Third Rail

Senator Amy Klobuchar, up for election in a very short year, is sandbagging her constituents on the Senate Dems’ proposed repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.

From the Minnesota Birkeydependent:

Sen. Amy Klobuchar is one of only two Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee who have not signed on to a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, and that committee is only two votes away from passing the bill out of committee. Klobuchar and Wisconsin Sen. Herb Kohl are seen as the two key votes on the committee and both have said they haven’t decided which way they will vote when the bill is taken up in the coming weeks.

Kohl, too?  Why would he sandbag his gay constituents?

Oh, that. So if a Wisconsin Democrat is going slow on DOMA repeal, does that mean maybe Wisconsin isn’t sliding back into the blue camp over Walker?

It is rather important for DOMA repeal that A-Klo get on board:

Minnesota’s Sen. Al Franken, who also sits on the 18-member judiciary committee, is a sponsor of the bill. In order to pass the committee, the bill needs 10 votes, and eight senators on that committee are already sponsors. Eight other members of the committee are Republicans not likely to vote for the bill. That leaves two votes unaccounted for, those of Klobuchar and Kohl.

Naturally gays, like feminists, don’t actually expect liberal legislators to do what they said they would during the election.

Or do they?

The Courage Campaign, a proponent of the bill, contacted Klobuchar and Kohl late last week.

OutFront Minnesota, the state’s largest LGBT advocacy group, responded to the news in a Facebook posting: “Who knew Amy Klobuchar hasn’t taken a position on the repeal of DOMA? It’ll probably come as a surprise to thousands of voters (and donors).”

Hm.  Well, we’ll see, won’t we?

21 thoughts on “Third Rail

  1. Message to Amy and Carpetbagger Al:
    Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Period. End of discussion. Always will be. Regardless of what the tiny, vocal minority wants to foist on society.
    I will never recognize homosexual “marriage”, and the vast majority will not either.

  2. Irony is that if there were two closet gays in the US Senate, I would have money on the 65 year old billionaire who has never been seen with a woman, and Amy K, who comes across a bit……oh, nevermind.

  3. I will never recognize homosexual “marriage”, and the vast majority will not either.


    Message to Kerm:
    A majority of Americans now say they have no problem with gay marriage. Gay marriage opponents are mostly bitter old farts such as yourself who are quickly dying off; their votes will be replaced by the votes of the young, who overwhelmingly support marriage equality. It is only a matter of time, 10 years at the most, before gay marriage is legal in most states. Your worldview is irrelevant. Time for you to hop on your Rascal and head on down to the bingo hall to mutter incoherently about birth certificates or something.

  4. Tim in StP extrapolates the result of one poll by ABC News and the Washington Post. Who surveyed:

    “This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone March 10-13, 2011, among a random national sample of 1,005 adults”

    1005 random people.

    Perhaps, Tim in StP, a poll-based “worldview” is far less “relevant” than a principled one. If you have trouble understanding what the word “principled” means, it is probably because it requires more than five consecutive seconds of conscious thought.

  5. “A majority of Americans now say they have no problem with gay marriage.”

    And yet for some odd reason people like Timmy will do anything to stop people from voting on the issue.
    It’s as though his claim is total bull shit.

  6. Tim, you are an idiot that lives in an insulated cocoon. The majority of blacks in America oppose gay marriage. The majority of Hispanics in America are Catholic and oppose gay marriage. My 24 year old son opposes gay marriage.
    You really need to get out of the coffee shop and get a clue.

    BTW, I take the personal attack as a compliment, considering the source.

  7. Geez, Timmy! You are proving to be almost as pea brained as Doggy with your inane posts.

    And, judging by the number of young adults that were in attendence at Erik Paulsen’s last Town Hall meeting, I would conclude that you are full of crap!

  8. It’s as though his claim is total bull shit.
    Message to Tim.

    Did I mention the Muslims, Baptists, Mormons, Evangelicals etc? Why no, I didn’t.

    Gay marriage opponents are mostly bitter old farts
    What a charming conclusion based on absolutely nothing. Like most “progressive thought”.

  9. Basically working people everywhere oppose gay marriage.
    This what happens when the “Democrat Farmer Labor Party” becomes the “Lawyer and Social Progressive Party”.

  10. so does this mean if she doesn’t sign on she will get a liberal primary challenger like Blanche Lincoln got in Arkansas in 2010? Seriously, I’d like to say that.

  11. Gay marriage opponents are mostly bitter old farts

    Last time I checked I wasn’t bitter or old. And Tim tell me how many states voted for gay marriage?

  12. Well Ben, since you asked, every state where homosexual “marriage” has been put on the ballot has voted it down by wide margins. That’s what Tim means by a majority of Americans. I call it “subjective reality”, which is another liberal phenomenon.

  13. so does this mean if she doesn’t sign on she will get a liberal primary challenger like Blanche Lincoln got in Arkansas in 2010? Seriously, I’d like to say that.

    Betty McCollum, please pick up the white courtesy phone….

  14. Kermit, “socially progressive” ideas have become less and less and less democratic over the last few decades. The 1964 Civil Rights act was passed by both houses of congress and signed into law by a president. These days liberals say “we don’t allow votes on civil rights!”, which tells you everything you need to know about how much of their agenda is backed by “the people”. “Progressivism” has come to mean “rule by an elite”, which does not seem very progressive at all.

  15. Progressivism is an oxymoron term. They want us to be ruled by ‘kings’ but this time the leaders are not chosen by bloodline (with the exception of the Kennedy family) but by elite approval. These current Dems make HHH look like a freakin libertarian.

  16. Progressivism is completely incorrect. The proper term for most self-described “progressives” would be “collectivist”. Anti-individual. In a gentler era, they’d be labeled as pussies, for needing to be dependent on others and government.

    My “hijacked-word” thesaurus also says “evil”.

  17. [quote]
    K-Rod Says:
    March 21st, 2011 at 8:51 am

    Whether you are hetro or homo, we all have the same rights.

    This is the same B.S. that liberals use for every argument. “its a right” “you can’t touch my rights” “blah blah blah rights”

    Well the last time I checked, the special extras the State and Federal governments allow married couples to have are actually PRIVILAGES not rights. When the left finally faces that fact they will finally be on the correct track.

    Using the logic that they are rights then lets run down the slippery slope of “any number of men and any number of women” or lets go differently and say “one man and one dolphin” I mean its extreme but then again there is Utah and this woman [link],2933,180478,00.html[/link]

    nope, no slippery slope here and no way that we can deny the straight fact these are rights we are stopping gays from having.

    Slavery was stopping people from rights they had under the law, Teachers unions stop students from the right to a great education under the law. DOMA does not stop anyone from the PRIVILAGE of getting hitched.

  18. P.S.
    To define what we are all talking about:


    A peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor; a right or immunity not enjoyed by others or by all; special enjoyment of a good, or exemption from an evil or burden; a prerogative; advantage; franchise; preferential treatment. [quotations ?]
    The status or existence of such benefit or advantage. [quotations ?]
    (law) a common law doctrine that protects certain communications from being used as evidence in court.

    plural form of right; things one is entitled to do, in political philosophy.

    So I ask the libs:
    Tell me how gay marriage is a right?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.