free speech is denied to me through limiting the use of the filibuster.

The tyrannical practices of the majority party are clearly evident. I am not a member of the majority party because it does not respect American values that my ancestors defined and defended and I am compelled to continue in their defense. If the party to which I belong engaged in the tyrannical practices of the past four years I would without hesitation fight against that tyranny. I am not alone in my beliefs and we the people will be heard.

The political composition of congress will continue to change but the tradition of protecting freedom must never waiver. The composition of the judicial branch will continue to change but its duty to uphold freedom must never waiver. The actions of the majority party to deny freedoms in the legislative and executive branch will spread to the judicial branch for that is the agenda of the majority party.

We the people are not fools. We clearly see this agenda. Our understanding of this tyranny grows and we will rise to fight it. Absolute power is short lived in a nation that is vigilant against it and we are watching and waiting for our moment to reaffirm true American values and traditions.

The filibuster is the people’s freedom, their constitutionally granted right. Limiting that right conditionally is just as harmful to the American tradition as eliminating it. The present administration has without a doubt been attacking the American tradition in its pursuit of malevolent power. A government that has stripped the people of their rights and dishonors persons who uphold American values is never entitled to continue this corruption simply because it is in the majority. I am ashamed at the people’s complacency, blind obedience, and malevolent intentions to support a corrupting government.

Those of us who are observant of this corruption are growing in number daily and we will put an end to this corruption via the election box. The individual or party, who thinks that their pursuit of absolute power will last and be obtained, is naive, misguided and a megalomaniac. The fight for freedom will outlast and prevail against the pursuit of tyranny.

Filibuster-Senator Reid needs our help

Subscribers to the Democrats email list received Senator Reid's request for our help in protecting the filibuster. The help needed appears to be our opinion on the matter which I belive he will read in the senate chamber. Well I cant pass up the opportunity to have my thoughts read aloud in the senate and so I wrote him. I encourage you to write him as well and let your voice be heared on any subject that concerns you. After all the filibuster is our freedom to be used at our discretion.

Compose your thoughts and send him a letter.

Dear Friend,

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has informed me that tomorrow he will bring the nominations of Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown to the floor of the United States Senate. The Senate has already rejected both of these judges and now Bill Frist is threatening to impose the “Nuclear Option”, effectively ending free speech in the Senate, breaking the rules to end Democrats right to filibuster, in order to pass these extreme nominees.

Next week I need all of you on the Democrats.gov email list to stand with us. I want to use your voice as part of this debate. Tell me and in fact the American people why this debate is important to you and I will use some of your statements on the floor.

http://democrats.senate.gov/filibuster-form.cfm

George Bush has gotten more than 95% of his judicial nominations confirmed – but it isn’t enough. The “Nuclear Option” is just another example of Republicans striving for absolute power in Washington, DC. They don’t have the votes to pass these nominees so they abuse power and break the rules to get their way. If they win, it spells the end of the checks and balances the founding fathers envisioned in our constitution.

http://democrats.senate.gov/filibuster-form.cfm

And if that wasn’t enough, the judges George Bush has chosen to serve on the federal courts are simply unacceptable because of their actions and judicial temperaments. Janice Rogers Brown has called Social Security a form of “cannibalism” and has consistently used her position to advocate for an extreme ideological agenda. In one opinion she argued that racial slurs are protected by the first amendment, even when they rise to the level of illegal race discrimination.

Priscilla Owen is no better. Former Texas Supreme Court Justice Alberto Gonzales - who is now Attorney General– served with Owen and has called her opinions “an unconscionable act of judicial activism." She has even sought to twist the meaning of an important state civil rights law making it much harder for employees to prove that their rights were violated.

