Letter to the Senator

I've been getting regular email updates regarding the state government shutdown from my Republican State Senator, Paul Gazelka.  When I got the last one, I decided to email him back. It went something like this:

"I appreciate that Republicans and Democrats have different views about taxing vs. cutting, but I hope you'll consider getting rid of the social demands that you put into your proposal, like abortion and stem cell research. These are not issues that should be decided in the budget negotiations. 

I also think that since the Governor has been willing to scale back his tax proposals, that you guys could do your part to compromise some of your ideas as well."

 

Here's the response I got:

 

"There was almost an agreement on June 30th.  The governor has gone back to the full $1.4 billion increase above the $4 billion increase we already passed in our budget.

 

It would not surprise me if we were somewhere near his last agreement that he withdrew. 

 

Paul Gazelka"

Could someone please explain to me how this addresses anything I wrote to him about? 

This is what we're dealing with here in Minnesota. God help us all.

 

Letter to the Editor

My latest letter to the Editor appeared in our local paper this week. Rather than just calling them "Letters to the Editor" like every other newspaper in America, our paper calls this section the "Open Forum." Anyway, here's my letter:

"I’ve read a lot of letters in this column recently from people who are happy about gay marriage being put on the 2012 ballot. Even some of my own friends think this is a sensible idea — just let the voters decide. What’s wrong with that?

So for anyone out there who doesn’t understand; here’s what’s wrong with that.

It is completely un-American to put the rights of a minority up for public vote by the majority. If you approach rights this way, then the majority will always keep rights from the minority because they’re voting only based on their personal opinion. If we had put interracial marriage up for public voting in the 50’s, it surely would have been outlawed. Why? Because the majority thought it was wrong and went against the Bible, and they had the majority, therefore winning the argument.

For all the bad press “activist judges” seem to get these days, there’s a point to having a judiciary, and that is to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Judges are supposed to make unpopular decisions, because their job is not to reflect the will of the people, but the will of the law and the constitution.

I have no dog in this fight. I’m not gay, and I’m already married. Gay marriage would not affect me one way or another. However, I know that it will affect many Minnesota families in a very poignant way, and it will affect many children already living in caring, two-parent, same-sex households instead of foster care.

Even if you somehow illogically think that sexuality is a “choice,” shouldn’t that choice be protected anyway? After all, nothing is more of a choice than religion, and we seem to protect that right pretty fiercely."

After the letter, there is the obligatory "comment" section where everyone and anyone can comment on your letter anonymously. These comments tend to be pretty vile, but I was surprised that with this letter, the first few comments were very eloquent, thoughtful, and flattering. However, we'll skip those comments because they're boring.

Here is the exchange between me and some of the righties in the comments section. I should explain that when I say "them" I don't mean one person - just whatever person happened to respond:

Them:  "And, the liberal courts won't be able to make gay marriage legal as easily as they could have before the Constitutional Amendment. That explains the reason for it. I also think that Republicans are enjoying the liberal screeching that this is causing."

Me: "Liberal courts" just means courts you don't agree with. It doesn't mean they're wrong."

Them: "Too many courts are trying to pass policy. They are in it for the glory and the press. But you are right Amy, we should never put anything to a vote, because some minority will cry foul. Oh hell, we cannot even agree on who can vote and who cannot. Let us just all go liberal and everyone do anything and everything that you want."

Them: "so if there is a conservative court/judge does that mean its not wrong it just means you dont agree with it."

Me: "As long as they're making their decisions based on the law and not the so-called "will of the people."

Them: "So, you're saying that the sodomy laws should be enforced?"

Me: "No, I think they should be repealed."

Them: "Sounds like somebody is a big fan of sodomy! You should make some campaign signs! We need a catchy slogan for the bumper stickers!"

Classy.