1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

LGBT News Brewer Vetoes SB 1062

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by Rakkaus, Feb 26, 2014.

  1. Rakkaus

    Rakkaus Guest

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2012
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New York
    Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes SB 1062 - CNN.com


    I guess Jan Brewer's period of relative sanity over the past few years continues with yet another smack-down of the far-right GOP in control of Arizona's legislature. Even a right-wing Republican governor like Jan Brewer knew this "freedom to discriminate" bill would be bad for her state and its citizens. :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:ride:
     
    #1 Rakkaus, Feb 26, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2014
  2. Maeve

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Messages:
    322
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    California
    Gender:
    Female
  3. AwesomGaytheist

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Messages:
    6,894
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Kalamazoo, Michigan
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
  4. Rakkaus

    Rakkaus Guest

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2012
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New York
    BREAKING: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes Senate Bill 1062

    Here are the links to her full remarks and veto letter. (Both in PDF format)

    I'm guessing Brewer isn't planning on trying to wiggle around the constitution to try to seek a third term as governor (apparently there is legal grey area as to whether she is term-limited out or not), or else she just set herself up with a bunch of soundbytes for a crazy anti-gay Tea Party challenger to take her out in the Republican primary.

    Now that she's on her way out, she no longer needs to pander to the Tea Party wackos of Arizona. Old white conservatives (many retirees from other states) still make up a majority of Arizona voters.

    Last year she smacked down a bunch of far-right silliness passed by the far-right Republican legislature, issuing a whole slew of vetoes including a bill similar to this one, as well as being one of the few conservative Republican governors to fight her own party's legislature to secure the ObamaCare-based Medicaid expansion in her state, while many conservative Republican governors (like Rick Perry in Texas) chose to screw over the healthcare of their own states' citizens just to grandstand against Obama.

    (Brewer signed SB 1070, the anti-immigration bill, just months ahead of her 2010 gubernatorial election campaign)
     
    #4 Rakkaus, Feb 26, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2014
  5. Claudette

    Claudette Guest

    it sickens me that this was a valid argument. While they were at it, why don't they legalize slaves for "religious freedom". I am glad they got so much pressure from companies over this.
     
  6. Ryuichi

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2011
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    21
    Location:
    Southern England
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    2 victories in a day!! YAY!! :grin:
     
  7. Claudette

    Claudette Guest

    Forgive me if I am wrong... But don't we value separation of church and state? And I'm pretty sure our religious freedoms on a country level only apply so long as they don't interfere with other's rights?
    Maybe I should get into politics lol
     
  8. Rakkaus

    Rakkaus Guest

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2012
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New York
    Depends who the "we" is. Socially conservative Republicans don't particularly value separation of church and state, no. That's why they frequently try to use the state to force their personal religious beliefs upon everyone else.
     
  9. Claudette

    Claudette Guest

    yes but the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
    and the statute of religious freedoms
    "[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
    meaning that religious freedom until it violates the rights of others
     
  10. Pret Allez

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    6,785
    Likes Received:
    66
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    I still think that Arizona should be made to feel the pain of this. Remember, representative democracy is at least approximately representative. Meaning, a substantial minority of the people of Arizona, whether this measure got vetoed or not, still support the basic sentiment behind this bill. I don't claim there is broad support for anti-queer discrimination there. It is a state with a moral forte and foible like all the others. But I do think there is broad misunderstanding in Arizona of what a free society looks like.

    For all the libertarian crocodile tears shed about freedom of association, one of the things that has to be remembered here is that everybody else has it too. So if you're going to use freedom for hatred, others will use it for love and to much greater effecct. If you want to exercise your freedom of association not to serve queer folks because it offends your religious sensibilities, you are still taking an authoritarian stance. And in doing so, you invite the retaliation of free thinking people who find the hatred that position represents to be abhorrent. Indeed, many corporations made threats of capital flight, refusing to open new ventures in the state, and pointed out that now queer folks will be looking to move and work elsewhere.

    The libertarians know that freedom can be a legitimate weapon. The problem, as with all uses of weapons, is that you have to deal with the fallout.

    I really hope that the rest of the nation doesn't just sit back all complacent and go "pheew, we dodged that bullet." No, we're dealing with the same bigoted state with its strong minority of toxic inhabitants who need to be taught a harsh lesson.
     
