Senate Republicans in the Closet

Yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee met in a large closet to pass a constitutional amendment legalizing discrimination. The Federal Marriage Amendment would create a system of apartheid in America, delineating two separate classes of rights: one for straight people and one for GLBT people. This system of sexual apartheid was fittingly accomplished in a closet. The committee met ina room so tiny no one other than the Senators could observe.

Isn't this against the entire concept of open government? Maybe Snarlin Arlen Specter wanted to hide the fact he voted for this Amendment even though he claims to be against it. The old "I was against it before I was for it" stand of conscience and principle.... When our U.S. Senator doesn't feel it necessary or critical to stand up for equal rights we all should be very worried.

Specter had a little dust up with Senator Russ Feingold, on record as supporting equal rights for all Americans (what a revolutionary concept!) Feingold decided to leave the hearing ad Snarlin' Arlin had these words for the 2008 Presidential hopeful:

"I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I. If you want to leave, good riddance."

How does Senator Specter figure they're equal protectors of the constitution when he's voting to gut the Fourteenth Amendment? Once we decide it's ok to abridge the rights of gays and lesbians who will be next on the GOP hit list? Latinos? Women? African-Americans? Jews? It's a slippery slope.

For the record here's Senator Feingold's statement:

“Today’s markup of the constitutional amendment concerning marriage, in a small room off the Senate floor with only a handful of people other than Senators and their staffs present, was an affront to the Constitution. I objected to its consideration in such an inappropriate setting and refused to help make a quorum. I am deeply disappointed that the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee went forward with the markup over my objection. Unfortunately, the Majority Leader has set a politically motivated schedule for floor consideration of this measure that the Chairman felt compelled to follow, even though he says he opposes the amendment.

Constitutional amendments deserve the most careful and deliberate consideration of any matter that comes before the Senate. In addition to hearings and a subcommittee markup, such a measure should be considered by the Judiciary Committee in the light of day, open to the press and the public, with cameras present so that the whole country can see what is done. Open and deliberate debate on such an important matter cannot take place in a setting such as the one chosen by the Chairman of the Committee today.

The Constitution of the United States is an historic guarantee of individual freedom. It has served as a beacon of hope, an example to people around the world who yearn to be free and to live their lives without government interference in their most basic human decisions. I took an oath when I joined this body to support and defend the Constitution. I will continue to fight this mean-spirited, divisive, poorly drafted, and misguided amendment when it comes to the Senate floor.”

Which one of these men would you rather have defending your constitutional rights?