For those who are keeping track, Appropriations Madness is over. More than 600 bills were rushed through the the Assembly Suspense Calendar alone. Many of these bills were "held" and virtually killed while most moved on to the floor for a full vote. Additionally, the Senate Appropriations Committee moved along hundreds more bills.
Among the bills killed on Suspense was the controversial spanking bill. Among the bills passed was the measure to legalize Gay Marriage in California.
Worth noting was an article in the Sacramento Bee this week that criticized Assemblyman Mark Leno, Chair of Assembly Appropriations, for hosting a fundraiser the day before the biggest Appropriations hearing of the year. While this is clearly an avenue that eases the ability for high powered lobbyists to reach the chair of Appropriations and, as the CRP said, "doesn't pass the smell test," it is hardly unique to Mr. Leno.
Last year, Governor Schwarzenegger held events during the months of August and September when he is expected to act on every piece of legislation passed by the Legislature during that year. Members of both parties from the Senate and Assembly routinely hold fundraisers during all parts of the year including Budgeting Mayhem and Floorapalooza.
Simply holding a fundraiser during a busy time of the year doesn't necessarily mean a politician is beholden to special interest groups. But in the case of Mr. Leno who is running against Ms. Miggy for the Senate, one must straighten up and fly right. Advice to Mark Leno: Keep Carole's exploits in the news. If this is the worst they've got on you, you've got it made.
Showing posts with label Carole Migden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Carole Migden. Show all posts
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Monday, May 28, 2007
Just When You Thought Bay Area Freeways Were Safe...
Crazy Carole comes careening through!
Last weekend, Carole Migden, the oh-so-honorable Senator from San Francisco caused a car accident...or a few...while talking on a cell phone and driving eratically.
Some of the choice quotes witnesses used included (courtesy of Boi from Troy):
- “Please get out here, she is crazy”
- “I noticed the car hit the center median divide”
- “Erratic and dangerous driver”
- “She cut me off and afterwards she screamed that she was a Senator, ‘I am a Senator”
- “She didn’t seem all there at the time”
- “Going at least 80 miles per hour and swerving from one lane to another”
- “It was a female who was both reading and speaking on the telephone at the same time while trying to negotiate the lanes”
Now ol' Ms. Miggy has brought forward a new revelation: CANCER!
It appears that Senator Migden has been suffering from a bout of leukemia for several years. Until now, however, she has decided not to become public with her health issues because she didn't want the sympathy.
Except now, she DOES want the sympathy. So its okay to share with the world.
She is also blaming her lapse of driving ability on her illness. Perhaps she will also blame her illness for her shrill voice, utter lack of humanity, and famously short temper. Maybe the doctors can correct the problem, and a pill can turn the General into the Queen of Nice.
But its doubtful.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Leno on Top!
The feud in SF is heating up! While their colleagues are waiting to put their support behind a winning horse, Assemblyman Leno and Senator Migden are in a no-holds-barred fight in Frisco.
Both are currently working to gain support among Democratic Party activists in San Francisco. The first major endorsement went to the challenger, Mark Leno. The Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club of San Francisco, a Gay-Rights organization similar to the Stonewall Democrats, voted on Monday to offer an early endorsement to Leno. Later in the week, Leno and Migden appeared before the San Francisco Young Democrats for an endorsement debate.
The organization overwhelmingly voted to lend its support to Assemblyman Mark Leno over Senator Carole Migden.
According to the Bay Area Reporter, the debate featured a critcism of Migden's famed "Ghost Voting" incident of 2005. Miggy's response: "It was an error. We apologized. It happens all the time in the Assembly. I am proud of the product, not of the error." Leno retorted that never before had a senator ghost voted on the Assembly floor and that Migden's responses signaled an "any means to an end" approach to politics.
The Bay Area Reporter has excellent coverage of the debate. It is clear, though, that the best quotes of the night came early in the opening statements.
Leno: "We've worked together and I need your support now. We have the same mission: to challenge the status quo and fight for change. I am the best choice for change."
Migden: "My name is Carole Migden and I am the status quo."
Both are currently working to gain support among Democratic Party activists in San Francisco. The first major endorsement went to the challenger, Mark Leno. The Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club of San Francisco, a Gay-Rights organization similar to the Stonewall Democrats, voted on Monday to offer an early endorsement to Leno. Later in the week, Leno and Migden appeared before the San Francisco Young Democrats for an endorsement debate.
The organization overwhelmingly voted to lend its support to Assemblyman Mark Leno over Senator Carole Migden.
