Aimee Wilson - Victimless Violator

From the Oregonian this morning, "GOP complaints targets lesbian: Lobbyist shouldn't have been on the House floor, they claim," by AP reporter Aaron Clark.

This article is worded rather interestingly. For example, the headline proclaims: "GOP ... targets lesbian". Clark opens the article "House Republicans [in the Oregon legislature] raised a stink ... because a lesbian lobbyist sat with her partner - state Rep. Tina Kotek - at her desk on the House floor last week during a lengthy debate about gay rights." (emphasis mine)

Raised a stink?!? Why not say the GOP pointed out that a lobbyist sitting with Kotek during the debate violated House rules? Why? Because using perjorative language creates a negative emotional response against the GOP.

Notice the language: the GOP raised a stink against this nice lesbian who was doing nothing but sitting with her partner. Clark reinforces this later by noting "Kotek kissed Wilson (the lobbyist) on the cheek after the bills passed."

The sweet, loving couple targeted by the mean, bigoted, intolerant, anti-gay Republicans! That was exacting the message conveyed via the language used by this journalistic professional.

In fact, Clark quotes the lobyist, Aimee Wilson, who "questioned the timing of the GOP criticism a week after the House debate:"

"I was acting in that capacity as her spouse [my note: at that moment there was no concept of a same-gender spouse in Oregon law]. I just have to wonder whether this is about really protecting the process or if this is really about the issue at hand."

The question for Ms. Wilson is this, "Did your presence during the vote violate House rules?" Period. The timing isn't an issue. If you have a problem with the timing don't violate the rules! But instead of addressing the real question she tries to paint herself as the victim. And she has a willing accomplice in the reporter, Aaron Clark.

This isn't surprising given one of the bills being voted upon. The domestic partnership bill provides all the state benefits of marriage. Advocates changed the name from Civil Unions to Domestic Partnerships to gain more political support. This means that civil unions is the same thing only under a different name.

If domestic partnerships and civil unions give all the benefits of marriage that the state of Oregon can provide then they are no different from marriage. Yet, the Oregon Constitution only allows marriage between a man and a woman.

To allow marriage for same-gender relationships, advocates changed the name. Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, Marriage are all synonyms (different words that mean the same thing) which means the bill's sponsors, every legislator who voted for it, and the governor who signed it, are actively violating the Oregon Constitution.

If Rep. Kotek and Ms. Wilson will willfully violate their state's Constitution, it is not hard to fathom that they wouldn't have a problem violating a House rule also.

The Definition of Victory

Yesterday, Senate majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) said, "this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence yesterday.^[1] (emphasis added)

This raises a question in my mind. What, in Senator Reid's view, would constitute a victory?

If "extreme violence yesterday" is objective evidence that the "surge is not accomplishing anything" and thus the "war is lost," then Reid must believe that the criterion for victory is not to have "extreme violence."

This seems rather naive to me. Does Reid just expect the enemy to roll over and do nothing? The surge, by definition, increases troop strength to engage the enemy ... to root them out. More engagement means more violence. And the terrorists, who were targeting (i.e. bringing violence upon) civilians when we were not surging would naturally (and not unexpectedly) increase their level of violence.

Reid's comment is nonsensical. Had someone asked him to define his criterion for victory this would have been obvious. This should be a question for all our political leaders regardless of the political party: Define what victory means in Iraq, in Afganistan, in the war against radical Islam.

Every generation faces a great evil. Our generation is no different. If we do not define what victory looks like then there will be no rallying around an objective and no hope for victory.

Then, history will record Senator Reid as a prophet.

Not because the war was lost on the battlefield but because it was lost in our hearts.

[1] Anne Flaherty, "Reid says War is Lost", AP, published by The Columbian (Vancouver, WA), 4/20/07, A8.