Random & Incoherent
Friday, February 10, 2006
  Can new life be blown into politics?
or is it all an elaborate stage show meant to garner votes?

Just based on what I've read thus far, I would vote for the guy. Almost makes me want to say that I would move back to Ohio just to be able to vote for him. But that's never gonna happen, so we're just gonna have to hope that he is a new breed emerging and that change is coming.

Typically, I don't pay that much attention to politics. I vote during the presidential elections, but that's about it. Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Paul Hackett, he would provoke me to reach out and pull the lever for other elections.

Stumbled across this guy when Jen asked if he would be her president.

And I can really get behind his thought process.

With succinct coherence, Hackett said: “I’m pro-choice, I’m pro-gayrights, I’m pro-gun-rights. Call me nuts, but I think they’re all based on the same principle and that is we don’t need government dictating to us how we live our private lives.”

Asked to define being pro-gay rights, Hackett said anybody who tries to deny homosexuals the same rights, including marriage, as every other citizen is un-American. Are you saying, he was asked, that the 62 percent of Ohioans who voted in November 2004 to constitutionally deny same-sex marriages are un-American?

“If what they believe is that we’re going to have a scale on judging which Americans have equal rights, yeah, that’s un-American. They’ve got to accept that. It’s absolutely un-American.”

and you can read more from the Cleveland Plain Dealer
How apropos that you sent this to me this morning. My partner and I were just discussing this same topic last night because of a response that I received from Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA democrat). I am so fed up with the lack of guts that the majority of our elected representatives seem to have when it comes to standing up to the religious right and supporting the rights of GLBT citizens of the United States!

Yesterday I sent the following email thru HRC (please go to http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/oppose_fma_06 to write you senator) to my U.S. Senators to urge them not cosponsor or vote for the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment," H.J. Res. 39 and S.J. Res. 1, or any amendment to the US Constitution that would write discrimination into the Constitution:

The Marriage Protection Amendment does nothing to "protect" marriage. Instead, it singles out a group of Americans for discrimination in the United States Constitution. The Constitution has always been used to guarantee rights and freedoms, not to take them away.

Further, this amendment would do real harm to same-sex couples and their children, who already do not enjoy the vast majority of benefits and protections that married couples enjoy.

I urge you to listen to how these discriminatory measures impact real families, oppose any efforts to alter our Constitution and urge your colleagues in the Senate to focus on other issues that are priorities. I look forward to receiving your response.

I then received this response from Senator Feinstein:

Dear Mr. Barrow:

Thank you for writing about the Marriage Protection Amendment, a proposed constitutional amendment which would require that marriage in the United States consist only of the union between a man and a woman. I appreciate your taking the time to share with me your thoughts.

In my view, enacting such a measure would overstep the
role of Congress by interfering with State's constitutional authority to legislate in the area of family law. The issue of marital union has always been, and I believe should continue to be a State right and responsibility.

Thank you again for sharing your views on marriage with me. If you should have any further comments or questions, please do not hesitate to call my Washington, DC staff at (202) 224-3841, or visit my website at http://feinstein.senate.gov.

Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Although I appreciate that she opposes this amendment, I wish that she opposed it for other reasons. I'm so sick and tired of hearing politicians opposing marriage amendments based solely on the desire to uphold states rights. How about MY rights as a citizen of the United States of America? Why won't anyone come out and say that they oppose these bills because they believe that GLBT Americans should be afforded not just some of the rights of other Americans, but ALL the same rights as other Americans?

The fact of the matter is that the great majority of benefits and burdens of marriage come at the federal level. Even if my state were to recognize same-sex marriage I would still not be afforded any marriage rights on the federal level.

I could go on and on about same-sex marriage...I could ask the right questions like: If you are trying to protect the fabric of society and think that marriage is the key, why don't you go after divorce like you go after same-sex marriage? Over 50% of American marriages end in divorce. Why don't they spend their time trying to create a constitutional amendment preventing people from ending a marriage rather than trying to prevent people from starting one? If marriage is so sacred in our society then why has J-Lo been married 3 separate times in the last 5 years (Or was that 4 or 5 times? I lost count). And why are there TV. shows like "The Bachelor," "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" and "Who Wants to Marry a Midget?"

Anyway...Thank God for people like Paul Hackett! It gives me a small glimmer of hope that there is someone out there in politics who will stand up to the religious right, and stand for the rights of all citizens!
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home
A Division of Mellanman Productions

My Photo
Location: Salisbury, North Carolina, United States

Kevin O'Mellan (Whittington Appraisals): Appraiser in Salisbury, Rowan County, North Carolina

    Powered by FeedBlitz

October 2004 / November 2004 / December 2004 / January 2005 / February 2005 / March 2005 / April 2005 / May 2005 / June 2005 / July 2005 / August 2005 / September 2005 / October 2005 / November 2005 / December 2005 / January 2006 / February 2006 / March 2006 / April 2006 / May 2006 / June 2006 / July 2006 / August 2006 / September 2006 / October 2006 / November 2006 / December 2006 / January 2007 / February 2007 / March 2007 / April 2007 / May 2007 / June 2007 / July 2007 / August 2007 / September 2007 / October 2007 / January 2008 / February 2008 / April 2008 / May 2008 / June 2008 / July 2008 / August 2008 / September 2008 / October 2008 / January 2009 / March 2009 / April 2009 / September 2009 / October 2009 / December 2009 / January 2010 / April 2010 / May 2010 / June 2010 / August 2010 / October 2010 / November 2010 / December 2010 / January 2011 / February 2011 / March 2011 / May 2011 /

Powered by Blogger


Fair Use Notice: This site includes excerpts from and links to copyrighted media which have not been pre-authorized by their respective owners. U.S. copyright law allows for the "Fair Use" of copyrighted materials for the purposes of criticism, parody, and education. As specified in U.S. Code Title 17, Section 107, the material on this site is not distributed for profit.