Two letters on Gay Marriage from my home state of Idaho
Did I go to sleep and wake up on another planet? Here, in the ISJ, is a story about a politician - Sen. Edgar Malepeai - who is not afraid to take a stand against what is politically correct (hating gays) and recognizes that the constitution is a document that historically protects rights and grants powers (instead of one that takes them away).
Oh wait, I am definitely on Earth, as I see that this senator is a Democrat and not one of those Republicans that are pushing the politics of hate, divisiveness and exclusion of the Bush administration.
Thank you, senator, for checking your religion at the door (where it belongs) on the day that you voted against amending the Idaho constitution to ban same-sex marriages and civil unions.
Also, thank you for stating the obvious: That this is an issue about discrimination (against gays) and not protection (of marriage).
How refreshing to see a politician so honest and unafraid. It is gems like you that make Idaho the Gem State. Highland High School and Pocatello, be proud!
Now, senator, try convincing your fellow legislators that Idaho has much bigger problems that need to be addressed than the threat of how two people who love each other choose to conduct their lives.
John Jakupcak,
Pocatello
Does anyone else think that it's ironic that, at the same time our armed forces are risking and losing their lives to protect personal freedoms abroad, legislators in our nation and state are working diligently to limit personal freedoms here at home?
We, as a nation (supposedly), stand as a model for freedom and morality. Yet, how can we say that we fight for freedom around the globe when our "moral values" prompt us to limit personal freedoms for some of our citizens for no other reason than discomfort with a misunderstood lifestyle? In our nation's history, the only U.S. constitutional amendment passed that placed limits on these personal freedoms - Prohibition - was quickly repealed, but not before fertilizing the soil for organized crime. Many states have had laws and constitutional amendments on their books - such as those opposing interracial marriage - that we look back upon as archaic, oppressive and inconsistent with the ideals of a free society. It saddens me to know that Idaho is considering legislation that promises future regret and/or embarrassment. Nonetheless, since history tends to be a good predictor of the future, I hope that those who are directly affected or just plain offended by such efforts will remain optimistic, since the freedoms for which our nation stands ultimately will prevail.
Steven Lawyer,
Pocatello
2 Comments
Leave a comment
Thanks Mary for the update!! The news that the amendment is dead is very good news indeed! I guess I should give the moderates in Idaho more credit. I knew that Brad didn't want it, but wasn't sure he would be able to stop it.
Interestingly, I received a newsletter from Redfish Lodge wanting us to come back to Idaho again this summer. We may now that we know the amendment is dead. It would be nice to see the state again. :)
You may or may not know that this amendment was stopped in the Idaho State Senate, and will not be moving forward. Try to access Dan Popkey's column from yesterday, Sunday, in the Idaho Statesman, to see the type of tactics which were used against the moderate Republicans (mostly by out-of-state groups) to try to get these senators to change their votes. It's really very scary - once again, your old friend Brad Little led the charge to defeat the amendment - I'm planning on writing him a letter of thanks.