According to the Bay Area Reporter, the debate featured a critcism of Migden's famed "Ghost Voting" incident of 2005. Miggy's response: "It was an error. We apologized. It happens all the time in the Assembly. I am proud of the product, not of the error." Leno retorted that never before had a senator ghost voted on the Assembly floor and that Migden's responses signaled an "any means to an end" approach to politics.
The Bay Area Reporter has excellent coverage of the debate. It is clear, though, that the best quotes of the night came early in the opening statements.
Leno: "We've worked together and I need your support now. We have the same mission: to challenge the status quo and fight for change. I am the best choice for change."
Migden: "My name is Carole Migden and I am the status quo."
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Straight People Partnerships
The tiny but formidable Senator Carole Migden has hit the headlines again with her latest bill, SB 11. This bill would expand California’s Domestic Partnership Program to allow opposite-sex couples to register for domestic Partnerships.
Under existing law, heterosexual couples are ineligible to register for domestic partnerships unless at least one partner is over the age of 62. Seniors are allowed to register for domestic partnerships in lieu of marriage because they may want to avoid marriage in order to protect their benefits. Gay couples are totally ineligible for marriage in California but may instead obtain a domestic partnership which now affords all the rights and responsibilities that the state provides to married couples.
Still, domestic partnerships are considered differently under both state and federal law. Federal law does not recognize domestic partnerships at all and provides none of the benefits of marriage to such couples. State law allows for a much easier, faster, and often less expensive dissolution of a domestic partnership as compared to marriage.
The California courts have been reviewing Gay marriage laws in California since Mayor Gavin Newsom began to allow such unions in San Francisco two years ago. Most recently, the California appellate court ruled that California laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are non-discriminatory in part because Gay people may marry in heterosexual unions and because even if they choose to couple with those of the same sex, California provides all of the benefits of marriage in an equal institution (domestic partnerships).
Migden’s stated motivation for SB 11 has been to provide a marriage alternative to heterosexual couples. Many unwed mothers in this state currently cohabitate in a family unit with a father. Domestic partnerships would provide a more stable environment for the rearing of children, would allow both adults to share in employment benefits, offer each the ability to make critical medical decisions when the other is incapacitated, among other benefits. These changes could be extremely beneficial to nontraditional family units.
However, Migden could very well have another motive: a demonstration that marriage and domestic partnerships are separate and unequal institutions. Clearly there must be a difference if a number of people given a choice would predictably choose to engage in one form of partnership instead of the other. Further, it would increase the disparity by allowing straight people to choose between marriage and domestic partnerships but still only allow Gay people to obtain domestic partnerships. Already, the Christian conservative right in California have cried out claiming that this expansion of domestic partnerships is an all-out assault on traditional marriage.
This demonstration that marriage and domestic partnerships are inherently different institutions and that gay people are only allowed to obtain domestic partnerships while heterosexual people are able to choose between the two might spur the California Supreme Court to recognize the difference between the two when they take up the issue next year.
Under existing law, heterosexual couples are ineligible to register for domestic partnerships unless at least one partner is over the age of 62. Seniors are allowed to register for domestic partnerships in lieu of marriage because they may want to avoid marriage in order to protect their benefits. Gay couples are totally ineligible for marriage in California but may instead obtain a domestic partnership which now affords all the rights and responsibilities that the state provides to married couples.
Still, domestic partnerships are considered differently under both state and federal law. Federal law does not recognize domestic partnerships at all and provides none of the benefits of marriage to such couples. State law allows for a much easier, faster, and often less expensive dissolution of a domestic partnership as compared to marriage.
The California courts have been reviewing Gay marriage laws in California since Mayor Gavin Newsom began to allow such unions in San Francisco two years ago. Most recently, the California appellate court ruled that California laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are non-discriminatory in part because Gay people may marry in heterosexual unions and because even if they choose to couple with those of the same sex, California provides all of the benefits of marriage in an equal institution (domestic partnerships).
Migden’s stated motivation for SB 11 has been to provide a marriage alternative to heterosexual couples. Many unwed mothers in this state currently cohabitate in a family unit with a father. Domestic partnerships would provide a more stable environment for the rearing of children, would allow both adults to share in employment benefits, offer each the ability to make critical medical decisions when the other is incapacitated, among other benefits. These changes could be extremely beneficial to nontraditional family units.
However, Migden could very well have another motive: a demonstration that marriage and domestic partnerships are separate and unequal institutions. Clearly there must be a difference if a number of people given a choice would predictably choose to engage in one form of partnership instead of the other. Further, it would increase the disparity by allowing straight people to choose between marriage and domestic partnerships but still only allow Gay people to obtain domestic partnerships. Already, the Christian conservative right in California have cried out claiming that this expansion of domestic partnerships is an all-out assault on traditional marriage.
