Rumor of the morning ... UPDATE
... That the Religiocrats will attempt to dislodge the gay-bashing bill from the House Judiciary Committee with a floor vote. It would take an extraordinary vote, defy the committee system and cross a speaker who knows how to play hardball. Is the irrational fear of gay people -- and fear of the wrath of homophobic voters -- enough to overcome these difficult circumstances?
UPDATE: Word is that they'll attempt a vote Tuesday to move the bill out of Judiciary, where the measure lacks sufficient commitments for a do-pass. (It's more accurate to say that there are sufficient commitments to beat it.) A two-thirds vote of the House will be necessary to move the bill. Call the roll. Talk about a litmus test on courage, compassion and common sense.
UPDATE II: Rep. Steve Harrelson, one of those on Judiciary who says he will oppose the bill, has posted on his blog the response he's sending to constituents who e-mail him about the legislation.



Comments
I'm going to head up to the Capitol in a little bit and rub my hands chock full of cooties on the doors of the House and everywhere else I think the Religiocrats will be today. You can't go straight once you've touched the gay cooties....lesbian cooties to be exact.
Mwahhhh....hahhh...hahhhh....haaaaaaaaaahhhh
Posted by: Littlecrock
|
March 23, 2007 10:20 AM
It *would* take an extraordinary vote. And it probably crosses both the Speaker and the Governor who asked him to send it there. But it does *not* defy the committee system. The system is designed to allocate work, divide duties, and streamline operations by saving the entire House from hearing every bad bill. It is obviously used strategically to help or hurt specific bills. But the intent of the committee system is not to thwart the will of the entire House. So the rules allow for the chamber to pull a bill out if they feel strongly enough about it.
I'm not sure I remember a billed being pulled in the House in the last 12-14 years. I think the Senate pulled one a couple of sessions back. If Benny and Beebe both work it this bill probably doesn't come out.
Posted by: Theodosius
|
March 23, 2007 10:45 AM
It's only happened a couple of times in the past 12-15 years. The last one was over the nursing home issue a couple of sessions back I think. It's extremely difficult to get the votes to do this and unless you have their blessing, you'll seriously piss off the committee chairs. I think the odds are pretty low of this happening. This bill will die a good death in committee...and rightly so.
Posted by: Biscoe Jackson
|
March 23, 2007 11:04 AM
For the Arkansas GBLTQ/queer community -- I'll be filming in Little Rock April
18-24.
I'm recruiting subjects for a documentary film called Testimony.
Testimony is a documentary that explores the narrative parallel between
testimonies (those of evangelicals who are describing how they came to
believe in Jesus Christ) and coming out stories (those of lesbians and
gays).
I'm particularly interested in people who have both stories - a testimony of
how they came to Jesus Christ and a coming out story. The events might be
separate, with one tale taking place well before the other, or the stories
may be intertwined. They could also be in any order.
You might still be a believer or that might be long ago in your personal
history.
I'd like to film a simple, short interview, either in your home or in an
outdoor location of your choosing.
If you are interested in telling your story, please contact Kimberly
Brandom, the film's director at
kbrandom@clearwire.net or 206.286.0500.
For more information on the film, go to
www.testimonymovie.com
Please feel free to forward this email to anyone you think might be
interested in giving a testimony and telling a coming out story.
Thanks!
Posted by: RLR
|
March 23, 2007 11:50 AM
"I'm going to head up to the Capitol in a little bit and rub my hands chock full of cooties on the doors of the House and everywhere else I think the Religiocrats will be today. You can't go straight once you've touched the gay cooties....lesbian cooties to be exact."
Oh my god (goddess to be exact)...thanks for the big laugh littlecrock. It'd even be funnier if it weren't so true. I can picture em trying to figure out where the gay cooties are so they can keep themselves 'pure.'
Posted by: zelda
|
March 23, 2007 12:26 PM
"I'm going to head up to the
Capitol in a little bit and rub my
hands chock full of cooties on
the doors of the House and
everywhere else...
Posted by: Littlecrock"
And who knows where those hands have been. This may be enough to keep Womack occupied and out of trouble for a while as he steam cleans the capitol inside and out, filters and cleans the air, then repeats the whole process for good measure.
Posted by: Spirit
|
March 23, 2007 12:52 PM
Zelda, some of those girly men may believe in gay cooties. Us real men just believe that if you had ever been with one of us you'd be "cured"
;-)
ARK. BLOG: The sap is running. Even Theo has spring fever.
Posted by: Theodosius
|
March 23, 2007 01:26 PM
Zelda, some of those girly men may believe in gay cooties. Us real men just believe that if you had ever been with one of us you'd be "cured"
;-)
Which girly man do you want first Theodosius?
_
Posted by: Lwood
|
March 23, 2007 02:40 PM
My comment was really more directed toward the manly girls... (but thanks for asking)
Posted by: Theodosius
|
March 23, 2007 02:47 PM
If Shawn Womack is indeed backing a move to pull SB959 out of House Judiciary for a floor vote, he has some major credibility issues.
Womack is, on paper at least, the lead Senate sponsor of the anti-payday lending bill with teeth (HB1036). Word around the Capitol is that when supporters of HB1036 broached the topic of pulling THAT bill out of Senate Insurance & Commerce (where Womack's buddy Jack Critcher had sent it to die), Womack offered zilch support. To guild the lily, Womack even voted for Terry Smith's coddle-the-payday-lenders-drivel/bill (SB923).
Apparently what's good for the goose (banning gay adoption/foster parenting) isn't good for the gander (protecting consumers from payday loan sharks).
Just as long as those geese don't "cohabitate," though, right?
Posted by: muckraker
|
March 23, 2007 02:50 PM
"Zelda, some of those girly men may believe in gay cooties. Us real men just believe that if you had ever been with one of us you'd be "cured""
Why of course...'everyone' knows a good lay cures everything...including smart-aleck heterosexual women.
Posted by: zelda
|
March 23, 2007 03:34 PM
"Why of course...'everyone' knows a good lay cures everything...including smart-aleck heterosexual women." by: zelda
Zelda
you're a genius! seriously
Posted by: bejeeus
|
March 23, 2007 07:14 PM
While I appreciate that Rep. Harrelson will vote against this bill, I have a huge problem with how religion influences legislation in our state.
"Romans 1:26-27 has taught me that homosexuality is not compatible with Christian teachings and values -- likewise with many other things that we encounter on a daily basis."
That's great for an individual to base his personal direction in life on his interpretation of a religious text, but the public as a whole should not be forced down the same road.
I don't doubt Rep. Harrelson's sincerity, but his email response seems more at pandering to the majority, and less about making objective laws.
Posted by: hugh mann
|
March 23, 2007 07:16 PM
I am glad that Rep. Harrelson is not supporting Rep. Womack's bill. His reasoning is frustrating. How convenient for him to support married couples or celebate singletons to adopt.
How Victorian. Come on, someone step up and have some guts. If you are going to be for or against a bill then be FOR it or AGAINST it!!! I am so sick of the pathetic attempt by such fence riders to woo us "deviants" all the while (wink, wink) sending the message to the self-righteous bible thumpers that he's really on their side.
Hmm, guess we've found the Cowardly Lion of Dorothy's current tour thru the Arkansas Legislature.
Posted by: Fancy
|
March 23, 2007 07:55 PM
Fancy, you cut to the bone, I like that!
Posted by: bejeeus
|
March 23, 2007 08:02 PM