"I think that the move was mean-hearted," said Moeller, one of four gay House members. "It really paints the Senate Republican caucus as the defenders of discrimination, and that's unfair because I know some people in that caucus who really don't buy into that."As I mentioned before, The Columbian (Vancouver, WA) published my article, 'Gay rights' bill tyranny in disguise, on why this legislation is not needed. My footnoted version is here.
Mr. Moeller has a history of crying wolf (see Jim Moeller's Record for examples). He excels at painting himself (and his cause) as victims. However, disagreement does not necessarily equate to discrimination. And Mr. Moeller believes you discriminate against homosexuals unless you bow before their agenda.
If you don't believe this then ask this question: " On what conditions would Mr. Moeller consider the bill's opponents to not be 'mean-spirited' and 'discriminatory'"? The answer is, if they agree with him and support the bill!
If he denies this then he must answer on what grounds can someone oppose this legislation and not be mean-spirited?
BTW, if he believes that it is not mean-spirited to oppose the bill but that using the parliamentary maneuver was the "mean-spirited" and "discriminatory" act then where was his outrage during the last session when his side used a parliamentary maneuver to force the House to address similar legislation (HB 1809)? [2]
Will Mr. Moeller answer these questions or will he continue to assassinate the characters of those who oppose him? The clock ticks.
[1] Don Jenkins, "Transportation budget doesn't please Wallace," Columbian, 4/11/2005, page C1.
[2] Don Jenkins, "Senate shutdown kills House bills, Columbian, 3/6/2004, page C1.
No comments:
Post a Comment