This is the most important fight of my political life but working together we can defeat the forces that wish abuse power to destroy freedom of speech in the United States Senate

Lend your voice and stand with me on the floor this week. There has never been a more important time.

http://democrats.senate.gov/filibuster-form.cfm

Thank you,

Senator Harry Reid

St. Nicholas, Midland TX schism

Ninety percent of the members of St. Nicholas Episcopal Church, Midland Texas disagree with the ECUSA's position on homosexuality. And so they have vountarily sought out the AAC who are more then happy to help them leave the ECUSA. The conservative newspaper, the Washington Times (May 8) wants us to believe that their Bishop ordered them to leave however. St. Nicholas' conservative faction will open Christ Church Anglican, Midland TX in June. All homosexuals are encouraged to join.

The divide widens

Over the past few months I have noticed more Episcopalians and parishes leaving the ECUSA for African Anglican partnerships. I should have been writing about it in order to visualize the scope of the divide, I'll try to pay more attention and share the news here on IMS. As expected the ECUSA has made a decent effort to honor the moratorium imposed on them but the Africans have not honored their power grab moratorium. Homosexuality is the issue the Africans have dreamed of to gain them more influence and wealth in the Anglican Communion. May their collections grow three-fold and may their observance of the pain they cause diminish further!

I predict that every community will feature an Episcopal congregation and an Anglican congregation next door. Hopefully a solution can be found to bring us back together.

Iraq casualities reaches 1600

Today the Iraq war casuality mark reached 1600. One hundred additional troops have died since March 3'rd, sixty seven days ago. Average daily casuality rate was 1.5 killed per day for the period. This rate is below the previous killed per day rate of 2.8 percent. The casuality rate is decreasing. If the current casuality rate continues for the remainder of Bush's term approximently 2,026 additional troops will be killed bringing the total to around 3,626 in 2008. Over 2,000 persons died on September 11, 2001 and regretably over 2,000 persons will also die defending against a future attack that most likely wouldn't have occurred regardless of our offensive efforts.

Diocese of Maryland enters politics

During the Diocese of Maryland's convention on the 6th and 7th a decision was made to speak out on political issues such as homosexual rights. I have mixed feelings about this decision I'll break them down.

• The church should view itself as the Body of Christ and not a political party.
  
• Clergy should not see themselves as politicians.
• Speaking on secular issues should be the exclusive role of the laity.

The barrier between church and state must be maintained and the roles of laity and clergy must be defined. I regret the Diocese's decision to diminish the integrity of the church and not allow the laity to act on these issues independently. I encourage the diocese to permit the creation of non-profit lay ministries to address the issues instead of through the church.

The diocese is opposed to banning same sex marriage and concerned about other homosexuality issues as stated here.

Connecticut ok's gay civil unions

Republican CT. Governor M. Jodi Rell signed into law on April 20th legislation supporting same sex civil unions. Connecticut is the second state to offer civil unions to same sex couples. Vermont has civil unions without determined opposition and Massachusetts has gay marriage but possibly not for long. All other states oppose same sex rights but possibly not California. The State Senate voted 26-8 in favor on April 20th. The State House voted 85-63 in favor on April 13th.

Senators in favor: Senate Bill No. 963 as amended by House Amendments Schedules "A" (LCO 5446) and "B" (LCO5419)

1. h
2. h
3. h
4. h
5. h
6. h
7. h
8. h
9. h
10. h
11. h
12. h
13. h
14. h
15. h
16. h
17. h
18. h
19. h
20. h
21. h
22. h
23. h
24. h
25. h
26. h

Reps in favor:

1. h
2. h
3. h
4. h
5. h
6. h
7. h
8. h
9. h
10. h
11. h
12. h
13. h
14. h
15. h
16. h
17. h
18. h
19. h
20. h
21. h
22. h
23. h
24. h
25. h
26. h
27. h
28. h
29. h
30. h
31. h
32. h
33. h
34. h
35. h
36. h
37. h
38. h
39. h
40. h
41. h
42. h
43. h
44. h
45. h
46. h
47. h
48. h
49. h
50. h
51. h
52. hh
53. h
54. h
55. h
56. h
57. h
58. h
59. h
60. h
61. h
62. h
63. h
64. h
65. h
66. h
67. h
68. h
69. h
70. h
71. h
72. h
73. h
74. h
75. h
76. h
77. h
78. h
79. h
80. h
81. h
82. h
83. h
84. h
85. h
    

Foster care banned for gays

Republican Texas House Rep. Robert Talton's foster care ammendent was passed by the house by a vote of 81-58 on April 19th. The ammendment obligates foster care parent applicants to declare if they are homosexual or bisexual. If they declare that they are not, the State can investigate whether or not they actually are anytime while after being approved. Foster care parents who declare or are found to be homosexual or bisexual will be disqualified from being allowed to serve as foster parents, be placed with a foster child and additionally a foster child will be removed from the homosexual parents.

