Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous | Next

Thanks for playing games with my life

Well hooray for Vermont (and a belated hooray for Iowa, too). Getting the measure passed by the legislature and not having it handled by the courts (designed, I might add, for the very purpose of preventing the will of the majority from trampling all over the rights of the minority, in case you didn't know that already) is a big win.

Reading the story, however, I'm really miffed about this particular quote:

"Rep. Jeff Young, D-St. Albans, who voted no twice because he's philosophically opposed to gay marriage, joined most other Democrats in voting to override Douglas' veto.

'I think if I wanted to continue my career here and have any chance of being effective, I had to vote with my caucus,' he said.

'You have some pet projects, you think you can help your district back home with things that need to happen,' he said. 'I want to get a railroading bill through. I wouldn't even have had a chance to testify, let alone get it through. Now, people will listen to me. It's the way the political game is played.'
Well fuck you very much, asshole. Don't worry about what's right, and forget the fact that your decisions affect millions of people's lives, you just go ahead and "play the game" to save your voter-approved career, because, you know, business as usual is far more important than my life. Yeah, that's "effective," you fucker.

P.S. It disturbs me that there's an anti group called the National Organization for Marriage - NOM. I refuse to let that affect how I look at lolcats. :)


( 14 comments — Comment )
(Deleted comment)
Apr. 8th, 2009 07:18 pm (UTC)
The honesty is refreshing; the sentiment is most assuredly not. Keep in mind his "personal gain" is there at the will of the people.
Apr. 8th, 2009 11:43 pm (UTC)
I'm wondering: do you then offer kudos to Gov. Palin for vetoing a bill that would have denied benefits to same sex couple because it was the legally correct thing to do (the will of the people as reflected in in state Constitution) even though she herself does not support the position? Just curious.
Apr. 9th, 2009 03:42 am (UTC)
I remember during the campaign being amazed that as conservative (and nutty, IMHO) as she is that she did so, and for the reason she did so. Of course she later flip-flopped and supported denying same sex couples health benefits, but that part wasn't as much of a surprise.
Apr. 9th, 2009 05:22 am (UTC)
Not actually. She never supported same sex benefits, but she consuted her AG and when he told her the law was against Alaska's Constituion, she vetoed it despite her personal beliefs. That showd a lot of integrity IMO, and impresed me a lot. I don't necessarily have to agree with a politician's positions, but if they have the integrity to follow the LAW in spite of them, that counts for a lot.
Apr. 9th, 2009 01:04 pm (UTC)
By the same token, sometimes the law isn't right, but hey, thank goodness for our imperfect democracy so we can discuss these things and work them out. :)
Apr. 8th, 2009 08:13 pm (UTC)
And oh by the way, Dear Elected Representative Young, your job is to represent your CONSTITUENTS, not your own philosophy. Do your damn job idiot.
Apr. 8th, 2009 08:22 pm (UTC)
Damn this Republic! :)
Apr. 8th, 2009 11:56 pm (UTC)
Politics is a tough game, and I don't envy people who go into it even while I recognize it's a necessary evil. In this guy's frankness, I value his ability to do the right thing (override the veto) even as he forthrightly claims it's not in his personal interest to do so.

Although by being TOO honest, he may have inadvertently alienated his colleagues, though their mileage may vary.

Elective government is a tricky thing. If (and if I ever were in this situation, reality would be seriously warped) I found myself in a position to represent a majority of people with very different view from mine, I would seriously see the dilemma between functioning as a true representative of your constituents vs. making an ethical statement. One can resign "on principle," (or sour grapes, take your pick) but if you're otherwise serving the people effectively and feel that you can really make a difference by staying, who's to say staying and trying to convince your constituents to see your point of view isn't a better approach?

As an example -- if the majority of people in my district are senior citizens who don't want to properly fund public education, do I take what I think is a principled stand to convince them that better public education actually benefits everyone (and possibly incur their wrath in the voting booth and be voted out of office, and thereby losing the ability to create real change) -- or to serve your constituents on the most basic level, i.e. accede to their wishes and retain the power to possibly make real change that way?

I don't think there's a clear cut answer for every single issue and to be honest, with regards to the marriage issue I think the government should get out of the "marriage" business altogether; regardless of orientation, everyone should be classified as having a civil union, period. "Marriage" is just too loaded a word at this point and it really needs to be expunged from governmental definition.

People should be allowed to consider themselves married as they like informally, but for governmental, tax and legal purposes, I say civil unions for everybody. It achieves the level of fairness we're looking for plus has the added benefit of shutting up irrational religious-based arguments.
Apr. 9th, 2009 03:45 am (UTC)
I know what you're saying, I just didn't care for his self-righteous tone. "I only voted that way 'cause I *had* to" doesn't exactly endear him to me.
Apr. 9th, 2009 12:55 am (UTC)
you forgot Washington DC. evidently they are ok with the gay now too.

but yeah reality. it sometimes sucks the ass. i hate people.
Apr. 9th, 2009 03:45 am (UTC)
DC's always been far more liberal than people realize, but yeah, it's nice they're going that way, too.
Apr. 9th, 2009 05:18 pm (UTC)
This is how the Liberal Party in Canada play every single vote. They tend to look at people funny if urged to vote on principle.

I winced every time Stéphane Dion in our last election warned against Harper's socially conservative agenda. He voted against same-sex marriage back in 1999 because that's how the political winds were blowing. He never explained, apologized, or alluded to it during the last election.
Apr. 10th, 2009 02:30 am (UTC)
You Canadians and your wacky well-hung parliaments! Oh, no, wait, that isn't it... :)
( 14 comments — Comment )

Latest Month

August 2019


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner