Thursday, May 25, 2006

Rep. Rogers Takes on the Bullies

Wowzers, State Rep. John Rogers walked into the fiery furnace is Norwood and emerged whole. He came out looking even more courageous and principled than he entered. Good on him.

He stunned his suburban hick constituents last week by declaring that he no longer favored a ballot-initiative amendment banning further same-sex marriages here. He has said that at the July 12th Con Con, he'll vote against it.

A deep wrinkle is that he has been and remains a one-man/one-woman religious-based personal opponent of SSM. He has seemed to have gotten the distinction between religious rites and civil contracts. Again, good on him.

Last evening, he faced 70 screaming yokels, some of whom said they would never vote for him again. The detailed coverage is in the Daily News Transcript here.

He heard the same old let-us-vote! rhetoric and stood up to it with aplomb for two hours. He returned to the reasoning that the amendment was simply punitive and that its extreme position forbade all rights and privileges to any non-married family, gay or straight, sexualized or not.

When some of the shouters threatened to vote against him in the coming primary and general elections, he replied, "I suspect that every single one of your will do that in September and November and I'm not afraid of that." After the meeting, he answered a reporter's question of whether his position was political suicide with "I don't care."

It is fascinating that the staunch anti-gay forces cannot see the whole cloth, as Rogers has come to see it. It's not likely that many will by November.

Meanwhile, Rogers is showing the kind of courage and insight that we rarely get to witness in our politicians.

Tags: , , , , , ,

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Marrier, you diminsih yourself by calling those who disagree with you "hicks" and "yokels". You shouldn't be surprised nor offended when you cannot convince others of the merits of your position when you establish rule sof engagement that include name calling. I agree that rogers position is sound and not especially convenient for him. But you do a disservice to him and others who would consider joining him when you continue to jab at their constituents. I hardly believe that you would appreciate those who would call SSM supporters "flaming queers". Let's keep it civil.

Boo said...

Far and away the best quote from the article:

"I feel you took my rights away," said Foley, amid random cries from the crowd of "Let us vote."

How awful Rogers is to take away the rights of other people to take away the rights of other people!

Mass Marrier said...

Now, now. People who shout down politicians and spew hateful insults don't get to wear the cloak of civility as protection.

I've been called much worse than flaming queer over the years for protecting and advocating rights that the Norwoodites would strip from their fellow citizens. On this blog, I don't publish the worst personal insults aimed at me or my subjects or my commenters, though.

Rogers showed up to discuss and to answer questions. He maintained his cool in the face of rustic hostility and phenomenal ill manners. Yokel is a mild chide for their behavior.

UpTweet