Bob Casey Jr. -- Flipping & Flopping on Gay Rights

In the Pennsylvania Senate Race, more than a few eybrows were arched around here when the Human Rights Campaign endorsed Bob Casey Jr. in the Democratic Primary. We were surprised because Casey was already on the record as opposing, among other things, the rights of gays to adopt and the HRC is a leading advocacy group for Gay rights. In announcing their endorsement, the HRC had these things to say about Casey:

In stark contrast stands Bob Casey’s commitment to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality. One of the first actions Casey took when he was elected Auditor General in 2001 was to implement a non-discrimination policy for his office that included sexual orientation. He opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment, and any attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution to deny rights to same-sex couples and their families. He supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act as well as the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and believes that adoption decisions should be made without prohibitions or limitations based on the sexual orientation of the parents.

We can only assume that these statements were based on something Casey told them. The written record before this announcement is somewhat different.

Casey announced his candidacy for the US Senate in March, 2005. But a few months before that, he was running for (and won) the State Treasurer's post. In that race, he had appeared before the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, the advocacy orgainzation of Pennsylvania's Roman Catholic Bishops.

The Catholic Bishops had Bobby Junior fill out their positions questionnaire, in which Bobby was asked the following questions and gave the following answers:

7. What is your position on government requiring that benefits be provided to same-sex partners?

Casey (Tr): Oppose

8. What is your position on legislation allowing homosexual couples to adopt children?

Casey (Tr): Oppose

Casey was (and remains) on the record as supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Clinton in 1996, which states:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Casey told the Philadelphia Daily News a few months after being elected Treasurer in November, 2004:

"I support the Defense of Marriage Act . . . . to have a great constitutional debate about this issue is completely unnecessary. "

How a candidate can say two diametrically opposed things within a few months of one another -- giving two different interest groups what they want to hear -- and not have a single member of the MSM even report on the difference, much less challenge at least the sincerity of the candidate, is simply astounding.

My guy, Chuck Pennacchio, refuses ALL special interest money. He therefore doesn't need to worry about flipping and flopping his positions to satisfy the money pusher de jeur. His position on equal rights for everyone is the same today as it was when he first articulated it:

For too long we have been separated and divided by artificial lines of race, religion, class, gender and sexual orientation. The politics of division is a troubling proposition for a country founded upon the creed, “all men are created equal.”

The issue of equal rights is fundamental for all Americans. Since women’s suffrage and the end of racial segregation we have prided ourselves on our concepts of freedom and liberty. Congressman John Lewis, who was beaten unconscious in Alabama while marching for equal rights said, “I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color to not stand up for discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

When Americans struggle against the natural tide of equal rights for all Americans, they are defending a history of discrimination that has persisted since the birth of our nation. Similarly, when the radical right attempts to write bigotry into our U.S. Constitution they reflect that same dark impulse to deny equality to a class of citizens.

The gay community has been exempted from the concept of equal justice under law by a system of apartheid that creates two classes of citizens based on sexual orientation. Every American who works hard, pays taxes, and plays by the rules deserves the same benefits and protections the rest of us are afforded. The right to visit a loved one in the hospital and peace of mind that comes with shared tax, health, and inheritance benefits are rights all Americans should enjoy, regardless of sexual orientation.

Same gender unions in no way pose a credible threat to the sanctity of marriage. The national divorce rate is 49%, and the only place where same gender marriage is legal, Massachusetts, has the lowest divorce rate in the country. Also, Vermont’s civil union law has been a particular success, and a boost for that state’s economy.

The issue of equal rights extends beyond Republican attempts to divide us on the single question of gay marriage. As a moral authority in the world, our country must take the lead on curing the scourge of global AIDS. We must also participate in a rational discussion to determine appropriate responses to hate crimes at the state and federal levels. Ensuring a freedom from fear of prejudice is a goal that should unite us; creating an artificial fear of our neighbors is a Republican tool used to divide us.

With Casey supporting judges like Alito, with more and more conservative groups urging anti-gay amendments and legislation, I'd rather not see Pennsylvania represented by someone who, at the very least, uses both sides of his mouth to talk about equal rights.