A few weeks ago, my mom (Kay) called our Democrat senator, Tom Harkin
(a Democrat who has supported Nicaraguan dictators in the past), to express her
approval for the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Last Thursday, we received his reply:
Dear Kay:
Thank you for contacting me. I am always glad to hear from you.
I appreciate your thoughts regarding the definition of marriage. It was kind of you to take the time to share your comments.
While, as a matter of my own faith, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I have voted in support of that principle, I do not support amending the Constitution to create new federal law in this area.
OK – what?
He’s Catholic, so he believes gay marriage is wrong, and he votes in
favor of making marriage between a man and a woman, but he does not support
creating new federal law in this area?
Does he (or his talented speechwriter) realize that he just contradicted
himself in the same sentence?
As a matter of course, “Catholic” Democrats
– Tom Harkin, Tom Vilsack (the governor of Iowa), Tom
Daschle and John Kerry – say that while they are “personally opposed” to things
like gay marriage and abortion, they vote in favor of them, because their
personal lives are removed from their governing duties, and they don’t want to
force their religious views on others.
It is this clever scheme that allows them to vote for everything that
runs contrary to their faith, regardless of the harm that will result.
I believe that is proper, and I also believe that marriage licensing and regulation currently is left to the states.
Ooo-kay. That was atrocious grammar from
Tom (or whatever speechwriter wrote this for him), but I think what he’s trying
to get across is that it is an issue that should be left to the states. To which I ask – why? Is gay marriage any more right in
Marriage a as a religious sacrament should be left to individual religious denominations. At the same time, as a matter of federal policy, I oppose discrimination against people based on sexual orientation with regard to employment, housing or partner benefits.
Of course – I agree. We shouldn’t discriminate against people
because their sexual orientation is misoriented,
which is not a matter of choice. But
what does this have to do with gay marriage?
Nothing.
Just because we can’t discriminate against them for their psychological state, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t
discriminate against them because of things they do – namely, commit indecent acts – or that society should be
forced to recognize their abnormal relationships.
(For the next two paragraphs, Tom just drones on about how much he appreciates my mom expressing her opinion to him, even though he vehemently disagrees with it.)
So, yeah, that was
our encounter with the Democrat senator from