|
|
| |
| Sat, Nov. 22, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| | Marriage now a campaign issue
Sunday, Sep 12, 2004 By David Sanders Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Little Rock, has filled the capacity of Arkansas' most reliably left-wing congressman since being sworn into office in January 1997. In the past, the 2nd District congressman has not shied away from his liberal views. He has voted against the ban on partial-birth abortion, opposed efforts to ban gays from the Boy Scouts and opposed Saddam Hussein being classified as a war criminal. More recently, Snyder opposed the creation of the federal Department of Homeland Security, arming airline pilots with guns and was the only member of the Arkansas congressional delegation to vote against a measure authorizing President Bush to use military force in Iraq. Over the years, he has blunted criticism of his liberal record by playing up his service in the Vietnam War and by coming home every weekend to visit with the constituents. Snyder's Republican opponent, state Rep. Marvin Parks, believes that his record may be catching up to him. Earlier this summer Snyder raised eyebrows - even among Democrats - when he came out against the proposed state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Snyder was the only member of the Arkansas' congressional delegation to oppose the measure, which would also prevent the formation of civil unions between same-sex couples. Parks is now fanning the flames because of Snyder's refusal to answer questions by a Little Rock daily newspaper about beliefs on marriage. The paper said Snyder did not respond to questions dealing specifically with heterosexual and homosexual marriage. The questions, which Parks' campaign reprinted in a news release, were simple and straightforward: "Should marriage be defined as a union between one man and one woman?" "Should homosexual couples be allowed to marry as heterosexual couples are?" "Would you support legislation or constitutional measures to provide for some other language to be used to describe an ongoing legal commitment between gay couples, such as 'civil union,' rather than 'marriage'?" Parks, who supports marriage for heterosexual couples only and opposes civil unions, says that Snyder's refusal to answer the questions about marriage "calls into question his willingness to defend the values of ordinary Arkansans." It is hard to remember a time when Snyder wouldn't tell anyone what he believes; he certainly has never shied away from controversy before. Parks believes Snyder is now ignoring the issue to conceal his opinions. He may be right. According to Parks, Snyder's position now is "confusing and unclear," but one can only speculate that Snyder didn't answer the question because he didn't want to give his opponent ammunition to use against him. Most people who have followed Snyder for any length of time could answer the questions for him. Snyder would probably say "no" to marriage being defined as just a union between a woman and a man, "yes" to same-sex couples being allowed to marry and "yes" to civil unions. Parks says the marriage issue could be his "silver bullet." If the Arkansas Marriage Amendment survives the court challenge and makes it on the ballot, it is expected to pass overwhelmingly. Snyder's opposition to the proposed state marriage amendment puts him to the left of most Arkansans. The effort to define marriage enjoys broad support across both racial and ethnic boundaries. In past elections efforts to label Snyder "out-of-touch" have failed to inflict any damage on him. Parks wonders if an Arkansan who favors the marriage amendment will be able to vote for a congressman who stridently opposes it. ------- David Sanders write twice weekly for the Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock. His e-mail address is DavidJSanders@aol.com. |
