Tweet
Rep. Stephen Lynch
I take Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) at his word that an e-mail glitch caused him to be the only member of the Massachusetts congressional delegation not to sign on to the amicus brief asking the US Supreme Court to strike down Section 3 of DOMA. After all, Rep. Lynch is a co-sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act (H.R 1116) which would repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
Yet upon learning about the glitch, Rep. Lynch failed to take the opportunity to assure Massachusetts that his support for DOMA repeal and LGBT civil equality hasn’t faltered. Rather than issuing a press release to that effect and posting the same on his website, a legislative spokesperson e-mailed excuses to the Boston Globe and his campaign spokesman tweeted conspiracy theories.
As a legislator who has a history of anti-gay sentiments and an HRC legislative scorecard rating lower than his rival for U.S. Senate, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), Rep. Lynch should know better than to essentially remain silent when given this opportunity to speak to his evolved pro-equality stance.
Rep. Ed Markey
Rep. Markey, for his part, released a strong anti-DOMA statement on the day that the brief was filed:
WASHINGTON (March 1, 2013) – Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) joined 211 of his colleagues in filing an Amicus Brief in the case of U.S. v. Edith Schlain Windsor. The brief argues that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional.
“It’s long past time to abolish DOMA and send this discriminatory law to the pages of the history books,” said Rep. Markey. “I voted against DOMA in 1996 and have fought to repeal it ever since. We must ensure that LGBT Americans have the same freedom as any other American to marry and receive the full array of benefits and protections under the law. I am proud to join my colleagues in Congress today to urge the Supreme Court to stand up for equality and repeal DOMA once and for all.”
Now that’s how you assure voters that you take LGBT rights seriously. In contrast, Rep. Lynch’s weak response leaves voters to wonder whether his commitment to LGBT equality is a little too passive.
h/t doubleman
6 Comments
Lynch will be pro-gay in the primary, but when he makes it into the general (I hope not!) he’ll be his usual cruddy self on our issues. Let’s hope Markey keeps him in check. Too bad Lynch won’t lose his House seat running in this Special Primary.
I see what you did there.
No, I am not doing what you suggest. I really do take him at his word.
To paraphrase Markos Moulitsas, Lynch represents “more and shittier Democrats.”
What is very clear to me: omeone’s been lying about Stephen Lynch.
Also very clear: The Democratic establishment wants Markey as the nominee.
Whether those two things add up to conspiracy or coincidence is irrelevant to me.
Lynch is pro-union. He voted to fund Planned Parenthood and says he is pro-choice. He voted against the bailout, one of very, very few in either House so to do. Early on, he described Obamacare as a very good bill for insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. I agree with all those positions; and I totally get why the Democratic establishment doesn’t want him.
Despite the Democratic Party establishment, I am definitely for keeping an open mind about Lynch.
I believe his failure to sign on to the brief was a glitch. Why would a Democrat currently running in a Democratic primary in Massachusetts, the first state to recognize gay marriage, be the only Democratic hold out on this vote?
This cannot be a ploy to hedge his bets in the general, because he publicly announced that his failure to sign on was a glitch, not a matter of his views. So, it’s lose lose for him to say what he is saying. Therefore, the only explanation I have is that he is being truthful.
BTW, who is making a big deal of this alleged glitch and how fair are the stories about it?
You mean like Obama’s saying in Rick Warren’s church in 2008 that gays should have contract rights, but “when it comes marriage, God is in the mix?” And having Rick Warren give the invocation at his inaugural in 2009?
And then, after his V.P. spoke out of school and his GLBT bundlers putting pressure on him as he was campaigning for re-election, saying he had “evolved” on gay marriage–straight back to the position he had in 1994?