Jewitt Attacks Hoyer's Vote For Gay Marriage

[somd_bluecrab]

The following press release can be found on he Jewitt for Congress website:
http://www.jewitt2004.com/pdetails.asp?id=208

Brad Jewitt, Republican Candidate for Maryland’s 5th Congressional District, launched a scathing attack against Congressman Steny Hoyer’s vote this week to support gay marriage, calling it "an attack on the traditional American family." "Steny Hoyer has once again shown how his liberal voting record does not represent the values of the people of Maryland’s 5th Congressional District," said Jewitt. "His support for gay marriage does not represent the views of the majority of his constituents who support traditional family values. It is time for the people of Maryland to choose a representative who supports their values."

On Thursday, September 30th, the House of Representatives voted 227 to 186 on a constitutional amendment to support traditional marriage between a man and a woman. However, the measure fell 49 votes short of the required two-thirds majority to pass the proposed amendment. Maryland’s 5th District Congressman, Steny Hoyer, voted against the amendment and in support of gay marriage.

"Marriage has a fundamental impact on our society" said Jewitt. "I will take a stand for traditional marriage between a man and woman and will defend America’s right to establish the will of the people over the whims of a few activist judges," said Jewitt.

Brad Jewitt is a U.S. Marine veteran and the former Mayor of Berwyn Heights, Maryland. As the next Congressman, Mr. Jewitt’s goal is to improve the quality of life within Maryland’s Fifth District by removing barriers to small business growth and finalizing the President’s tax cuts, improving our systems of transportation and education, and enhancing national/regional security. He is a husband and father and a strong supporter of traditional family values. Please visit www.jewitt2004.com to learn more about Brad Jewitt’s campaign for U.S. Congress, or call 301-486-0089.​

 

[Oz]

Brad Jewitt is a U.S. Marine veteran and the former Mayor of Berwyn Heights, Maryland. As the next Congressman, Mr. Jewitt’s goal is to improve the quality of life within Maryland’s Fifth District by removing barriers to small business growth and finalizing the President’s tax cuts, improving our systems of transportation and education, and enhancing national/regional security. He is a husband and father and a strong supporter of traditional family values. Please visit www.jewitt2004.com to learn more about Brad Jewitt’s campaign for U.S. Congress, or call 301-486-0089.

In searching over the above web site for events in St. Mary's County, I find a $100 per person event in Alexandria, and a $250 per person event at the Capital Hill Club. It seems he's been to the Charlotte Hall Veterans Home about a year ago, and there's a photo opp pic at the Leonardtown Veterans Day Parade last year. What I was looking for is a schedule of campaign stops in St. Mary's County, but there don't appear to be any. It might be nice to bump into the candidate at a local St Mary's County event.

 

[Ken King]

This is the text of the amendment that did not receive the required support.

`Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'.

Doesn’t a person seeking to be a representative within Congress need to represent all of their constituents? We know that there are gay persons living within this district and we know that many of them desire to be treated equal to how heterosexual persons living in the district are treated. We also know that some states feel that all of their people, regardless of sexual orientation, should be allowed to choose their spouse and enjoy the benefit of such a union as has been their right. Our government is tasked and structured to treat people fairly and equally, this amendment seems contrary to that goal.

At times our representatives are required to make decisions that go against the popular mood of the people to insure that we treat all of our citizens equally. This time Hoyer’s vote, in my opinion, was the correct vote.

 

[smc33]

the vote

Hoyer's vote was justified. This is the first proposed amendment that would take rights away from groups of Americans since prohibition in the 1920's. The nation is changing and we need to look to the future. Hoyer is protecting the freedom of the people in our modern world.

 

[Hessian]

No...

Hoyer has no moral compass, and rather adhere's to yet another Liberal agenda that is so far out of step with the rest of the public sentiments that he has no grasp of what actual "civil rights" are.

Many states favor the ammendment with 65-75% in favor but "Oh No! Not Steny"...he lives in fear of Left wing wackos and pretents to crusade for "rights" that should not even be debated. Homosexuality should be studied, and treated as an abnormal disease...like it has been considered for decades in this country until some liberals on the left coast decided to call it "normal."...then it bacame fashionable to court the gay vote and draw parallels between Black Civil Rights and Gay "rights." Hundreds of Black leaders and Pastors have denounced the assumed parallel. They DO speak from experience and wisdom.

 

[willie]

I still find it hard to believe that this is actually an issue in any place except San Fransisco. Homosexuality is abnormal.

 

[Kizzy]

Heterosexuals believe that allowing gays to marry will undermine the meaning of marriage, but in a sense, Heterosexuals have already done it.

