- who would like to see Verizon offer cable TV in Phila?
- Council Committee Passed the Freeze
- Carol Campbell Passes Away
- My first trip to the public library
- Fight digital exclusion
- What if half of Philadelphia didn't have roads?
- You know, let's not even worry about the City Commissioners office messing up voter registration processing
- Bold ideas to fix the budget
- Mayor Nutter's Town Hall Meeting Schedule
- City Releases Library Information to City Council
Senator Fumo: Mark my words!
Submitted by Ray Murphy on Thu, 08/23/2007 - 5:01pm.
So, I just read Mark Segal's latest column in the Philadelphia Gay News and he says that:
Monday morning my phone rang and it was a legislative aide to Sen. Vince Fumo, who, aside from his current troubles, is one of the community’s strongest allies in the state Senate. The aide told me that the senator believes the time has come for civil-union legislation to be introduced in Pennsylvania. This will merely start the debate and will take many years, but there has to be a starting place, and this will surely start that debate.
Interesting huh? What do folks think about the possibility of this happening and the motivation behind it?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Rehabilitation: Probably too little, too late
Fumo seems to be bending over backwards with efforts to soothe his critics between the fake let's stop the casinos legislation and now proposals of legislation to support civil unions.
Personally, if he actually helped moved the casinos and got this civil union bill passed, he might mitigate some of the damage he's inflicted on the city. If he can do anything useful before he gets indicted, I suppose we shouldn't complain.
So Vince, what will be your legacy?
--Mike
Weeds in the Sidewalk
Clarification re Casino Comment
I was at the meeting where Sen. Fumo made the promise to DRNA delegates related to a 1500 ft. buffer. To the extent that Sen. Fumo carried out his promise related to the sites, it is difficult to say he did not. Both bills, if passed (and assuming a retroactive application) would result in re-siting of the two present locations. The problem is, and Sen. Fumo had told us repeatedly, the 1500 ft. buffer is not something that will be voted out of the State Senate. And, Governor Rendell has provided that if a 1500 ft. buffer bill comes before him, he will most likely veto it. Considering the House and Senate bills have a tough road--a veto proof majority is not likely.
Related to re-siting, in the eyes of many casino groups no public official has done enough to re-site. But, going back to a meeting with the Governor, it was made clear, the political channels for re-siting are not open to us as the licenses were, allegedly, awarded legally. We have, however, recieved promises for assistance related to pushing the operators to re-site their operations. On one occassion, Sen. Fumo and Councilman DiCicco took "Foxwoods" to the Whiskey Yard site and offered a bunch of incentives. They chose not to move as they liked--and already owned--the site they are on.
Efforts at re-siting are ongoing. When this is all said and done, I'd like to write a post about it. It has been one of the most frustrating experiences of my life. But, one that I would decide to do again.
Related to Civil Unions, let's see this bill introduced. It is most likely the start of a conversation that we need to have--and hopefully one that will result in equal rights for everyone in this Commonwealth--not just hunters and sportsmen (I am one, so I can make that joke).
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
I get you on the Fumo
I get you on the Fumo clarification, about him keeping his word. Fumo probably is keeping his word.
One of things to consider is whether we should give credit to elected officials for advocating for issues we like when there is reason to suspect that they win for pushing for the right policy and kind of still win when there is no real broad support for the right policy to be enacted.
Fumo knows that the public and even perhaps jurors or judges will be keeping an eye on his public record. I'd guess that his chances of getting exonerated of the indictment charges, as a result of his pushing for good policy, just went up about five percent.
--Mike
Weeds in the Sidewalk
Civil Unions Can Pass By The End of 2008
Civil unions can pass by the end of 2008. A probem is that gay community is deeply divided about whether it wants it to pass, or whether it is better to hold out--for decades or generations if necessary--for gay marriage, which no legislator believes can pass Pennsylvania any time soon.
Besides the question of whether our goal should be benefitting leaving breathing people or people not yet born, the most gay-friendly governor in Pennsylvania history will be leaving office in less than 3 and a half years, closing a window of opportunity that now exists. That window of opportunity is matched by a similar window cause by the thin
Democratic majority in the House, which may not exist after 2008.
A further problem is that the advocates for gay rights tend to believe that the next step has to be an anti-discrimination against gays bill, a cause that for whatever reason does not seem to mobilize sufficent numbers of the gay community to overcome the right wing.
My personal feeling is that I prefer to have the right wing kill progressive initiatives rather than have progressive divisions kill them. I believe that civil unions--incredibly to many--is now the least controversial gay rights measure that could be before the General Assembly if gay rights leaders wished it to be.
