John Kline Opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment Before He Voted for it

Bush supporters won't be happy when they read this, especially since I'm certain that 97.3% of those in MN2 who voted for Bush also voted for Kline (the rest figured that once they'd voted for Bush, voting for Kline was redundant). While different people opposed Kerry for different reasons, there is certainly a widely held perception that Kerry lost because Bush was able to successfully hang the title 'flip-flopper' on him --- even though by and large, Bush's allegations of Kerry's poll-driven policy-making process were untrue.

Well, it turns out Kline is a bit indecisive himself. In March 2004, I wrote my congressman a letter expressing my strong opposition to the so-called Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have constitutionally mandated that states could only sanction and recognize marriages between two people of opposite genders. I was pleasantly surprised by Kline's response:

"It may surprise you to learn that we are in agreement on this issue. While we may not agree on the details of the issue, I concur that this question is best left to individual states. I do not support hastily amending the Constitution, and thus do not support an amendment for this issue at this time."

Wow! Indeed I was surprised that a 25-year Marine Corps veteran who wants to put Ronald Reagan on the $50 bill would express his opposition to an amendment which was, at the time, priority number one for social conservatives (though we don't hear too much about it now --- funny how that works). It gave me a grudging respect for the man.

Of course 6 months later, Kline voted for it anyway.

Open Letter: The McCain Anti-Torture Amendment

Mr. Kline,

I am writing to urge you to do everything in your power to insure that the anti-torture amendment which the Senate attached to the Defense Bill become law.

It is shameful that Congress is only considering such legislation now, nearly 18 months after the shocking photos at Abu Ghraib became public. I recall the 'anger, outrage, disgust, [and] embarrassment' you felt when the scandal first broke, and you publicly declared your resolve that:

. . . something must be done. Responsibility must be taken, and punishment – severe punishment – must be assigned.

The photos of the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison reveal an environment void of accountability and supervision. We have an adage in the military: “You get what you inspect, not what you expect.” Just as the young men and women serving in our military have a responsibility to carry out orders given by their superiors, those superiors have a responsibility to ensure orders are carried out properly and clear guidance is given. For either of them to fail to live up to their obligation is at minimum a dereliction of duty. At its worst it is criminal.

It's taken too long --- 18 months too long, at least --- but Senators McCain and Graham have finally stepped forward to take responsibility and provide 'clear guidance' for proper detainee treatment. Your previous statements and your distinguished military career leave me no doubt that you agree with former Secretary of State Powell and 28 other high-ranking retired military officers that McCain's amendment must become law, so that our armed forces will be acting in a manner consistent with the principles they are fighting for, rather than descending into the depravity that we are fighting against.

Furthermore, as a member of the House Subcommittee on Military Personnel & Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities, you are well-positioned to prominently champion the McCain/Graham anti-torture amendment. As an American and member of Congress, you have a moral and ethical duty to support McCain's amendment, but as a member of this subcommittee, you have a further responsibility to lead the charge and see to it that this amendment doesn't wither away as the Defense Bill goes to reconciliation.

I look forward to hearing your bold and forceful statement in support of this amendment in the days to come.