Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
sobering moments

CA Sen. Roy Ashburn Wasn’t Drunk Or Cruising When He Voted For Gay Soldiers

California State Sen. Roy Ashburn has already come out of the closet. Now, on the Senate floor, he’s eeking his way out of the dressing area. One day soon, he might make it to the landing. Maybe even the downstairs foyer!

Though the Republican lawmaker recently voted in support of a referendum to allow gays to serve openly in the armed forces, he also voted against SB 906, which “would clarify that clergy members would not be required to perform a civil marriage that was contrary to his or her faith,” a move many see as one step in getting the state to one again recognize gay marriage. (The bill passed.)

But allow him to explain why he’s casting some votes in favor and some against his own community.

Addressing the full Senate, Ashburn went all: “I would not have been speaking on a measure dealing with sexual orientation ever prior to the events that have transpired in my life over the last three months. However, I am no longer willing or able to remain silent on issues that affect sexual orientation and the rights of individuals. And so I am doing something that is quite different and foreign to me, and it’s highly emotional. … The public supports allowing openly gay people to serve in the military. … The current policy of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is clearly out of date and discriminatory.”

As for the clergy bill? While he’s fine with passing a bill to exclude religious groups from the gay marriage arena, he found it “troublesome” the bill referred to the relationships between gays as “civil unions.” Fine. But we hereby ban you from ever enjoying one.


By:          JD
On:           May 28, 2010
Tagged: , , , , ,
    • Cam

      To those people who say that people shouldn’t be outed, his voting, just like Barbara Mikulski’s became more pro-gay after he was outed.

      May 28, 2010 at 10:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • holla

      It seems to me that the bill, at least as quoted here, refers to “civil marriage” rather than “civil unions” so I’m not quite clear on the objection. Can someone clarify?

      May 28, 2010 at 10:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Mustich, JP

      In CT we passed a civil union law in 2005, and a marriage equality law in 2008. As a justice of the peace, I officiate at civil ceremonies (aka non-religious ceremonies or civil marriages generally). I had a civil union and a marriage with my partner of over 30 years.
      Onward to eqaulity,
      Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
      Washington, Connecticut, USA

      May 28, 2010 at 11:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • edgyguy1426

      Just replace that asshat for someone who is out AND proud

      May 28, 2010 at 12:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B

      No. 1 · Cam wrote, “To those people who say that people shouldn’t be outed, his voting, just like Barbara Mikulski’s became more pro-gay after he was outed.”

      You can’t draw conclusions on whether his voting is more pro-gay based on a single vote. He stated previously that he was voting the way his constituents would want him to vote. Given the fraction of Americans who want DADT repealed, it wouldn’t be surprising if his constituents were neutral or maybe slightly in favor of a repeal.

      The one thing he did as a result of being outed was to make a statement about the bill instead of just voting and saying nothing.
      Maybe that is progress, but it will take more than one favorable vote to tell for sure.

      May 28, 2010 at 6:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • Copyright 2016 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.