Mark, you are gonna have to name names
what deep divisions are you referring to?
I wonder if blaming gay leaders in some abstract way for being divisive is a way that a Democrat from a more moderate district like yours can avoid being held accountable for preferring civil unions over marriage?
and Mark, how about a little analysis of this statement:
LGBT leaders have been fighting for years now to get a statewide anti-discrimination law passed. Do you know that according to state law I could be fired for being gay? That's an anti-discrimination bill is important. However, sexual orientation and employment tends to be a more of a problem for women, people of color and transgender people. The problem with that of course is that the people who fund LGBT rights work are often white men. So yes, it has been harder to get any juice behind anti-discrimination legislation, but that doesn;t make it right. And as a state rep, you could have been doing something to get an anti-discrimination bill regardless of these structural race and class problems.
I Do Not Want To Make Public Attacks On Anybody
Ray, I did not mention any names because I do not want to say anything that anyone will take as a personal attack. I want to work with people, and not against them.
If you want more information, please call my legislative office. I certainly would be very glad to support any bill to end legal discrimination against gays in employment. I was quite active as a strategist in Philadelphia's successful passage of gay rights legislation twenty-five years ago. I have spoken on the House floor against anti-gay discrimination, against banning gay marriages and civil unions, and for including gays in hate crime legislation.
No one in the House has voted to increase gay rights more than I have or has spoken up for gay rights more often than I have. I would be delighted to work with you and others to get more done in the future.
Then it seems, Mark
that given this statment
That we can assume that the answer to Ray's question:
would be a resounding "NO!."
But I didn't catch where you answered the question. So, which is it? While you might disagree strategically with those gay activists who feel that settling for civil unions would be wrong, can we trust that you uncategorically support the rights of gays to marry?
It does seem that Ray makes a good point. Why would you be finding fault with gay advocates that differ with you over strategy instead of focusing the blame on conservative bigots?
The First Decision Is To Bring Proposals Up For A Vote
The first decision is bring proposals up for a vote. That is a decision that advocates have to make. That is a decision that involves weighing demands of competing resources; from past experiences all advocates of gay rights understand that it takes a lot of work to get a majority of the House and Senate to support gay friendly positions.
Yes, I am willing to vote for the rights of gays to marry. I spoke in support of that right and against banning that right when Pennsylvania's Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996.
The key question is not where I stand. Everyone who is active in this issue on both sides knows where I stand. The question is what will a majority of both the House and the Senate be willing to support. I am confident there is an achievable majority for civil unions in this legislative session, but not an achievable majority for gay marriage.
If people disagree with that analysis and want to push gay marriage instead, they have every right to do so. They will have my vote if they do so. But I am hardly typical of the legislature on this issue.
Hmm
Though there are certainly complex divisions over the marriage issue, I don't really feel like they affect the widespread support for something like civil unions. I haven't read or heard people saying that at this stage (with the marriage amendments to fight, and some good civil union laws being passed in other states).
Though there's certainly deep concern with the politics of allowing or dis-allowing gay marriage on the national level and among national strategizers, state-by-state it very much seems to me that most gay people and allies are overjoyed when civil union bills do pass since much like that long-awaited anti-discrimination bill--in the absence of this legislation people are experiencing serious hardship.
Anyway, I'd love to see exactly who it is who is standing in the way of civil unions passing here, ideally by a legislative vote.
All the Above
Rep. Cohen and MDC are right on all accords. I think Fumo saw how the progressive candidate was able to so easily topple the machine's in the Mayoral primary, and now he realizes that the political landscape that has worked in his favor for so long is steadily changing. He needs to come out and identify with that part of the city's democratic party, and he knows he's not making any friends with his casino work. Civil unions are a good way to turn some heads of those who might otherwise not have thought twice about voting for Anne Dicker or whoever else steps up. It's also a relatively safe issue for him to advocate for: he's representing a very liberal part of the state, so regardless of whether or not it passes, he gets to say that he fought for it and can blame conservative western legislators for knocking it down. It's a win/win for him and smart political maneuvering. I'm just not convinced that he is entirely sincere.