This demonstration that marriage and domestic partnerships are inherently different institutions and that gay people are only allowed to obtain domestic partnerships while heterosexual people are able to choose between the two might spur the California Supreme Court to recognize the difference between the two when they take up the issue next year.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
We Are (almost) Equal Now
Hiding under the hundreds of bills Governor Schwarzenegger signed at the last days before his deadline was a simple and almost unremarkable bill written by California State Senator Carole Migden (D-San Francisco).
Except nothing about that bill was simple or unremarkable to hundreds of thousands of people across the state.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's signature on SB 1827 should be cause for celebration among Gays and Lesbians all over California. Short of actually providing same-sex marriage, the State of California can provide no more rights to domestic partners than it now has. This bill will provide same-sex couples in a registered domestic partnership with the same tax rates they would recieve if married. After decades of fighting for equality, California has come closer to granting Gay people the right to marry than it ever has before.
This doesn't mean the fight is (or should be) over. According to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office, there are still 1,049 benefits provided by the federal government that are only granted to married couples. None of these benefits are currently available to same-sex couples. Further, none of these benefits can be made available by the State of California. Certainly, we should expect the fight to continue inside the Beltway.
But this doesn't even mean that our fight is finished in California. While our government grants equal status between heterosexual married couples and gay domestic partners, the Gay community has not yet achieved equality.
I have had the benefit of spending my adult years in metropolitan areas with thriving Gay communities. Unfortunately, not all Gay and Lesbian people can live in big cities. Many live in areas where it is not acceptable or safe to live as an "out" Gay person. Despite anti-discrimination laws, many members of the GLBT community would find it difficult at best to secure a job, reasonable housing, and live a happy, free, and secure life if they allowed themselves to be labeled Queer.
Far worse, too many children are bullied each day because they are labeled Queer, either in reality or in perception. If any of us, Gay or Straight, look back on our days in middle school, we will remember just how intolerant kids can be. And how mean. But that isn't the worst of it. Adults can be just as intolerant toward Queer or effeminate children and cause an environment where a child is not free to live he or she was created by God.
While I was fortunate enough to have an amazingly accepting family that more than embraces my homosexuality (and helped teach me to do the same) I remember growing up in a town where it is not acceptable for a person to live out of the closet. Does that mean that there are no Gay people there? Absolutely Not! It just means that we need to keep up the fight for equality so that those closeted individuals might eventually be able to live freely.
Except nothing about that bill was simple or unremarkable to hundreds of thousands of people across the state.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's signature on SB 1827 should be cause for celebration among Gays and Lesbians all over California. Short of actually providing same-sex marriage, the State of California can provide no more rights to domestic partners than it now has. This bill will provide same-sex couples in a registered domestic partnership with the same tax rates they would recieve if married. After decades of fighting for equality, California has come closer to granting Gay people the right to marry than it ever has before.
This doesn't mean the fight is (or should be) over. According to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office, there are still 1,049 benefits provided by the federal government that are only granted to married couples. None of these benefits are currently available to same-sex couples. Further, none of these benefits can be made available by the State of California. Certainly, we should expect the fight to continue inside the Beltway.
But this doesn't even mean that our fight is finished in California. While our government grants equal status between heterosexual married couples and gay domestic partners, the Gay community has not yet achieved equality.
I have had the benefit of spending my adult years in metropolitan areas with thriving Gay communities. Unfortunately, not all Gay and Lesbian people can live in big cities. Many live in areas where it is not acceptable or safe to live as an "out" Gay person. Despite anti-discrimination laws, many members of the GLBT community would find it difficult at best to secure a job, reasonable housing, and live a happy, free, and secure life if they allowed themselves to be labeled Queer.
Far worse, too many children are bullied each day because they are labeled Queer, either in reality or in perception. If any of us, Gay or Straight, look back on our days in middle school, we will remember just how intolerant kids can be. And how mean. But that isn't the worst of it. Adults can be just as intolerant toward Queer or effeminate children and cause an environment where a child is not free to live he or she was created by God.
While I was fortunate enough to have an amazingly accepting family that more than embraces my homosexuality (and helped teach me to do the same) I remember growing up in a town where it is not acceptable for a person to live out of the closet. Does that mean that there are no Gay people there? Absolutely Not! It just means that we need to keep up the fight for equality so that those closeted individuals might eventually be able to live freely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