    #10 Pret Allez, Feb 26, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2014
  11. KWDBM

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2014
    Messages:
    250
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Arizona
    Pret Allez, we aren't the only state with a vocal minority about these stupid discrimination bills. Arizona wasn't the first (and probably won't be the last) to shove a bill out like this. Everywhere else it got shot down a little faster, yes, but it still happened and there was still plenty of support for it. Unfortunately.

    I'm just thankful she did what was right.
     
  12. Mike92

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2012
    Messages:
    2,244
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Erie, Colorado
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Some people
    This is good news for the Republican Party.
     
  13. BryanM

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2013
    Messages:
    2,894
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Columbia, Missouri
    Gender:
    Genderqueer
    Gender Pronoun:
    They
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Not to put a damper in the parade, but this bill went down party lines and was partisan. Not a single democrat voted for it, all republicans voted for it. I also get the feeling that if no pressure was out on Brewer she would have signed it. She hasn't really been a defender of gay rights in the past.

    This is a step forward yes, but the GOP needs about 50 more steps to be equal to the Democrats on the issue of equality.
     
  14. PatrickUK

    Advisor Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Messages:
    6,563
    Likes Received:
    1,840
    Location:
    England
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Just read about this on BBC news website. It was an incredibly perverse idea and you must be greatly relieved if you live, or spend a lot of time in Arizona.

    The fact that this made news headlines across the Atlantic on BBC tells you something (the world was watching).
     
  15. Mike92

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2012
    Messages:
    2,244
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Erie, Colorado
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Yes, but nationally voters will likely remember a Republican governor vetoing this bill more than unknown legislators passing it. That's what will be more significant.

    It certainly beats the alternative for the party.
     
  16. Emberstone

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    6,680
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    I was expecting her to veto this on the basis that she has vetoed similer such bills in the past.
     
  17. Rakkaus

    Rakkaus Guest

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2012
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New York
    Well the most surprising thing about all this is that the state where such hateful legislation came so incredibly close to actually becoming law is Arizona, which is a relatively moderate state compared to other states considering such laws, e.g. Idaho, Kansas, South Dakota, Tennessee, Georgia.

    In all those other uber-conservative states, this sort of hateful legislation kept dying before it could even get out of committee, while in Arizona they managed to ramrod this bill through both houses of the state legislature rather rapidly and send it quickly to the governor's desk.

    While Arizona overall is a 'red' state, it only leans red, the state is pretty evenly split between conservatives and liberals, compared to a super-conservative state like Kansas or Idaho. In 2012, Mitt Romney won Arizona 53-45, while he won Idaho 64-32.

    Of Arizona's 9 U.S. congressional representatives, 5 are Democrats while 4 are Republicans.

    Both Republican U.S. Senators from Arizona have to at least keep up the appearance of being somewhat "moderate" in order to be re-elected (hence why they both came out calling for Brewer to veto SB 1062).

    And the trendlines are clear, that as old retirees in the state die off and the Hispanic population grows, that Arizona is not nearly as conservative as its state legislature. Gerrymandered districts are what allow far-right Republicans to dominate a state even if they do not have a majority of the population.

    In a way, I'm glad that Arizona was the battleground where this issue was fought. Arizona is a big diverse state, its population is not uniformly conservative the way Idaho or South Dakota is, and it is a state with lots of business interests located there, it's planned to be the Super Bowl site next year.

    If legislation like this had passed in Idaho or South Dakota or Kansas, there likely would not have been much attention paid to it. The states are almost uniformly uber-conservative overall, it would have been a popularity-booster for the governor, and they are small in population and insignificant in terms of business. The governor would likely have easily signed it into law without any national attention.

    By making this big public spectacle out of Arizona, with all the nationwide backlash that built up against this bill after it passed with more and more people, including Republican U.S. Senators and Mitt Romney, urging a veto, followed ultimately by a veto by a conservative Republican governor, this might actually have served as a sort of vaccine that would make other states less likely to consider such legislation.
     
  18. Haddz

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2014
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Green Bay, WI
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Brewer vetoed for political gain and not having to defend lawsuits that they would lose.
    The sad part is the hateful people that authored the bill get a free pass politically
     
  19. Mike92

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2012
    Messages:
    2,244
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Erie, Colorado
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Yeah, probably not.

    Brewer is in her last term as governor, and it's not like she's a presidential candidate. So it's a stretch to say that she did it for political gain...
     
  20. mnguy

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    .
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Some people
    I'm so glad she vetoed the horrible bill. The pro-discrimination side really needs to shut the :***: up and stop playing the spoiled brat and live in peace with everyone.