Nancy Boyda announces for Congress
She is gunning for a rematch with Rep. Ryun in Kansas' 2nd district.
I think Boyda is a very nice woman, with some good ideas. She would certainly be an improvement over Ryun. No contest.
But, last time around, she lost me (and I suspect many others) by coming out in FAVOR (not "undecided" or "unsure") of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would nationalizes anti-gay discrimination in the Constitituion.
Supposedly, she did this on the advice of her consultants (and contrary to her true personal feelings on the issue) who said that she needed to take such a position to have a shot in Kansas. Never mind that anyone for whom opposition to same-sex marriage is a motivating issue is already likely a die-hard Ryun supporter.
I actually was able to talk to Boyda at an event at which she was campaigning a few days before the 2004 election and confronted her on this issue. She hemmed and hawed, and said that we should concentrate on what brings us together, not what drives us apart. That sounds very good, but I cannot in good conscience support a candidate who says -- for whatever reason -- that they support writing discrimination into the founding document of this country. If Boyda continues to hold this position in 2006, she will not get my support, and I will strongly encourage all of my friends and colleagues to withhold their support as well. You don't have to vote for Ryun; you can leave that part of the ballot blank, or write someone in.
And just in case Boyda needs some artificial courage, here's a position on same-sex marriage that she can use. I can live with it, and it will play just fine in Kansas:
"The citizens of Kansas voted last year that the definition of marriage in Kansas is the union of one man and one woman. I support the rights of citizens of Kansas -- and every state -- to determine how they wish to define marriage in their state. I believe this important topic is best left for each state to decide on for itself without interference or coercion from other states or the federal government. This principle is called "Federalism" and is one of the pillars of our nation. I do not support any attempt to take away the rights of individual states to define marriage and I will not support a constitutional amendment on the Federal level that removes the ability for individual states to regulate marriage according to the will of their citizens."
She is gunning for a rematch with Rep. Ryun in Kansas' 2nd district.
I think Boyda is a very nice woman, with some good ideas. She would certainly be an improvement over Ryun. No contest.
But, last time around, she lost me (and I suspect many others) by coming out in FAVOR (not "undecided" or "unsure") of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would nationalizes anti-gay discrimination in the Constitituion.
Supposedly, she did this on the advice of her consultants (and contrary to her true personal feelings on the issue) who said that she needed to take such a position to have a shot in Kansas. Never mind that anyone for whom opposition to same-sex marriage is a motivating issue is already likely a die-hard Ryun supporter.
I actually was able to talk to Boyda at an event at which she was campaigning a few days before the 2004 election and confronted her on this issue. She hemmed and hawed, and said that we should concentrate on what brings us together, not what drives us apart. That sounds very good, but I cannot in good conscience support a candidate who says -- for whatever reason -- that they support writing discrimination into the founding document of this country. If Boyda continues to hold this position in 2006, she will not get my support, and I will strongly encourage all of my friends and colleagues to withhold their support as well. You don't have to vote for Ryun; you can leave that part of the ballot blank, or write someone in.
And just in case Boyda needs some artificial courage, here's a position on same-sex marriage that she can use. I can live with it, and it will play just fine in Kansas:
"The citizens of Kansas voted last year that the definition of marriage in Kansas is the union of one man and one woman. I support the rights of citizens of Kansas -- and every state -- to determine how they wish to define marriage in their state. I believe this important topic is best left for each state to decide on for itself without interference or coercion from other states or the federal government. This principle is called "Federalism" and is one of the pillars of our nation. I do not support any attempt to take away the rights of individual states to define marriage and I will not support a constitutional amendment on the Federal level that removes the ability for individual states to regulate marriage according to the will of their citizens."
posted by Mike at
11:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home