Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 8:36 AM ET, 03/ 4/2011

Sam Arora, marriage equality and the race card

By Jonathan Capehart

Since I wrote about the disgraceful wavering of Maryland House Del. Sam Arora (D-Montgomery County) on the marriage equality bill he campaigned for, raised money from gays and lesbians on and co-sponsored after his election, three things have come to light. All of them negative.

Within moments of my post hitting yesterday, Yusef Najafi of MetroWeekly broke the news that Arora would vote against the "Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act." "[Arora] told me that he was going to vote against it on the floor," Del. Kumar Barve (D-Montgomery) told Najafi. "I've been in the legislature for quite a while, and nothing is a reality until you actually push the button. And these are hard issues. But he came to me and told me that he was having difficulty with the concept of it." Barve added, "It's been a shock for many of us. I'm hopeful that he will change his mind and vote for marriage equality on the House floor."

When, exactly, the bill will come to the floor is part of the second negative thing to come to light. Arora has said that he would vote for the measure in the judiciary committee. But The Post's John Wagner reports that a committee vote has been delayed. Seems as though Arora-itis is spreading, as two legislators who were in favor of the marriage equality bill have shown signs of cold feet.

And, thanks to David Badash, I have been alerted to the characteristically unhinged musings of Maggie Gallagher. The chairman of the board of the National Organization for Marriage charged that I and others are playing the race card against an Indian American. Nevermind that Neera Tanden, the policy powerhouse from Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, the Obama-Biden campaign, the Obama administration and now the Center for American Progress, who demanded a refund of her contribution to Arora, is Indian American.

What Gallagher doesn't quite get is that if Arora does, indeed, vote against the marriage equality bill when it goes to the floor he will have committed the ultimate sin in politics. He would have lied to get donations, endorsements and votes. As I wrote Thursday, politicians lie all the time. But the outpour of anger from Arora's constituents and others clamoring for equity and fairness is more than justified.

By Jonathan Capehart  | March 4, 2011; 8:36 AM ET
Categories:  Capehart  | Tags:  Jonathan Capehart  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Sheen madness
Next: Sam Arora is now for and against marriage equality

Comments

WOW - hypocritical.

I'm not gay but for the life of me I cannot understand the opposition to gay marriage.

Please don't say anything about religion because marriage is a state function - you CANNOT get married without a license issued by the state. I don’t care where you get married -church/synagogue/mosque/beach/forest/etc. -you have to have a license from the state. Please don’t say marriage is "sacred". If so we – heterosexuals – don’t treat it as such - between divorces and affairs there’s nothing sacred about a lot of marriages.

Posted by: rlj1 | March 4, 2011 11:13 AM | Report abuse

"Unhinged" is being charitable.

BTW do you like the way NOM is copying your column as a pdf hosted and displayed on their own website rather than actually linking to the original? They're doing this with pretty much all their sources and they even copy the copyright statements! Do they not understand what "copyright" means? Do they not understand "thou shalt not steal"?

http://nomblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Sam-Arora-is-now-for-and-against-marriage-equality.pdf

Posted by: MrDarwin | March 4, 2011 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Well the social conservatives - who remained outside as the GOP won 2010 elections on the economy - are coming back in from the cold.

Along with it, the meaning of "Tea Party" will change to mean "GOP of 2008".

Which is great news for Obama and the Dems in 2012.

Posted by: justanothercrusader | March 5, 2011 1:56 PM | Report abuse

The moral stances confuse me greatly. Are you certain you are speaking of a member of the United States House of Representatives and not the DC City Council?

Posted by: Martial | March 6, 2011 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company