Josh Shapiro, freshman representative for the 153rd district faces a Republic challenger, Lou Guerra, Jr. I have written positively about Shapiro in the past and had looked into his opponent. Guerra has an impressive background and I had hopes of a good race, cleanly fought. Alas, it is not to be.
Guerra's first press real press release (besides the one announcing his candidacy), criticizes Shapiro for voting against the "marriage amendment." The release says, in part:
The bill does not take away rights from anyone. All United States citizens are accorded basic rights under the U.S. Constitution. I firmly believe that everyone should be treated with respect, including those with whom we disagree. An amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman does nothing to hinder rights or diminish the ability of citizens to honor private commitments. This bill simply recognizes the importance of the traditional family and protects it from activists who would radically re-define what marriage is, Guerra said.
Unfortunately, the incumbent state representative voted against the traditional family. It is sad that Josh Shapiro does not recognize the value of marriage and refused to vote for this basic protection.
The amendment itself reads:
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this Commonwealth, and neither the commonwealth nor any of its political subdivisions shall create or recognize a legal status identical or substantially equivalent to that of mariage for unmarried individuals.
That means no civil unions for either homosexual or heterosexual couples. The 153rd district is in Montgomery County, which currently offers benefits to domestic partners of employees, which it might not be able to do if the amendment becomes law. I'm not sure how this "does nothing to hinder rights or diminish the ability of citizens to honor private commitments," as Guerra states.
Pennsylvania already has a "Defense of Marriage Act," which, according to the Inky, "upholds the traditional definition of marriage, but does not expressly prohibit civil unions." ("Same-sex partners fear losing rights -- Ripples from Pa. vote on gay marriage," by Amy Worden)
I have been married to Mr. J for over 20 years and not once have I felt our marriage was threatened by recognizing the unions of gay couples who could not legally be married.
What I find so odd about Guerra's choice of this issue as his opening salvo is that he is qualified to speak on so many other issues pertinent to the state. He is an expert in watershed protection, an important topic in a floodprone area like the 153rd. He has 20 years experience in the public sector. Surely there is something else he can hang his hat on.
I am very disappointed that Guerra decided to pick on this issue above all others. It colors his campaign and what seems to be perhaps a shaky grasp of the issue's ramifications for the county he lives in. It surely isn't something that important to the 153rd. A promising race has suddenly become another mudfest, at least on Guerra's part.
Posts
5 comments:
Dear Jane:
The extreme right-wing conservatives have become unhinged because "W" has turned out to be a pathetic, lying failure. The base of the GOP is deserting them--like rats leaving a sinking ship. Instead of being surprised, you should brace yourself for more of the same.
Semper fido!
Yep, that's about the size of it.
On a state-wide or national level I could see this being used as an issue to attract conservative voters, but in a state house race??? I just did a lot of research on the area for a future post (how's that for building suspense?) and it's a swing district. He will lose as many as he gains with this. Plus, as I say, there are a lot of other things he could weigh in on. One other reason I wrote on this is that I saw Guerra in person once and was impressed with him. He seemed sensible, personable, all those good things. Granted I wasnt' close enough to hear him talk but just a passing impression was positive. I had high hopes for this race, even though I think it's pretty much a done deal for Shapiro. I'll have to get my "good, clean race" jollies watching Paston and Murt.
Anonymous, don't mess with the Marines. They take that motto very seriously, and if you know your Latin, you'll know your parody isn't too far off the mark of the real thing.
Follow the money, Jane. Those wingnuts are big givers to any politician that
supports their social positions.
I had high hopes for my Republican rep. on the amendment. She's always struck me as being very independent, and really a pretty good fit for the district. I had even emailed her thanking her for not being a sponsor of the marriage amendment, not speaking out in favor of it, etc, and hoping that she'd be able to resist her caucus' pressure on the amendment. Alas, Kate Harper voted yes on the damn thing.
Post a Comment