ChooseTheHero.com

Patty Murray and the Marriage Protection Amendment

Or, Patty Murray is an arrogant twit.

The following is Patty Murrays’ response to a constituent’s
request for more information about her position on the Marriage
Protection Amendment.

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Marriage Protection
Amendment. I am glad to know your views on this matter…

The Marriage Protection Amendment would have amended the
Constitution to recognize marriage as the union of one man and one
woman. In addition, it would have prohibited the Constitution or
any State constitution from granting marital status or its legal
benefits to unions not composed of one man and one woman. I
recently voted against a procedural motion on the Marriage
Protection Amendment. The Amendment did not garner the required two
thirds of the Senate to put forth a constitutional amendment.

I am opposed to this constitutional amendment that would deny
same-sex couples the rights and protections that other Americans
enjoy, and I am deeply concerned by efforts to use the Constitution
to take away the rights of individuals. Amending the Constitution
is a serious step–one we have taken just 27 times in the 215 years
since the Constitution was ratified and 17 times since the Bill of
Rights was ratified in 1791. With the exception of prohibition,
which was repealed 14 years later, the Bill of Rights has never
been amended to restrict our rights.

America is a strong nation, and our diversity only makes us
stronger. But if we are to remain so, we cannot afford to waste
time or energy dividing and conquering each other. Our nation will
be best off when we appreciate each other’s differences and treat
all Americans with respect and dignity.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to
call on me in the future if I can be of assistance.

This response shows that Senator Murray is comfortable reading
rights into the Constitution based on public opinion and her
personal beliefs and feels that rather than protecting marriage,
the amendment deprives same-sex couples of constitutionally
protected rights.

She makes her point in a particularly obnoxious way, first by
condescendingly providing a lesson on the content of the amendment
- as if the writer would not have known what she was writing about
- and follows up with another lesson on the history of amending the
Constitution. Because, you know, she was a professional
educator, so she’s smarter than you.

Then, she chastises the writer for wasting her time and finishes
off with a dose of self-satisfied moral superiority by implying
that the writer is sadly lacking in respect for other human
beings.

I’m sorry to say that in 2004 Senator Murray was re-elected with
by a margin of 55 to 43. As I’ve mentioned before, politics in
Washington is so dominated by Democrats that there is a severe
shortage of Republicans with statewide name recognition. Her
lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union is 3.11 (and,
hey, she’s not our most liberal legislator). It would seem like,
even in Washington, a record that extreme would make her
vulnerable; unfortunately, I am not aware of any Republicans that
could mount a serious challenge (other than possibly Dino Rossi,
who is denying at this point that he’ll ever again seek public
office).

Cross-posted at It’s Only Words

Go to Source

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 26th, 2008 at 1:00 am and is filed under McCain Palin Updates. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.