The no voters were:

1. Alma Allen (D)
   
2. Ray Allen (R)
   
3. Roberto Alonzo (D)
   
4. Rafael Anchia (D)
   
5. Kevin Bailey (D)
   
6. Lon Burnam (D)
   
7. Carter Casteel (R)
   
8. Joaquin Castro (D)
   
9. Norma Chavez (D)
   
10. Garnet Coleman (D)
    
11. John Davis (R)
    
12. Yvonne Davis (D)
    
13. Joe Deshotel (D)
    
14. Dawnna Dukes (D)
    
15. Jim Dunnam (D)
    
16. Harold Dutton (D)
    
17. Craig Eiland (D)
    
18. Juan Escobar (D)
    
19. Jessica Farrar (D)
    
20. Kino Flores (D)
    
21. Pete Gallego (D)
    
22. Helen Giddings (D)
    
23. Veronica Gonzales (D)
    
24. Yvonne Gonzales-Toureilles (D)
    
25. Peggy Hamric (R)
    
26. Will Hartnett (R)
    
27. Abel Herrero (D)
    
28. Scott Hochberg (D)
    
29. Terri Hodge (D)
    
30. Bob Hunter (R)
    
31. Delwin Jones (R)
    
32. Terry Keel (R)
    
33. Pete Laney (D)
    
34. David Leibowitz (D)
    
35. Vilma Luna (D)
    
36. Armando Martinez (D)
    
37. Trey Martinez-Fischer (D)
    
38. Brian McCall (R)
    
39. Ruth McClendon (D)
    
40. Jose Menendez (D)
    
41. Joe Moreno (D)
    
42. Paul Moreno (D)
    
43. Elliott Naishtat (D)
    
44. Melissa Noriega (D)
    
45. Rene Oliveira (D)
    
46. Joe Pickett (D)
    
47. Robert Puente (D)
    
48. Allan Ritter (D)
    
49. Eddie Rodriguez (D)
    
50. Jim Solis (D)
    
51. Mark Strama (D)
    
52. Joe Straus (R)
53. Senfronia Thompson (D)
    
54. Carlos Uresti (D)
    
55. Mark Veasey (D)
    
56. Mike Villarreal (D)
    
57. Hubert Vo (D)
    
58. Martha Wong (R)
    

Texas house bans same sex marriage again

The Texas House voted to amend the constitution to ban same sex marriage by a vote of 101-29 on April 25. The no voters were:

1. Alma Allen (D)
   
2. Roberto Alonzo (D)
   
3. Rafael Anchia (D)
   
4. Kevin Bailey (D)
   
5. Lon Burnam (D)
   
6. Garnet Coleman (D)
   
7. Yvonne Davis (D)
   
8. Joe Deshotel (D)
9. Dawnna Dukes (D)
10. Jim Dunnam (D)
11. Harold Dutton (D)
    
12. Jessica Farrar (D)
    
13. Pete Gallego (D)
14. Abel Herrero (D)
15. Scott Hochberg (D)
    
16. Terri Hodge (D)
17. Trey Martinez-Fischer (D)
18. Ruth McClendon (D)
19. Joe Moreno (D)
    
20. Paul Moreno (D)
21. Elliot Naishtat (D)
22. Melissa Noriega (D)
    
23. Robert Puente (D)
24. Eddie Rodriguez (D)
25. Mark Strama (D)
26. Senfronia Thompson (D)
    
27. Marc Veasey (D)
28. Mike Villarreal (D)
29. Hubert Vo (D)