view from mars

"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day."

Monday, February 13, 2006

an open letter to va state sen. creigh deeds (d-25)

Why did you vote for a referendum on equal protection?
Sen. Deeds,

I respectfully request an explanation for the vote you cast in favor of a referendum on "gay marriage."

While I respect what I believe your answer will be (that is, that the people should decide what their social structure will be like), I am truly saddened at the failure to capitalize on an important opportunity your vote represents.

The issue of "gay marriage" has been irrevocably clouded by the radical Christian right, and has been used as a wedge issue by the republican party (which, of course, we all know relies heavily on the courtship of Christian radicals.) In the 2004 Elections, the issue was put on the ballot in 11 states, and successfully capitalized on by the republican party to scare Christians into going to the polls to stop what they convinced them to be a threat to the institution of marriage.

You and I both know that the radical Christian right and their beholden republican party have made all sorts of disgusting accusations about "gay marriage" in order to shore up suppor87t among the flock. While "gay marriage" may make some people uncomfortable, the epidemic of divorce is a far graver threat to the instution of marriage than the extension of that right to two loving and devoted individuals.

I am deeply disappointed that it seems that you have either fallen for their bamboozlement, or are too afraid of political backlash to stand up for equal protection under the law. I can't believe that I even have to write this to a fellow democrat -- we know better than to fall prey to the likes of James Dobson and Jerry Falwell.

As democrats, we should fight for the maximization of civil rights whenever and however we can. It is our nature, and it is our belief that the maximization of personal privacy and rights are the only ways to ensure a strong and vibrant nation.

By failing to stand up to the radical Christian right, you have shown me that the fight for equal protection for all Americans is not a priority for you.

As a result, I will not vote for you again for any office.

Thank you for your willingness to represent me. But if you don't fight any attempt to obstruct the maximization of personal privacy and equal protection, you don't support the belief that underlies our party and our nation, and, by extension, are working to undermine those very principles.


I am truly baffled and disgusted at this "democrat"'s sleazy attempt to court liberal voters. Originally, Deeds opposed a republican version of the amendment (read: referendum) because, in his lawerly opinion, the language was too broad. From RaisingKaine.com:
On gay rights, Deeds’ position can be classified as a moderately conservative. In May 2004, for instance, Deeds sharply critized Republicans for pushing a “mean-spirited and unnecessary” bill banning gay marriage and legal contracts between unmarried partners.” On the other hand, in February 2005, Deeds voted for SJ 337, a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage in Virginia as “between one man and one woman.” In committee, however, Deeds voted against a sentence in the proposed amendment which would also outlaw civil unions or other such measures which would “approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effect of marriage.” In other words, Deeds holds the majority Democratic view (i.e., almost identical to John Kerry) supporting marriage as between a man and a woman, while also looking favorably upon other arrangements such as “civil unions.”


All that, except for the last part. It's worse. While Deeds may have tried to sideline the broad addition in committee, the language Deeds ultimately voted for contains the provision:
Further, the proposed amendment prohibits the Commonwealth or its political subdivisions from creating or recognizing "another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."

Seems pretty f-ing clear to me. From the DailyProgress :
"I thought folks had gotten everything they could out of the choice question, so they started whacking on sexual orientation, sexual preference," Deeds said of the conservative forces pushing anti-gay legislative agendas, including bills aimed at banning gay-straight alliance groups in high schools.

"We ought to be about a nurturing environment for all our kids in public schools," Deeds said. "Gay people aren't in four or five closets around Virginia. They are everywhere. They ought to visit their legislators."

Except we did. And it turns out our legislators are pussy DINOs cowering from the Christian crazies who think statutory discrimination is what Jesus wants.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home