I also think what Rep. Cohen said is true as well: something BIG needs to happen on the LGBT front before Rendell leaves office. Fumo may be pushing this for his own reelection purposes, but I guess if he's able to make headway on the cause, then who the hell cares.
point of clarification
Michael Nutter did not win because he was the progressive candidate, he won because he did a very good job raising money to get on TV and run a good campaign. In the 1st Senatorial District, money will also play a huge role. That said, Fumo might want to claim the "progressive" title by pushing this bill, but let's also remember that before casinos, he had already made deep inroads into the LGBT community. Fumo also really belives in his machine--I doubt he is running scared right now--which is funny of course to those of us who supported Anne last time since he wasn't afraid of us then, and we trounced his machine pretty solid in the 175th legislative district.
You're Right
"progressive candidate" wasn't the right term for me to use. I was trying to point out the differences between the machine candidate and the non-machine candidate and miscategorized (I still have not had my coffee). My point was to say that I think he sees Nutter's victory as an opportunity to reposition himself and this might be a good issue for him to make some noise about at this time.
I've also had a few friends receive phone bank messages from Fumo's office in the last couple weeks. Has anyone else had that?
Point of Further Clarification (maybe Departure)
Part of the reason Michael won was because he was the progressive candidate.
The way progressive was defined in the campaign--it could have been defined differently, so that Chaka Fattah was the progressive candidate--allowed for young, middle class and rich white liberals (Hello PFC and Center City-Mt Airy-West Philly brothers and sisters) to team with a large block of African-American voters (despite the predictions of many, Michael won the African-American vote) to elect their candidate.
It's a little overly-reductive to say Michael won because he "did a very good job raising money to get on TV and run a good campaign." Bob Brady (and Tom Knox, in a different way) both did that. They just didn't win.
I recognize this is splitting hairs to a certain extent. I think we see eye-to-eye on this, mostly. But in a post-2000 Election world where the American Left is finally participating in elections again regularly for the first time since McGovern, being progressive--or liberal or Left or whatever you want to call those shoveling MoveOn spam in their inboxes--means no more hand-wringing. It means admitting that, IF you act pragmatically, you CAN win elections and CAN be a political force (NOT always and NOT necessarily), especially in urban places like Philadelphia. It also means admitting that identifying as progressive is no longer stigmatizing to the great unwashed hordes of the vast American Center; hence, in the latest polls, Dems on the Left--Obama and Edwards--beat or tie every Republican running. The last time that was true, Ray, I was very young and you were not even nearly born.
I largely agree with your analysis of the First District and the 175th of course, although I'd add this: Fumo is first of all a self-motivated, self-serving politician. Always. It's not that he's running scared. He's just always employing surveillance to watch his own back. He took Little Tayoun seriously.
Is it a coincidence that he's raising this issue, the beginning of The Great Civil Rights Issue of our lifetimes, right NOW, a week after out candidate Anne Dicker announced she'd be his first real, serious opponent in an elephant's memory?
Um, no.
With a paranoid gumshoe-patron like Fumo, there are very few coincidences.
more to the point...
He's going directly after Dicker's base (perceived or real), thus (1) attempting to preempt her candidacy, (2) perhaps giving himself an edge when the actual challenge arrives, (3) giving himself a generally liberal victory (or at least fight) to tout when he's tired of hearing about everything people dislike about him and his activities . . . Perhaps there's a weaker candidate out there he hopes will be his primary rival, or that (1) above will encourage more than one challenger, thus splitting the protest vote . . .
In other words, I read this as completely strategic on his part. Not to say that supporters shouldn't ride the wave and see if something can be achieved (not least, to staunch the hemorrage of good folks from PA to NJ), but just that it's too late for Vince to convince me that any such "radical" suggestion comes from his native idealism . . .
acm
Mark my gag reflex
Oh christ, Mark Segal blows. He's never learned how to be subtle, has he? I can't wait for the independent journalism our community will get from the PGN during the Senate race.
Thanks for reading his column so the rest of us don't have to, Ray. You're a brave little toaster!
put your money where your mouth is
three words: local. queer. blog.
you and me buddy, come on (and now rachel).
But HX magazine already exists!
Three other words: get. it. started!
I think my column should be called "Bret my Words" Catchy, no?
Fumo Knows This is Crap...
It's not going to go anywhere, even with a slim Dem majority.
And Segal has been an even bigger sycophant ever since the Citizens Alliance/Elton John fiasco, hence why PGN was shilling for Bob Brady.
What gay in their right might would think Bob Brady would fight for their rights? Perhaps one who had too much meth at a bathhouse... or a lobotomy...
I'm sorry, but as a gay, I am deeply disappointed in PGN.
Fumo and civil Unions
Perhaps Fumo, being the smart politician that he is, realizes that with the demographics fo his District, he is representing his constituents interests