![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Oh, Look At The Mid Year Election Time...
Feb. 8th, 2006 11:23 pmSo I've managed to get on the American Family Association's (AFA) mailing list, and every few days my mailbox gets a little message from Donald Wildmon, mostly about some pop culture outrage that they have worked to exploit. Often there will be a request to send the offending party a message of how darn offended you are. Every once in a while, they make it really easy and give you a direct email to send.
So this morning I have a message in my mailbox saying that the United States Senate will re-visit the Federal Marriage Amendment, now know as the Marriage Protection Amendment, in March, just in time for many primaries across the country. They don't mention the primaries, but you have to know that the timing isn't by accident. Marriage amendments across these last couple of years have been uses to create voter response in crucial elections. The federal amendment also works better in an election year as more senators are under pressure to pass it. Watch for the House to pass it whether the Senate does or not, just for the election platform.
Still, I don't recall President Bush mentioning it during the state of the union. Did I miss it, or has it dropped of his lame-duck radar?
The email went on to give a link where you can send your senators (both of them, isn't technology wonderful?) a little message about how you feel about this importantgrandstanding issue. The message is already pre-filled with statements like "I ask that you vote for the Marriage Protection Amendment to keep traditional marriage strong," and "Any vote or filibuster against the MPA will be seen by me as a vote for gay marriage in this country." This is of course bullshit and a scare tactic. As many have noted, DOMA is still in effect in this country, and many states have already taken steps to do what they will. It's just a scare tactic to show that they might label a senator during re-election should they refuse to vote as the AFA desires.
Of course, the AFA in their wisdom, allows you to change the message, so you can add your own personal touch to the message (likely because form letters don't get read). They also allow you to make the subject line of the email you will send - through their system. I went and changed the message to this:
Now I'll tell you, this message may never get to my senators (it's a lost cause anyway, Kay Bailey Hutchinson is a Republican running this year and will need to vote for it to keep her cred, though she's almost unopposed, and John Cornyn is just a dick). I'm suspecting that the AFA will weed it out and either substitute it with the regular one, or just delete it out right, but still, I have to try. I'll go ahead and send it through normal channels to my senators, just to make my point.
Still, the AFA's the first group to give me a time table for when this was going to be brought back to the floor, so it's good I can try to get my two cents in. I'm almost a little bit thankful, but not really.
Of course, you may recall that Jesus didn't get married to a woman (unless you read Dan Brown novels), he got "married" to an institution, just as Catholic priests and nuns do today. This isn't practiced by Protestant denominations like Rev. Wildmons. Does he approve of marriage to an organization rather than a human?
I hear that General Motors is looking for a sugar daddy.
So this morning I have a message in my mailbox saying that the United States Senate will re-visit the Federal Marriage Amendment, now know as the Marriage Protection Amendment, in March, just in time for many primaries across the country. They don't mention the primaries, but you have to know that the timing isn't by accident. Marriage amendments across these last couple of years have been uses to create voter response in crucial elections. The federal amendment also works better in an election year as more senators are under pressure to pass it. Watch for the House to pass it whether the Senate does or not, just for the election platform.
Still, I don't recall President Bush mentioning it during the state of the union. Did I miss it, or has it dropped of his lame-duck radar?
The email went on to give a link where you can send your senators (both of them, isn't technology wonderful?) a little message about how you feel about this important
Of course, the AFA in their wisdom, allows you to change the message, so you can add your own personal touch to the message (likely because form letters don't get read). They also allow you to make the subject line of the email you will send - through their system. I went and changed the message to this:
I ask that you vote against the Marriage Protection Amendment. There is no need for the political grandstanding that this amendment is. states rights should be upheld as the states have already been taking action on this issue. This amendment is unnecessary and only being used as stump speech material to use for appealing to a small and bigoted segment of the nation's population.
By voting against the MPA you are not condoning same-sex marriage, just pushing an agenda to try to appeal to a group of votes, pandering if you will. Trust me, I, and other citizens of this country are looking for you to be working on much more important and difficult issues than this.
Please get on to the tough issues, despite the election year posturing.
Thank you.
Michael Edwards
Now I'll tell you, this message may never get to my senators (it's a lost cause anyway, Kay Bailey Hutchinson is a Republican running this year and will need to vote for it to keep her cred, though she's almost unopposed, and John Cornyn is just a dick). I'm suspecting that the AFA will weed it out and either substitute it with the regular one, or just delete it out right, but still, I have to try. I'll go ahead and send it through normal channels to my senators, just to make my point.
Still, the AFA's the first group to give me a time table for when this was going to be brought back to the floor, so it's good I can try to get my two cents in. I'm almost a little bit thankful, but not really.
Of course, you may recall that Jesus didn't get married to a woman (unless you read Dan Brown novels), he got "married" to an institution, just as Catholic priests and nuns do today. This isn't practiced by Protestant denominations like Rev. Wildmons. Does he approve of marriage to an organization rather than a human?
I hear that General Motors is looking for a sugar daddy.
