Study: Legislators Are Not Hurt by Voting for Same-Sex Marriage

by Southernpixel

by Southernpixel

What’s in the barrel?

Watching California’s leadership walk all over voters in order to pander to the gay lobby, I am left in complete amazement.  Our Governor, Senators and a good part of the Legislature have all been working feverishly to overturn the vote of the people on proposition 8.

How is it that politicians, who have a duty to the people for their jobs, can look a majority vote in the face and try to tear it down?  Aren’t they worried about job security?  What about the voter’s mandate?

The San Francisco Bay times today is reporting that it doesn’t matter.

Voting for same-sex marriage or against an attempt to ban same-sex marriage is a safe move for politicians, a new study by the group Freedom to Marry has found. A review of such votes in 21 states by more than 1,100 legislators found that the legislators were consistently re-elected. The report revealed:

* Legislators who voted to end marriage discrimination in California, New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts had a 100 percent re-election rate in all 499 instances in three consecutive elections.

* Legislators who changed their position from opposing to supporting same-sex marriage had a 100 percent re-election rate in consecutive elections.

* Legislators who voted for marriage equality in their state’s lower house and then sought higher office all won.

* None of 664 legislators from 17 states lost re-election after voting against a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.


“For politicians, standing up for marriage equality is not touching a third-rail; rather, it is a track to re-election,” said Freedom to Marry Executive Director Evan Wolfson. “Legislators should take the findings of this report as proof that there’s no reason to back down from supporting the freedom to marry and opposing anti-gay measures. And those of us outside the legislature should not be afraid to ask our representatives to do the right thing.”

This is not the opportunity to forgive and forget or turn the other cheek.  It’s time to ask ourselves, “What’s in the barrel?  and toss out those who pander to corruption and are rotten at the core.

One hundred and twenty-nine years ago, President James Garfield brilliantly predicted the situation we now find ourselves in: “The people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption.”

What is a politician’s motivation to hold to the standards if we don’t hold them to those standards?

–Beetle Blogger



  1. Euripides said,

    January 23, 2009 at 12:31 am

    Just what politicians need to hear: voting against marriage won’t harm your chances for reelection. Then again, apparently getting indicted and in some cases convicted of a crime doesn’t seem to matter for reelection. I’m afraid that the people in this country are on the path to self destruction.

  2. Heather said,

    January 23, 2009 at 12:52 am

    I think we need to kick everyone out of office and start all over… starting with our president who said during the campaign that marriage is between a man and a woman and now is turning his back on marriage. Politicians make me sick. Do they not have any values?

  3. daniel rotter said,

    January 23, 2009 at 1:18 am

    “…voting against marriage…”

    These politicians didn’t vote “against marriage,” they voted to expand its definition to include gays and lesbians.

    “Then again, apparently getting indicted and in some cases convicted of a crime doesn’t seem to matter for reelection.”

    I think Ted Stevens, Dan Rostenkowski, and William Jefferson would disagree with you on that.

    “I’m afraid that the people in this country are on a path to self destruction.”

    Anti-American swill.

  4. Ann said,

    January 23, 2009 at 2:55 am

    What are the figures of politicians being reelected who voted against same sex marriage or who changed from supporting same sex marriage to opposing it? The figures may not be the same in the comparison, but incumbents have a strong advantage in elections.

  5. January 23, 2009 at 2:56 am

    Heather: Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth. When he made that comment about believing in traditional marriage, he immediately followed it with a qualifier that suggested that, although he was claiming this as his belief, he wasn’t going to uphold traditional marriage laws. I remember hearing that soundbyte, and I caught that qualifier at the time. He has a clever way of making people on both sides of every issue think that he is on their side.

    Daniel: Including sexual deviances under the term “marriage” is definitely voting “against marriage,” as it will serve to erode the institution that has held our country together since it’s founding. As I’ve said elsewhere, this is a Socialist agenda, which is why they are forcing it on us, instead of letting the people decide their own social structure. And, about your other comments- There are criminals (and Socialists) in both political parties, and that sets us on a path to self destruction. It’s a simple fact. We love America, and that’s why we have to end the practice of electing and re-electing officials who ignore the people’s will.

  6. daniel rotter said,

    January 23, 2009 at 3:22 am

    Including sexual deviances under the term “marriage” is definitely voting “against marriage”,…

    No, it’s voting against the current definition of marriage. Big, big difference.

    …as it will serve to erode the institution that has held this country together since it’s founding.


    As I’ve said elsewhere, this is a Socialist agenda

    My Random House Dictionary states states that socialism is “a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of industry, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole.” There’s nothing there that can be applied to same-sex marriage.

    “There are criminals…in both political parties…”

    I’m sure that’s true, but I was responding to a comment by Euripides that basically implied that these criminals will get re-elected despite their criminality, when I gave three specific exams to the contrary.

    “and that sets us on a path to self-destruction.”

    A “path” that if not outright halted, is at least slowed considerably, when Stevens, Rostenkowski, and Jefferson were shown the door by the voters.

