What should voters make of a candidate for U. S. Senate who uses an anti-equality former state legislator to entice women to work his campaign phone bank?
Gabriel Gomez is the Republican candidate running against U. S. Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA05) in the June 25 special election to fill John Kerry’s Massachusetts Senate seat.
Mr. Gomez has stated that he supports the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and that he is “against any kind of discrimination”. Yet he remains silent on his views on any LGBT-related legislation currently pending in the Senate such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).
An understanding of the candidate’s views on ENDA is vital since a vote on the bill is expected in the Senate in July. Since ENDA would be one of the first bills Mr. Gomez would be voting on if he gets elected, Massachusetts voters deserve to know what his plan of action is on this bill, or if he even has one.
Rep. Markey is a co-sponsor of ENDA, so his views are clear.
When there is deafening silence from a candidate like Mr. Gomez, voters are forced to look for other signs of sincerity and intent from the candidate’s campaign. For example, Mr. Gomez has chosen Karyn Polito to be the star attraction of the “Women For Gomez” phone bank his campaign is holding in Worcester this evening.
Ms. Polito was a state representative from 2001 to 2011. During that time she was one of the last anti-gay holdouts in the legislature who voted (unsuccessfully) to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. She also voted against allowing out-of-state same-sex couples to marry in Massachusetts.
Until last month, Ms. Polito was campaign manager for Mike Sullivan, an anti-choice, anti-equality Republican candidate who lost to Mr. Gomez in the April special primary.
There is always the ugly possibility that Mr. Gomez simply selected Ms. Polito to appear tonight because she is a woman, and doesn’t consider her discriminatory views to be as important as having a woman — any woman — headlining his event. He did, after all, use the pink = ladies cliche in his invitation.
Unless Mr. Gomez takes a few minutes out of his busy fun run schedule to start speaking substantively to the issues, voters will have to fill in the blanks for themselves. “I’m against any kind of discrimination” sounds nice, but so far Mr. Gomez has shown no sign that he has the guts to stand behind his words or a plan to enact them.
Cross-posted at Pam’s House Blend.
Why call her anti-gay because she has a different view on the definition of marriage. To call a person anti-gay b/c they may hold a biblical view on marriage, is beyond the pale.
For instance, would it be fair for pro-life people to define pro-choice advocates as anti-babies/children? Or people who want a secure border, racists?
I say this b/c BMG should not be like the American Spectator, where people like myself are called communist or socialists, simply b/c I believe in universal health care for our citizens.
Karyn Polito was likely there for her passion with budget issues, and limited taxation. I would have apprehension with any politician, who surrounds themselves with just “Yes-men”. Markey recently cancelled a fundraiser with a former colleage and friend, Ben Jones, a/k/a “Cooter” from The Dukes of Hazzard, because Cooter thought The General Lee should be allowed to appear at a race function, with the Confederate flag on the roof, as it was during the popular tv show in the 70’s and 80’s.
she is anti-gay because she’s taken several anti-gay *votes*. You can’t be pro-gay and take anti-gay votes.
I don’t believe a person should be pigeoned-holed into one category or another, based on one issue alone. The votes you mentioned, I believe, were several votes on one particular topic. She is anti-gay marriage, but not anti gay people.
Oh, in-case anyone is wondering where I stand, I believe govt shouldn’t be in the marriage business. You want to get married, fine, but no benefit like a tax credit or deduction.
Saying that the Government should not have any role in marriage is an extreme radical view that goes against hundreds of years of American and English common law. Marriage in this country has *always* been a civil contract overseen by the government. The fact that various religions have their own concepts of marriage is irrelevant to the rights and responsibilities under the law.
There is no such thing as a “biblical view on marriage”! If you believe that there is, then cite chapter and verse. The “biblical view on marriage” is:
Since I choose not to abide by a bloody theocracy that treats women like property, find a logically consistent defense.
Proverbs 5:18-19
May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, a graceful deer– may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love.
What is a wife? Anyway, u r sidetracking the post.
A proverb is not a definition:
1) Next you will be quoting daily affirmations.
2) Once again, there shall be no establishment of Religion.
This is exactly on point, the bible is not relevant to establishing laws!
Thou shall not covet your neighbors wife. Doesn’t say girlfriend or significant other. And marriage is a sacrament..isn’t it?
That is where Biblical marriage comes from, call it what you want, but don’t call people who disagree with you, haters. That is the point of the comments, nothing else.
By the way, glad all is well with your heart and all. I was going to comment on your Memorial Day Post about not forgetting all the brave dogs lost in combat as well, sniffing out bombs and getting killed, protecting our military personal.
Strike Two – Want to go for three strikes. Then you will be OUT.
So why can’t the marriage of two guys or two gals be a sacrament, why can’t a marriage simply be a sacrament. There are plenty of bigots out there who will immediate jump to the old “God hates Fags” chestnut. And when you get to that point, and when you vote against the rights of Americans because of your religion, you are a hater, pure and simple.
All you have done so far is refer to places within the bible in which words pre-“assume” the definition you want to see in them. But it isn’t there. Again, I am an American and I live by the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the establishment of a religion.
Check and Mate!
“his manservant, his maidservant, his ox, his ass, or anything that is thy neighbor’s” so what does that say about how wives were looked upon. For the record only some churches (Catholic and I believe Orthodox) call it a sacrament; Protestants generally do not.
but coveting your neighbor’s ass is what started all this. Bud dump Bump.
How does that specify only heterosexual marriage? My neighbor could be a woman, right?
…per this list, none of which seems appropriate today. There is even enough inconsistency that Henry VIII married his brother’s widow because he thought the Bible commanded him to, but when she couldn’t produce a male heir he conveniently found another passage suggesting that doing so was a sin. As for sidetracking, you brought the Bible into this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw
Gabriel Gomez, what?
Mitt Romney, where?
The party of non-sequitir.
They have no bearing on the issue of equality before the law under the United States Constitution and it’s 14th Amendment, and I believe the 1st Amendment prevents them from being used to make policy on behalf of all Americans.
No lawmaker should base his or her votes on what’s in the Bible. Also, trying to use the book to justify a political position is pointless, because its many writers contradict each other on so many things, as is demonstrated in the comments above.
I think it’s one thing to allude to religious principles as guideposts for a political philosophy, my liberalism directly relates to the kind of Catholicism I was raised in, that I suspect Pope Francis is trying to revive, is one focused on good works and helping the poor. A guidepost for a politicians personal values is one thing, using the state as an arm to enforce one faiths values on the entire population is another-and the founders were incredibly prescient when they defended both freedom of religion and clear church and state separation. Considering how they it so much wrong, try definitely got that one right.
Dan From Waltham asks us to believe that Karen Polito is merely “anti-gay marriage, but not anti-gay people.”
Wrong. Ms. Polito is blatantly anti-LGBT people.
She cannot deny civil marriage rights to an entire swath of the population and then honestly claim that she’s not refusing them full participation in society.
GOP politicos often make such illogical, dishonest claims, without hearing the sheer idiocy of anyone who says, “Yes, I’m oppressing you, but that doesn’t mean I dislike you.”