That's One Hell of a Technical Glitch

As a member of the Human Rights Campaign organization, I get every email update that they send. They provide very handy links to email our state senators regarding issues in which we would like to voice our opinion. There is a canned email and also the opportunity to add your own verbiage, to personalize your message to your govermental representatives.

My recent participation was in relation to the Marriage Protection Ammendment and my letters went to the MN Senators, Norm Coleman (R) and Mark Dayton (D).

I received a response from the Coleman camp, almost immediately. I found that refreshing, although I am not at all a Norm supporter. But, the response that I received has left me in a state of shock. Check this out:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mrs. S:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding the Marriage Protection Amendment (S.J. Res. 1).

You will be pleased to know that I share your view that marriage is intended to be between one man and one woman. I support a constitutional amendment that would constitutionalize the Defense of Marriage Act, ensuring that the citizens of a state, through their legislature, have the right to define marriage as they see fit. Moreover, I believe that state legislatures and citizens, not activist judges, should determine what constitutes a marriage.

The Marriage Protection Amendment was introduced on January 24, 2005, by Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) and referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary where it was reported favorably by the Constitution Subcommittee on November 9, 2005. This resolution proposes a constitutional amendment holding that only marriages between men and women will be recognized as legal marriages in the United States . In addition, this resolution would prohibit any state or federal laws that seek to confer marital status to unmarried couples or groups.

My two chief concerns about this particular resolution are that the language may to go beyond the issue of defining marriage and into other matters like employer-provided health care programs, for example, and that it substitutes the judgment citizens of each state should make through their legislatures. While this right is protected by current Federal law, recent court rulings suggest that a constitutional amendment may be necessary. As you know, the Defense of Marriage Act passed the House and Senate by overwhelming, bipartisan majorities, 342 - 67 in the House and 85 - 14 in the Senate.

You will be pleased to know that on July 14, 2004, I voted to end a filibuster and allow an up or down vote on this issue. While that procedural vote failed 48-50, Majority Leader Frist has expressed interest in bringing this legislation to the floor this summer. I will keep your views in mind as we once again take up this issue in the Senate.

I am humbled to serve as your Senator, and hope you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you or your family.


Sincerely,
Norm Coleman
United States Senate
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Um. Did he just say that we're on the same page? Oh no you di-in't.

Then I got this:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mrs. S:

First, I would like to apologize for a technical glitch in our mail system which resulted in my sending an incorrect response to your recent email. Opinions of Minnesotans matter to me, and your opposition to the Marriage Protection Amendment has been recorded. Your advice will remain important to me while I consider this issue.

However, I support a constitutional amendment that would constitutionalize the Defense of Marriage Act, ensuring that the citizens of a state, through their legislature, have the right to define marriage as they see fit. Moreover, I believe that state legislatures and citizens, not activist judges, should determine what constitutes a marriage.

I have not, however, agreed to support the Marriage Protection Amendment which was introduced on January 24, 2005, by Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) and referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary where it was reported favorably by the Constitution Subcommittee on November 9, 2005. This resolution proposes a constitutional amendment holding that only marriages between men and women will be recognized as legal marriages in the United States. In addition, this resolution would prohibit any state or federal laws that seek to confer marital status to unmarried couples or groups.

My two chief concerns about this particular resolution are that the language may to go beyond the issue of defining marriage and interfere with things such as employer-provided health care programs, for example and that it substitutes the judgment that citizens of each state should make through their legislatures.

Though we may agree at times and disagree at times, I value your advice.

Once again, I apologize for my earlier response. I am humbled to serve as your Senator, and hope you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you or your family.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I love how the automated responses try to sound so personal. "I apologize for my earlier response." .....where I completely disrespected your opinion. "I value your advice."......but only follow it if you promise to vote for me when I run for president.

Norm, tell your techies to kiss my fat liberal ass. And while you're at it, you can go ahead and pucker up too.