50-48, freedom beats fascism

i recieved this letter (in response to one i sent to her) from an anti-american senator a couple days ago. it detailed the primary reason i have reached the conclusion that she is anti-american. the thing is that the original point of america was that it was the one place (though it certainly hasn't always worked like this, this was the point) in the world where you could go and have nobody fuck with you as long as you weren't fucking with anyone else. that's it. that's the reason we exist. the founding father's felt fucked with by the british government and so came up with the idea that there should be a place where no one is fucked with. where the only rules are that you can't fuck with someone else. i like that idea. apparently, this senator is more in line with a turn-or-burn, come-to-jesus-talk, hate-filled, discriminatory, if-they're-not-like-me-they-should-die kind of thinking. anyway, here is the letter:

"dear mr. -

Thank you for contacting me regarding same-sex marriages. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

Marriage laws have historically been the responsibility of state governments, and I generally oppose federal government intrusion into matters of state authority. Periodically, however, one state's action can have serious and far-reaching implications for other states, particularly because our Constitution requires states to give full faith and credit to the laws of other states.

In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defined marriage as only between a man and a woman. I voted for this federal law, and I continue to support it today because I believe the traditional family unit should remain the foundation of our society. The recent decision by a narrow majority of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court mandating same-sex marriage threatens to overturn DOMA nationwide and effectively make that single state's marriage policy the law of our entire country.

In response, Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) has introduced S.J. Res. 30, the Federal Marriage Amendment, of which I am a co-sponsor. This bill would amend the Constitution to define marriage in the United States as consisting only of the union of a man and a woman. Currently, S.J. Res. 30 is under review by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. When this legislation comes before the full Senate for a vote, I intend to support its passage.

I appreciate hearing from you and hope you will not hesitate to keep

in touch on any issue of concern to you.

Sincerely,

Kay Bailey Hutchison"

luckily the bill in question failed to pass yesterday by a vote of 50-48 in the senate and her dictator-like view of the world is not yet going to be accepted.

it seems to me that one of the only requirements for coming into power in any country should be a basic understanding of that country's overall goals and purpose and a genuine love and desire to do your part to make the country a better place. but then, maybe that's just me. i could be way off on that one.



2004-07-15 | 7:52 a.m.
0 comments so far

previousnext

background