FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday November 09, 2007 CONTACT: Mark Drake
WASHINGTON WALZ VOTES AGAINST PROTECTING MARRIAGE
Self-Avowed "Independent Leader" Walz Sides With Hard-Left… Again
"With his vote against protecting state marriage laws, Tim Walz again serves as a rubber stamp for national liberals and once more demonstrates just how out of touch he is with southern Minnesota. Walz vowed to be an 'independent leader,' but has become one of the most liberal and partisan Democrats in all of Washington."
- Ron Carey, Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman
Walz Voted Against Protecting State Marriage Laws From Being Overturned, Redefined Or Restricted. (House Roll Call Vote 1056 , November 8, 2007)
I was a little confused by this claim. The bill referred to in Roll Call 1056 was a roll call for a motion to recommit HR 3685 - the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).
I've written Chairman Carey for comment, since Press Secretary Drake's contact information isn't on the press release on the party web site.
Dear Chairman Carey:
I tried to find Mark Drake's contact information on the RPM website and don't see it. Therefore I'm sending this to you, with a cc to Michael Brodkorb (who reposted it on his blog), and to the party general info email. I'm also ccing this to the Star Tribune and the Rochester Post Bulletin. This is a good "Is that a fact" blog post for the Big Question.
When I read the press release, I was confused. I follow the issue of "traditional marriage" fairly closely, and hadn't heard about a bill on the floor of congress addressing this issue. So I googled the Roll Call number you gave and found that the bill you claim was about "protecting marriage", was actually a bill prohibiting discrimination against gays. Why are you misrepresenting the bill? Also, why use the motion to recommit to make your point, rather than the final vote on the bill?
Walz, Ellison and McCollum voted against this. Peterson, Ramstad, Bachmann and Kline voted in favor
All Minnesota delegation except Bachmann and Kline voted in favor of this.
Don't believe me? Read the bill for yourself.
I'm writing a blog post about this, and would like to give you an opportunity to comment. I'm going with the facts now, but would like to get your response about why you claim a non-discrimination bill is about traditional marriage. When arguing against this bill, why not use more libertarian arguments such as those made by Dan Blatt of Gay Patriot rather than straw man arguments that the bill is about gay marriage. Dan is in the minority among the gay community - and even among gay republicans on this issue, but he has a good substantive argument. The same argument would hold for any discrimination laws.
Thank you for your attention.
It's also worth noting that Congressman Tim Walz didn't claim to oppose gay marriage when he ran for office. He said that he believed everybody should be able to participate in an institution that has been so good for he and his wife. Taking that stand did not hurt him with voters even though the usual suspects tried to use it against him.