Soon enough, the floor was changed - citizens wishing to question the Senator should stand up at the podium in front of the audience. I immediately stood up in response, and stood right behind a woman who took charge of the floor at the podium. She questioned health related issues, food additives and the lack of warning labels. Soon enough she stepped down - and the climate was right for controversy - which might I add seems to be the train that follows me, but not the train I attempt to board.
"Thank you Senator," I began as all eyes were on me, Del. Ed Scott looked intently at me - he knew why I was there, Del. Scott and I frequently converse about GLBT issues in Virginia. "I first want to thank you for being here, I really appreciate when our elected officials are so willing to allow the public to speak with them." Senator Allen smiled, what was he expecting me to say?
<snip>
"Well Senator," I began. "I too believe religious freedom of expression is part of what this country was founded upon - it is a beautiful thing to be able to express your views, however sexual orientation is not a civil right, it is a part of someone, and gay citizens are being denied basic civil liberty, very basic rights that most citizens are granted." The Senator said something along the lines of disagreement. "If you believe that this is how gay citizens should be treated," I continued, "I am assuming that is why you supported the Federal Marriage Amendment."
Senator Allen seemed a bit tense. He continued to say that his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment was merely the passing of legislation that the people of this country wanted - to protect the values that this country upholds. Senator Allen was consistent with repeating this message at least five times in about ten different ways, including citation of statistics and specific references. Senator Allen even began to speak of what was and what was not constitutional - including actions from activist judges, as well as a separate case where Massachusetts became the first and only state to approve same-sex marriage...which according to him was in contrast of what the people believed.
"Senator Allen," I began, leaving a bit of a pause, "I think we both can agree that what the majority may think, is not necessarily always constitutional. Take a look at history - slavery for example, that was supported by a majority of our citizens at one time, but it by far was not constitutional, and it by far was invading the basic freedom of citizens in this country. We can not say that majority rule is necessarily constitutional when it comes to issues of human rights and basic civil liberty. I, as of now, do not have the choice to be married."
http://tullysatre.livejournal.com/8396.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
