My Senator's Warped Priorities
My senator, Dr. Bill Frist, appeared on FOX News Sunday this morning and was asked to defend his obsessions with banning flag burning and gay marriage, both of which are subjects of Constitutional amendments that will be debated on the days when our senators aren't on vacation. Frist argued that his emphasis on these issues has nothing to do with pandering to the conservative base (a base growing frustrated with the President and Senate Republicans) and is all about what's important to the "heart and soul of the American people." My heart and soul, for one, is more concerned about the rising costs of healthcare and energy and the widening gap between the haves and the have-nots. Recent polls suggest that my heart and soul aren't alone. (And, frankly, Constitutional amendments have historically been used to guarantee or grant rights, not to deny them. The one exception was Prohibition, and that didn't work so well.)
Since his election as Senate Majority Leader three years ago, Frist has acted entirely in the interests of the Republican Party and his own presidential ambitions, not in the interests of the American people, let alone the people of Tennessee, let alone their hearts and souls. This November, when Tennesseans elect Frist's replacement, let's be careful that we choose a representative, not a politician.
Think Progress has more, including the transcript.
Since his election as Senate Majority Leader three years ago, Frist has acted entirely in the interests of the Republican Party and his own presidential ambitions, not in the interests of the American people, let alone the people of Tennessee, let alone their hearts and souls. This November, when Tennesseans elect Frist's replacement, let's be careful that we choose a representative, not a politician.
Think Progress has more, including the transcript.
posted by Tinley | 8:45 PM
2 Comments:
Saw this on NiT. The senator didn't reply to my email when I requested that he move forawrd with impeachment proceedings against George W. and Dick. Go figure.
Sorry, Josh, can't go along with you on this one.
Is Bush playing the Marriage Amendment card to help buoy his falling rating? Obviously. But whatever his motivation, there's little doubt that the issue resonates with voters.
I wish that each state could decide the issue for itself, in the state legislatures, without meddling from the courts. (That would have been a better outcome on the abortion issue, for example, than the 35 year war that the Supremes unleased via Roe v. Wade. But already lower courts have shown they really don't care what a clear majority of Americans think about marriage, i.e. that it's between one man and one woman, and should be for life. They're busy overturning citizen initiatives and, ultimately, will overturn state constitutional amendments.
I think the best compromise is already in place, via the outcome of Lawrence v. Texas. Sodomy laws were struck down. Though I believe homosexual behavior is destructive, I don't think it should be criminalized.
Now, we have the bridge too far, with the push for gay "marriage."
Sadly, a constitutional amendment is the only remaining way to preserve the sanctity and meaning of historic marriage. I'll be writing my Senators and representatives accordingly.
Post a Comment
<< Home