Harry Reid. He irritates me to no end. So many things to say about him, but I will be brief. Today the Senate failed to invoke cloture on an amendment to the Constitution that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Harry Reid believes that "marriage should only exist between a man and a woman." I agree with him 100%.
So why did Harry reject the amendment?
His words - this amendment "is the (Bush) administration's way of avoiding the tough, real problems that American citizens are confronted with each and every day..." "There's an ugly truth: It's election season and down-in-the-polls Republicans are turning to their same old playbook, fear and division. We need a president and a Congress that doesn't play divisive politics."
What does this statement tell me? That playing politics is more important to Harry Reid than standing up for what he believes. If he really believes that marriage should only be between a man and woman, he should vote that way. Don't let politics get in the way. Don't worry about how it's going to reflect on your party or your leadership within it. Nevermind that it is something that Republicans are pushing and you don't want them to win. Stand tall, let everyone know that you are a man of conviction who will not be swayed. Because I share his religious beliefs, his actions offend me very much.
7 comments:
I know a couple of people who call Reid Utah's Most Effective Senator...
His thoughts on the most recent Senate Time-Waster:
Here
Thanks for the link. I had a good time laughing at the naivete of your friend.
My reations to his thoughts. 1) Re: his concern that should the amendment pass - what happens if the gov't tries to define marriage further? Um, that would have to happen by passing another amendment or enacting new legislation. Passing this one would not allow the gov't to further define marraige. In fact, it only codifies the definition of marriage that already exists in the US which is currently under attack.
2) Re: his quote of Senator Reid (your friend and mine - um, not) claiming that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) already protects the institution of marraige. Ah, my friend, please tell me you're not that naive to believe that DOMA will save the day. My experience living in MA taught me one important thing and that is that a handful of unelected judges can make whatever decisions they would like. Don't think for a minute that this issue will not come before the US Supreme Court someday (My bet is in the very near future). And let me tell you that DOMA is in great danger of not surviving the encounter. No, the best bet is an amendment that is agreed to by the people and cannot be polluted by a small group of judges who might bow to a powerful, teeny minority.
Good thoughts... I appreciate an intelligent conversation. If you've read around my site at all, you know that I am not a fan of the proposed amendment at all, and I'm even less impressed with the idea that such a thing could come to debate in the Senate, with no chance of reaching cluture, therefore spending valuable time before the "summer recess", and not getting on to what I think are more important items, even those upon which action could be taken. I don't mind a "call to action" of one's constituants, but I don't like the hijack of the Senate to do it.
All that said, I do think Gays should have access to Civil Partnership, thereby gaining access to the more than 1000 laws that are impacted by "marriage" in the US currently. I think religions have the right to do whatever they want, but civilly, there should be access to these laws by all two-person monogamous relationships, bringing into play the separation of Church and State, envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
I don't think this is the end of civilization as a state of law and order.
Again, thanks for your thoughts.
I think the argument that "we should be doing other things in the Senate" is odd. Do you ever hear that argument raised when some lobbyist wants Congress to declare National Milk-Chug Day or something? Or when some other more substantive measure comes up that has no hope of passing? I've never heard it in any context except this marriage amendment, which says to me that the opponents can't come up with an honest reason to oppose it. After all, this issue obviously is very important to a lot of people on both sides of the issue. Far more so than Milk-Chug Day.
Milk-Chug day... I'd be up for that.. I want the T-shirt.
Seriously though, you are SO right... in the bigger picture, to a VERY large extent, the agenda of this the country's legislative calendar is controlled by lobbyists, PACS, and money in general. In the last 10 years, for example, the 17 richest families in the country have spent more than $200 million on lobbying the government to repeal the "death" tax. Pork spending is at an all-time high - completely out of control, taking items that SHOULD be up for debate, and essentially paper-clipping them to other legislation, as favors to this group or that, bypassing any intelligent debate. Hog-feed studies? Llama farm subsidies? The list is brutally long. These days the members of the House and Senate show up on Tuesday morning and are gone by Thursday night, heading back to wherever, looking for money to go in the war-chest.
Government is too big, too unwieldy, too unmanagebale. The spending keeps overshooting the budget, and instead of cutting it back, they simply ask for more. There are entire departments that are obsolete. Do we need a Federal Department of Education? I think not. In the Salt Lake Tribune this morning, there is a story about HHS secretary, (and former Utah Governor) Leavitt comandeering the jet assigned to the CDC, and flying all over the country to glad-hand people on the new medicare programs for seniors, to the tune of $775,000 in the course of only one week. (That program is an outstanding example of government too big for even its own to be able to understand and implement cogent programs.)
I am a "less is better" kind of guy. And while I did note that I don't dig the Senate being hijacked on this one debate, I take your point well, that it happens ALL THE TIME. and it's too much. Term Limits, strict policy regarding lobbyists, and PACs. Committee assignment by lottery.
In general, the political system here in this country is off the tracks, the government has reached critical mass, the deficit is out of this world. I worry about your kids and mine.
Again, thanks for your thoughts. You are both unique individuals, with excellent perspective, and I do repsect that, along with your stands on issues, whether I agree or not.
I really want to say this as politely as I can. I do really appreciate your thoughts. But lengthy comments would be better used on your own blog. Thanks!
ummm - great. thanks for that. didn't mean to use up your byte allotment.
Post a Comment