The divorce rate in this country is high, mainly because women do not need a man to survive in the world today. Sure, sometimes men leave their wives for another women and visa versa, but when you total up child support, a full time job and maybe even alimony, women can take their children with them and eventually do quite well. So with such undermining of marriage anyway, why do people get married to begin with? Security? Stability? Don’t they just want somebody to share each and every aspect of his or her life with? To talk to and exchange thoughts and ideas, feelings, during the good and bad times? Each and every homosexual relationship I’ve seen seems to have a strong emotional bond, maybe us heterosexuals can learn from but beside all of that, a marriage is more or less a legal contract that involves property, assets, and other forms that are financially grounded making divorce something that is more difficult, that must be sat down and divided up evenly and fairly. That just doesn't seem so adnormal to me to want my fair share in the event that a break up happens and financial assets must be divided as a hetrosexual, so why would homosexuals think or want something differently.

 

[old_chick]

Its all a bunch of bull crap anyway. The ammendment was introduced to try and divide the Country even farther apart and to divert attention from what is really important in this Country. What would it change in your life for gays to be married? What effect would it really have on you? What harm would it cause you? We need politicians that represent all of their constituants. Not just the ones that believe only as they do.

 

[vraiblonde]

I'm a white middle-aged high-school educated heterosexual conservative and even I'm appalled at the unconstitutionality of this amendment. I think we all knew it was never going to pass and I'm surprised it even got as many votes as it did. Too bad, though, because I'd have been really interested to hear what the Supremes had to say about this.

 

[vraiblonde]

Hoyer's vote was justified. This is the first proposed amendment that would take rights away from groups of Americans since prohibition in the 1920's. The nation is changing and we need to look to the future. Hoyer is protecting the freedom of the people in our modern world.

While I agree with you on the issue, I must pick apart your argument.

This amendment wouldn't have "taken" any rights away from anyone - gays already can't get married to a same-sex partner. And Prohibition didn't take anyone's rights away, either - there's nothing in the Constitution that says you have the right to sell or drink alcohol.

 

[Dymphna]

I'm a white middle-aged high-school educated heterosexual conservative and even I'm appalled at the unconstitutionality of this amendment. I think we all knew it was never going to pass and I'm surprised it even got as many votes as it did. Too bad, though, because I'd have been really interested to hear what the Supremes had to say about this.

Everyone knows that it is unconstitutional. THAT's why they wanted to make it an amendment. THAT by definition would make it constitutional. Those that support the amendment know that as soon as a clear case makes it to the Supreme Ct. that doesn't have other issues surrounding it (such as the ACLU suing the clerk of the St Mary's Circuit Court for following the rules stated in MD state law) that any prohibitions against gay marriage will be ruled unconstitutional.

The thing is, the way the constitution was set up, the federal government can't interfere with State law, except in some very specific areas. Marriage laws have always been the jurisdiction of the states. If you don't like that one state says you can't marry your first cousin, go to another one that says you can. Licenses are issued by the state, not the federal government. This amendment is treading on state's rights in an area that doesn't have to do with national security, interstate commerce or other areas vital to our cohesion as a united nation.

This amendment would be like the CEO telling the secretary how to type. The Fed would be micromanaging and that would be a disaster.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I proffer this from the Federalist 04-40 Brief :

"While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage...pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church and their creator, not with receiving their marriage license, thus being joined in the eyes of the state." --Rep. Ron Paul

 

[somd_bluecrab]

By the way, Mr. Hoyer strongly believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, too. But he believes it is a states rights issue, which will only cause problems when one state recognizes marriage in one way, and others go the other direction. Don’t be fooled. What Hoyer says/believes and what he does are two different things. That's why we need someone like Jewitt in there. Someone with integrity.

 

[somd_bluecrab]

In searching over the above web site for events in St. Mary's County, I find a $100 per person event in Alexandria, and a $250 per person event at the Capital Hill Club. It seems he's been to the Charlotte Hall Veterans Home about a year ago, and there's a photo opp pic at the Leonardtown Veterans Day Parade last year. What I was looking for is a schedule of campaign stops in St. Mary's County, but there don't appear to be any. It might be nice to bump into the candidate at a local St Mary's County event.

If you look at most candidates campaigns. Their schedules aren't published b/c they may and do change frequently. My family and I have seen him at most of the local county fairs. He was also at the Blessing of the Fleet this past weekend.

This coming weekend, he'll be at a meet and greet in Leonardtown. If you're interested in attending, please call the campaign office:

info@jewitt2004.com
P.O. Box 269
Greenbelt, Maryland 20768
Phone: (301)486-0089