Garrison, Party of One?
So, I've been scouring trying to find anyone who actually supports Jennifer Garrison's SoS run besides Congressmen Space, Wilson, Driehaus, and State Senator Strahorn.
Of all the people who support Garrison, I thought Strahorn and Driehaus were the most odd. Wilson and Space are essentially engaging in support the "hometown" candidate. Strahorn and Driehaus seem to be doing it solely based on their work with her in the General Assembly. Of them all, I think Strahorn, politically, is the only real surprise over Brown. That's pretty thin platform for someone in the House leadership who's supposed to be the "ODP" favored candidate over Brown. If that were the case, where's the Strickland, Fisher, and other statewide endorsements? If she's the ODP candidate, where are the unions? All this leads me to conclude that Garrison sensed a political opportunity in a statewide race because Brown hasn't done what is necessary to ward off potential challengers.
Since her announcement, there's been no evidence of any support for her candidacy. In fact, if the blogsphere is any indication, it awoke a sleeping giant of support for Marilyn Brown. Historically speaking, if ODP wanted the nominee to be Garrison, you'd see signs of it. I'm seeing the opposite. Nobody in the House leadership. A handful of local Congressmen and people who used to work for in the state legislature, but nobody that works with her now. No local politicians, newspapers, or local unions even. When you're running against a primary opponent because people sense they lack "momentum" to win in the general, you don't sleepily nod to the crowd out of the gate, you charge like a thoroughbred.
It's been two weeks to the day since Garrison announced, and there's nothing really new on her website. If she was intended to be ODP's stake in the heart of the Brown campaign, she's a toothpick.
In the April 24-25, 2004 edition of THE MARIETTA TIMES, Jennifer Garrison wrote the following letter to the editor. It is reprinted here exactly as it appeared in the newspaper including the editor's note. Mrs. Garrison's own minister wrote a letter to the editor a few days later opposing her views.
MARRIAGE SHOULD NOT BE DEFINED BY GOVERNMENT
Marriage is suddenly under the national microscope. Across our country, citizens are debating the question of gay marriage.
In fact, 30 people - many of them college students - recently rallied in support of gay marriage in Marietta.
To many of us, it may seem as if this debate over marriage dropped out of the sky.
Throughout our nation's history, it was simply understood that marriage was between a man and a woman. If our shared heritage and our values weren't enough to instruct us on the definition of marriage, Ohio's law has been clear.
Yet as bewildering as the gay marriage debate may seem, we know precisely where it originated: In a courtroom in Boston, Mass.
Last November, the Massachusetts Supreme Court struck down a state measure banning same-sex marriage and instructed the state's legislature to rewrite the law within 180 days.
It is troubling that a small group of Massachusetts judges are rewriting the laws of their state. As we learned in school, it is the role of judges to interpret laws, not write them.
Be even more unsettling is the fact that judicial activism in Massachusetts could set policy for other states. Under the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution, marriages performed in one state have always been recognized in another.
And this is why Ohio's Defense of Marriage Act is so very important. It declares that marriages between people of the same gender are "against the strong public policy of the state" and will not be recognized in Ohio. It is hoped this should be enough to allow Ohioans to continue defining marriage for ourselves as between one man and one woman, and not have another definition forced upon us.
State Rep. Nancy Hollister and I disagree on this important issue. She voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. But I support it.
Marriage is a fundamental building block of society, one that predates our nation and even the birth of Christ. Ultimately, it is a statement about our values as human beings.
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney - himself an opponent of same sex marriage - said it well; "The institution of marriage was not created by government, and it should not be redefined by government." - I agree.
Jennifer Garrison
Editors Note: Jennifer Garrison is the democratic candidate for state representative in the 93rd House district. She lives in Marietta.
I think Garrison's position on same-sex marriage is wrong & a disgrace.
However, she has plenty of company in -- Barack "Change" Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Bill Richardson, Lee Fisher....should I go on?
I think what separates Garrison from those folks that wherein they all expressed, or in Fisher's case used to express, a substantially similiar position is that they all took it in a passive sense. Sort of a "if it comes up" this is where I'll be sense where you can tell they really didn't want to touch such a political hot potato. They all came off like their positions were more born out of a desire to deny conservatives a wedge issue to make their opponents be out of the mainstream.
In Garrison's case, though. She willfully put that potato in the oven, cracked it until the dial broke and chucked it at her Republican opponent who made a simple point that the legislation was unnecessary given the constitutional amendment already on the ballot.
I think that's the difference. Wherein these folks took out these positions in order to neutralize the issue. Garrison when into active advocation for these policies in order to use the divisive politics against the Republican.
Perhaps that really should be a distinction with a difference, but I do think that's why you see more hostility to Garrison than you see to others who have also said they oppose gay marriage.