Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Bil's Quest For Straight Talk From Bayh On Gay Marriage
Bil Browning of Bilerico has been on a several-week quest dating back to Sen. Evan Bayh's luncheon with bloggers last month to nail down Bayh on precisely what his position on same-sex marriages is. While he doesn't get any straight answers from Bayh, he does find some answers, none of which he's too happy about. The bottom line is clear that Sen. Bayh wants to appeal to the so-called "culture" voters, which means he can't appear too supportive of equality for gays and lesbians. The problem with that strategy is that he must first win the Democratic nomination, and by the looks of his low standing in the public opinion polls in every early presidential primary state, his strategy isn't working.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
If anyone wants to know how Bayh feels about Gay Marriage, read below a letter I recently received from him:
Dear Mrs. Gross :
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Marriage Protection Amendment to the United States Constitution. I appreciate your thoughts and concerns. Having been happily married for more than twenty years, this issue is important to me.
I do not support same sex marriage. I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. That is currently the law in Indiana and is currently the law nationally. I support the Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits federal recognition of same sex marriage and prevents Indiana from being forced to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states.
If you have been told that a judge has struck down Indiana 's law or our nation's law prohibiting same sex marriage, that is simply not true. These laws may never be invalidated. In fact, Indiana 's law prohibiting same sex marriage was recently upheld by our Court of Appeals.
The Constitution should not be amended unless absolutely necessary and should not be amended to deal with situations that are hypothetical and may not come to pass. In a bipartisan vote on June 7, 2006, the Senate agreed and decided not to consider the Constitutional amendment this year because it is premature. I supported that decision.
In the event that the courts do invalidate our state or national laws prohibiting same sex marriage, then a Constitutional amendment should be considered.
Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope the information I have provided is helpful. My website, http://bayh.senate.gov , can provide additional details about legislation and state projects, and you can also sign up to receive my monthly e-newsletter, The Bayh Bulletin , by clicking on the link at the top of my homepage. I value your input and hope you will continue to keep me informed of the issues important to you.
Office of Senator Evan Bayh
(202) 224-5623
Russell 463
Washington, D.C. 20510
Annette--thanks. These guys are really bad with their form responses to these issues. I don't know how many times I've gotten a response similar to your's from a politician, which only served to infuriate me because it obviously didn't take into account the position I had communicated to the politician. This was obviously drafted to suit the e-mails the senator has been receiving from religous extremists. He must care more about how they feel about this issue than you or I.
Post a Comment