  7. beetlebabee said,

    January 23, 2009 at 4:07 am

    Our representatives aren’t as insulated as a lot of us think. Most of our state representatives have their cell phone numbers published (at least in their campaign literature). All of them, state and federal, will respond to a constituent’s message.

    And if you have a dozen signatures on a letter, you become a special interest group, a voting block, something to be attended to. Why? Because you’re organized, and you understand your role as a citizen.

    The fact that other people aren’t willing to get deeply involved means that if you do, you will be heard with far more weight than your actual number represents.

  8. January 23, 2009 at 5:52 am

    Daniel: Your nitpicking and etymological breakdowns are tiresome. Nevertheless, here’s an explanation:

    Socialism is a form of Marxism; it is the less-violent version of Communism. Marxism is anti-God and anti-family, and they have stated their intentions to “overthrow every social construct in existence.” In their current attempt to overthrow America, gay marriage serves several of their purposes: 1) to turn people against God (because traditional religion has been anti-homosexuality for thousands of years), 2) to turn people away from their families, and the family unit in general (because parental authority poses a threat to their fascism), and 3) to give power to the current tyrannical dictatorship in America by giving them carte blanche to persecute Christians who refuse to “accept change,” and remove children from their families (the goal of the Communists in the UN, already) with the excuse that their “backward thinking” is harmful to their children by not teaching the current political correctness, that somehow their opposition to homosexuality is, in and of itself, a “hate crime” that cannot be tolerated.

    So, yes. Gay marriage has a lot to do with Socialism. We are living it right now. The current judicial tyranny is no accident. The Constitution has been abandoned by our leaders and they are now trying to force us to live by UN Resolutions, “whether we like it or not.”

  9. screemin_stevin said,

    January 23, 2009 at 12:56 pm

    “The fact that other people aren’t willing to get deeply involved means that if you do, you will be heard with far more weight than your actual number represents.”

    This is true, it kind of makes it worth it to speak up.

  10. screemin_stevin said,

    January 23, 2009 at 1:11 pm

    “These politicians didn’t vote “against marriage,” they voted to expand its definition to include gays and lesbians.”

    Daniel, that would most definitely destroy any recognizable form of marriage known to man. Sorry buddy, can’t happen.

  11. talkinmama said,

    January 26, 2009 at 1:29 am

    Daniel – If three politicians that I’ve never heard of were not re-elected after being labled “criminal”, that’s a good start, but there are so many who are corrupt, immoral, or simply dishonest, and still IN power.
    The problem is that many politicians have some positions we agree with and some we disagree with. So who do we support? The fact is, in the last election I didn’t like either of the candidates’ positions. That makes the concept of propostions attractive – leave the politicians out of the decision making – but frightening at the same time – giving so much power to the people.
    Our system is the best one around, but still fraught with risk.When choices are put to a vote, we all risk losing, but being tracked down and persecuted for your beliefs should never be a risk. The USA is sounding like Iraq during the Saddam regime. So I ask the same-sex marriage supporters – why are you taking us there?
    America is supposed to be a place where you can vote according to your own conscience without fear of retaliation, but that is not what is happening in California in 2009.

  12. vladseventysix said,

    January 26, 2009 at 8:06 pm

    Perhaps heterosexuals should start an Institution of Mating that does legally acknowledge the existence of mating other than being a sexual offense.

  13. Chairm said,

    January 29, 2009 at 12:12 pm

    SSM argumentation asserts that the Government owns marriage. They say it is purely a legal thing and is cut-off from marriage, the social institution. This amounts to the declaration that the Government owns the foundational social institution of civil society; but our form of government expressly establishes that the People have a Government, not the other way around.

    Read any of the pro-SSM court opinions. Read the pro-SSM arugments in legislative assemblies. Listen to SSMers in public forums, such as online discussions, and you will detect this fundamental premise of the pro-SSM line of reasoning.

    What moves the big hairy hand of Government when it comes to recognizing and showing preference for any type of relationship? Imagine there is a blank slate and no marital status in our laws.

    SSM argumentation does not show respect for the nongovernmental institution of marriage. But they use Government to appropriate the social institution as entirely created and owned by Government. And when they refer to Government, as I am sure you’ve noticed, they do not mean the entity that exists to exercise authority delegated to it by the governed.

    Whether or not this argumentation and campaign for the SSM merger with marriage is “socialism”, it is facist and tyrannical.

    There is a strong totalitarian streak in SSM argumentation. That comes through clearly in the SSM campaign in California this past decade. Just read the AG’s so-called legal reasoning against the marriage amendment.

  14. January 30, 2009 at 2:40 am

    Chairm: You’re right on the money. Several people have asked me if I believe that “gays” are really the ones behind the riots, etc. Well, I don’t. It all seems to fit too nicely into the overall scheme of things that are going on right now, including the government pushes to do all things Marxist: take away the rights of the parents, take kids out of the home and indoctrinate them, and penalize religious people, especially Christians.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: