Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Kansas Equality PAC candidates do well in election

By Diane Silver

There's good news this morning for Kansans who care about fair and equal laws for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered citizens. At least two-thirds of the 53 state House of Representative candidates endorsed by the Kansas Equality PAC were elected. That amounts to 35 victories, or 66 percent of those endorsed. Three more races were too close to call or still undecided. The race by race results for the Kansas Equality endorsements are here.


Anonymous said...

Kevin Yoders re-election is to be celebrated? Remember, he has publicly stated that he opposes gay marriage. And although he voted against the marriage amendment, he did so not in any support of gay rights but rather because as a lawyer he felt the existing state definition of marriage was sufficient to prohibit gay marriages in the state.

It has been suggested that his PAC endorsement was primarily influenced by his status as an incumbant and that he never actually returned his questionaire.
Any chance that his answers might be share publicly?

Diane Silver said...

Hi Gary,

Two thoughts.

First, the KC Star has admitted that it incorrectly reported Yoder's position. Here's the correction on Yoder that the KC Star ran:

Posted on Sat, Nov. 04, 2006
Candidate’s stance

"A Nov. 1 article in the Blue Valley/Leawood Neighborhood News incorrectly stated Rep. Kevin Yoder’s position on laws regarding homosexuality. Yoder, who is running for re-election in Kansas House District 20, has stated that while he does not support homosexual marriage, he does not think a constitutional amendment is necessary, and that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children in the state."

I can't speak for the Kansas Equality PAC since I'm not a member of it. Personally, though, I welcome the day when we have the political strength to defeat a lawmaker who says he opposes marriage rights, but is still willing to vote with us. We're not there, yet.

We need every vote we can get to promote fair laws, and if Yoder is willing to vote with us on the key issues of marriage and adoption, then I have no trouble supporting him.

I think the day is coming soon when no politician will be able to get away when even saying he or she opposes fairness under the law. Until that day comes, though, I personally am willing to work with the people who will vote with us. At this point a vote is much more important than a statement.

Anonymous said...

The thing is, he didn't vote "with us." His position is, and it's a solid position, is that the existing language of the constitution already prevents same sex marriages. It would be more accurate to suggest, "Well, at least he didn't vote against us."

Don't forget, he cast this vote at a time when it was safe to do so as "the others" didn't NEED his vote to pass the ammendment.

Look, I'm not focusing my attention on yoder in particular. He is a convenient example of what I see as the troubling practice of Americans supporting and voting for candidates based on sound bites without bothering to carefully consider the policies and issues.