Index of SPPS Budget Discussion http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/spps-posts.html _________________________________________
Thomas Swift writes: Senator Mua invoked the intentions of �our forefathers� which got me thinking. ...I�ll be writing her to ask if she feels that her people were wronged by making them conform to our WASPy concept of acceptable matrimony and if that concept is changed to include homosexuals whether she plans to introduce legislation to right that injustice.
I write: Assuming she does, so what? She's a senator. It's her job to bring legislation she imagines has a positive public impact. If we dislike the legislation she supports, we can vote her out of office or make sure that our representatives and senators vote against the bills we dislike. That's how our system works. Our system does not work by declaring certain elements off limits for consideration and discussion through fear-mongering, as if the very idea of changing the status quo were an anathema. **Our** WASPy concept of matrimony is as American as a traditional Mormon's concept of it or that of a gay person seeking marriage.
I also wish to register my offense that you would imply that a citizen of the US is not entitled to use the phrase "our forefathers" without suspicion. I do not care if they were naturalized yesterday. They are entitled to be called an American and they are entitled to use the terms "we" and "our" when referring to American issues. Mua is a part of this country no matter what your opinions are about her homeland.
Thomas Swift: After all, if his [Thune's] unilateral decision to speak for us all on this subject is not the dishonest act of hypocrisy it appears on it's face, the vast majority of St. Paul residents are in complete agreement with him and my friends and I should not be able to rally anyone�right?
I state: Where did he claim to speak for all of "us?" And even if he did, so what? Like Senator Mua, he is a public official. His job includes walking a fine line between accurately representing the wishes of his constituents and voting his conscience. Why is it that moralists only admire those who stand up for beliefs they happen to agree with, and condemn as shifty and spineless those who stand up for beliefs in opposition? Talk about hypocrisy.
Rally away. That's your right and that's how the system works. In the end though if Thune's pesonal conscience directs him to vote in a way different from how the majority of his voting constituents would like, then you'll have a choice next election time as to whether to vote for someone who stands up for his beliefs or who serves yours. Both have their advantages. I hope that between then and now more of your cohorts will see that Thune's proposal isn't all that bad.
Mary Baker East Side
_________________________________________________________________
Get reliable access on MSN 9 Dial-up. 3 months for the price of 1! (Limited-time offer) http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup&pgmarket=en-us&ST=1/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/
_____________________________________________ SPPS Budget Reduction Forum - Feb. 23-27 Co-Sponsored By NEAT: http://www.stpaulneat.org/ _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
