Bil Browning

Compare and contrast

Filed By Bil Browning | February 16, 2007 2:22 PM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags: amendment, Brent Steele, constitutional amendment, Glenn Howard, marriage, SJR-7, State Senate

I thought I'd share two interesting examples of the differences between some state senators.

First the e-mail Sen. Glenn Howard is sending out to his constituents who wrote him about SJR-7:

Dear Hoosier,

Thank you for writing to express your opinion on Senate Joint Resolution 7 concerning the definition of marriage.

Just to let you know the progress of this resolution, it has passed 3rd reading in the Senate by a vote of 39-Yeas, 10-Nays, 1-Excused and has been referred to the House of Representatives. I voted in opposition of this bill because I feel there are more pressing issues that require our undivided attention, such as property tax legislation, full day kindergarten, and health care for Hoosiers, I regret we wasted time on this resolution.

My personal belief is that people are born a gay. If someone wants to enter into a gay relationship, it is their business and legislators have no right to control their personal lives. I felt that this legislation was discriminatory. This gives companies, organizations, and other entities the right to discriminate against same sex couples.

Since only 10 Senators opposed SJR 7, this resolution will be heard in the House of Representatives and you can contact your local representative to express your opposition of this resolution.

Again, thank you for being a concerned citizen and caring about our community. Always know that your opinions and comments are greatly appreciated and welcomed.

Senator Glenn Howard
Indiana District #33

Contrast that with Sen Brent Steele's recent pack of lies:

Thank you for your email regarding Senate Joint Resolution 7. I appreciate your comments; however, I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the marriage amendment.

The amendment does not seek to regulate private conduct, only state recognition of such conduct by virtue of preferred benefits such as tax status and related legal issues. Marriage is a legal and social construct which grants over 1100 legal rights and privileges. Marriage law has always been a matter of state law jurisdiction and the amendment simply seeks to preserve the law in its current state.

Again, thank you for writing. If I may be of further assistance to you in the future, please let me know.

Brent Steele
State Senator

Let's hope for the future of Indiana that we have more Glenn Howards and fewer Brent Steeles. Our lives depend on it.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Of course Glenn is right on this issue, Bil. He's a genuinely nice guy, too.

But he's otherwise an embarrassment in the legislature. On both sides of the aisle, among most lobbyists (I know, a sordid bunch themselves), among other elected officials, Glenn is laughable on many occasions.

His letter is good, and welcome. We need friends in the legislature.

But in the universe of legislative service, Glenn is not a good legislator. Very sadly, he's not even close.

I'd rather have one man who's heart is in the right place but bumbled through life than a thousand men with bigotry at their core who excelled at political power. *shrugs*

Of course you're right. But caution is warranted. There are House members on the fence on this issue. And some of them think Sen. Howard is a goof.

It's all about the House now. That's all we have. Fifty one people. That's should be burned into our minds for the next few weeks. (Fingers crossed)