The favor of a reply is requested
There has been much anguish and gnashing of teeth about whether the owners of BlueNC (that would include me) fear a full-throttled discussion of LGBT issues. Anyone who knows me at all understands such fears are unfounded. This is a critical civil rights and equity issue that any serious candidate for state or federal office should want to address.
In the case of Senator Hagan, I see these issues as an opportunity to demonstrate a level of thoughtfulness about equality and civil rights that Liddy Dole doesn't even have the capacity to consider. More to the point, the manner in which these issues are addressed will reflect deeply on any candidate's readiness for office.
With all this in mind, I am reposting the questions here for Senator Hagan's consideration. I don't expect to get a response immediately since the legislature is back in session, but I promise I will continue to ask the questions. And I hope Kay Hagan will answer them.
Senator Dole has not supported any legislation before her that would extend civil rights to LGBT citizens. What are your positions on matters under consideration in the U.S. Senate that will profoundly affect gay and lesbian taxpaying citizens here in NC. Below is legislation already introduced or about to be introduced that you would cast a vote on during your term if elected.
1. Federal hate crimes legislation. Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R. 1592 / S. 1105).
2. Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). One version has already passed the House. It would prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation. Gender identity is included in the other version of the bill.
3. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal, which would allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. This has been introduced in the House and will likely be introduced in the Senate.
4. The Uniting American Families Act (H.R. 2221, S. 1328), that would enable an American citizen to petition for immigration sponsorship for a same-sex partner, and the INS would treat the relationships between opposite and same-sex couples in the same manner under the immigration code.
***************
Regarding civil marriage. In her consistent position in favor of restricting rights of LGBT citizens, Senator Dole voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment in 1996. During a Feb. 25 forum at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, you conveyed to attendees that the definition of marriage should be left up to state law. How is that reconciled with 1967's Loving v. Virginia, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that invalidated state bans on interracial marriages? Should that have been left a state matter? Would you be in favor of overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act in full?
What legal rights should tax-paying gay and lesbian couples NOT have access to if you believe that extending civil marriage is inappropriate at this time. Do you believe that there should not be parity with opposite-sex married couples regarding: inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, equal pension and health care benefits, and the over 1,100 other legal protections government affords couples via civil, not religious, marriage?
The favor of a reply is requested.
- James's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Have no fear
These are complicated issues about which people of good intentions can disagree. For example, I generally do not support government involvement in the sanctioning of marriage, whether between heterosexuals, homosexuals or anyone else. I do not believe that federal or state governments should have a role in defining marriage whatsoever.
That said, there clearly is a role for government laws and regulations in the creation of contracts between people ... contracts that lay out a clear delineation of responsibilities and rights. That's true for a contract associated with buying a car, and it's true for a contract for services between a plumber and a homeowner.
Should there be limitations on who can enter such contracts (beyond the limitations of contracts involving minors) based on gender identity? Absolutely not. People should be treated equally under the law.
Will we be able to get to this clear state of affairs anytime soon? Probably not. But with that long-term vision in mind, we should be able to chip away at the challenge and keep things moving in the right direction. Any legislation or proposals that don't head in the right direction should be rejected. Those that do move toward the goal of equality should be embraced.
Nicely put
Both the thread question and your follow-up reply.
thanks, James
Maybe you'll have better luck with my questions. I think that part of the derailment was the Hagan campaign's treatment of those asking the questions (myself included) when following up after the liveblog. That was more disturbing than anything. No acknowledgment of a prospective constituent's request at all, and with that no response of any kind, after multiple attempts to politely request a public response.
Considering the poor record of Elizabeth Dole and constituent services, that act alone, aside from not engaging the questions, raised red flags for me. No one has been able to explain that away, or the fact that she would not answer the same questions when asked by LGBT media in the state. She did address two of them in the later televised debate; it therefore leaves it open to suggestion, absent an explanation, that engaging with LGBTs on issues of direct concern in a public way may be part of the problem, rather than the questions -- a political cost-benefit analysis that is never going to be admitted if it is true.
That (mis)perception could be countered with a willingness to discuss the issues with LGBT media in NC.
--
Pam Spaulding
Durham, NC USA
Pam's House Blend
www.pamshouseblend.com
The answer to most of these are in the public record and domain
As a state senator from Guilford County, Kay Hagan, has supported and encouraged discussion about hate crimes laws by bringing the bill up when she chaired a committee of jurisdiction in the NC Senate. She also stated her support for such protection in the Greensboro debate/forum.
She has co-sponsored ENDA-like legislation as recently as the 2007 legislative session.
She stated her support for the ending of DADT in the debate/forum in Greensboro.
The only topic I have not found a response to is the federal Uniting American Families Act, but I may have missed it.
Senator Hagan has also not been a co-sponsor of the state level marriage amendment introduced time and again in the NC Senate.
While these public facts may not directly answer all of these questions in a specifically worded response, the public record provides a good deal of information.
Thanks, Usernamehere
I appreciate the information.
Nice name.
Indirect answers are not quite the same
If she believes as her record would indicate, then why duck Pam's questions?
Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.
I will admit to having been too absent for too long...
And, perhaps, my thoughts are no longer of interest to this august group.
But, never having been too mindful of the group, I'm going to share anyway.
The answers to the questions in question may well be already in the public domain. If that's the case, State Senator Hagan (or an appropriate surrogate) need only say "My position is clear. My vote/my comment/my speech/my legislation, all which are in the public domain, show my support for _______" And that would end the questions about the questions.
By not answering the questions, by not responding, and not acknowledging them, State Senator Hagan is disrespecting the questions, the issues, and the question-askers. And that's a darned shame.
State Senator Kay Hagan may have won the Democratic Primary for Senator Dole's seat. That doesn't mean she stops working for the vote in November.
'Cuz, to be honest, I'll write in Jim Neal in November the same way I wrote in John Edwards in May.
Thomas S. Brock
www.brocknet.net
http://blogs.brocknet.net/bloviations/
What have YOU done today to elect a Democrat?
Gay rights and immigration
I am a gay British man, with an America boyfriend. I was amazed to find that there is no legal way that I can join my boyfriend in the US. America is the leader of the free world, how can it not treat its citizens equally.
I am also surprised at how little opposition to this discrimination there appears to be. This is an issue that could potentially affect every gay American. There seems very little information on the internet also.
However much I love him, I can’t become an illegal alien.
Well, you could go to California, and marry him.
You could then live in California or New York. (I think.)
But you're right, it's ridiculous. (And I think you mean there's no way for you to be a legal alien.) There are probably some ways, but they're all incredibly expensive. I have several friends who have moved to Europe, specifically to the Netherlands, because of how silly things are here.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors