Over the past week,
Capitol Hill has witnessed the most legitimate threat to the Affordable Care
Act since House Republicans began their push to have the measure repealed. Representatives
from the GOP have mounted a frightening campaign to suspend the budget of the
federal government as leverage to prevent new healthcare market places from
opening on October 1. A few pieces of legislation endorsing a government
shutdown were voted on in the house in the late evening of Saturday September
28. All of this legislation passed the House with virtually unanimous support
from congressional Republicans. Obviously, Rodney Frelinghuysen was one of the Republicans
who voted in favor of these bills. Interestingly, in an interview on Friday the
27th Frelinghuysen said that he was against Obamacare, but also
against a government shutdown. (Dailyrecord.com) This statement and the fact
that he voted together with his party on all of these measures indicates that
he is participating, with the rest of the House Republicans, in the stalemate tactics
initiated by Ted Cruz earlier in the week. It is beyond reason to believe that
members of the GOP are earnestly pursuing a government shutdown, and
Frelinghuysen’s interview indicates as much.
Beyond this
stalemate in Washington, there was a major political development in Frelinghuysen’s
home state this week. On Friday September 27, Judge Mary Jacobson of NJ ruled
that New Jersey’s ban of gay marriage was unconstitutional. Many New Jersey
politicians, including Rep. Rush Holt (D NJ-9), state senator and democratic gubernatorial
candidate Barbara Buono, Mayor Cory Booker of Newark, and Sen. Robert Menendez,
made public statements via their social media accounts praising this decision. The
office of Governor Chris Christie has also made its position available to the
public, saying it would likely appeal this decision to New Jersey’s highest
court. (New York Times) Frelinghuysen however, along with Republican Rep. Scott
Garrett (NJ-5), did not make a public statement.
This type of
behavior is consistent with Frelinghuysen’s track record on gay marriage. His
views on this issue are only accessible to individuals capable of conducting
analysis and research beyond the scope and capacity of the lay citizen. The
“issues” page on his website does not include a position on the matter, and
there is no evidence of him making a statement one-way or the other in any
public media forum. The majority of his constituents, like the majority of the
American people, are likely not informed enough to do the research necessary to
learn that in 2007 he voted in the affirmative on a bill prohibiting job
discrimination based on sexual orientation, and voted against an amendment to
the constitution that would have defined marriage as the union between a man
and a woman in 2006. (ontheissues.org)
In fact, this past
March, Mark Dunec, a democrat who has declared his intent to run for
Frelinghuysen’s seat in November 2014, sent a letter to the editor of the New
Jersey path local newspaper in Frelinghuysen’s district voicing concern over
his evident silence. Dunec wrote that “several neighbors called the
Congressman’s offices in New Jersey and Washington only to be told by his staff
members that they were unaware of the Congressman’s position on gay marriage.” (NJ
Patch)
Though this letter
was obviously polemical in nature, its content is indicative of something quite
interesting. Frelinghuysen’s voting record indicates that, at the very least,
he does not feel the federal government should enforce discriminatory norms
against homosexuals. Yet he has remained silent on this issue in the public
forum. It is troubling to consider the fact that a member of the House has held
a silent stance on one of the most prevalent issues in contemporary lay
political discourse.
What is one to
make of the fact that Representative Frelinghuysen has not taken the steps
necessary to make his constituents aware of his stance on one of the most
heated issues of the day? It is likely a matter of seeking to maintain the
support of his heavily Republican district. Openly supporting gay marriage
could arguably hurt his reputation among Republican voters partisan groups in
his district. The fact that Rep. Garrett was also silent would support this
line of thinking. The reality is that prominent elected Democrats from NJ came
out in support of this ruling, and some Republicans, Governor Christie being a
notable exception, remained silent. As such, this incident is a perfect example
of the heavily partisan characteristics of the American legislature.
Lastly, apropos to
the discussion of Frelinghuysen’s stance on environmental issues in my previous
post, on September 26, he voted along with an overwhelming majority of his
party against an amendment to H.R. 687, the Southeast Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2013. The
legislation includes a proposal for a new land mine, and amendment sought “[t]o protect water quality and water quantity for the
people living and working near this proposed mine, given estimates that mining
operations will consume the equivalent of the annual water supply for 20,000
homes.” (govtrack.us) Obviously, Frelinghuysen’s vote reflects a
priority to sacrifice the quality of water for the sake of limited spending.
While he did not indicate a value to the contrary during his visits to
superfund sites last week, this vote is further proof of a disparity between
Frelinghuysen’s voting record on environmental issues and his self-promulgated
image as an advocate of environmental causes.
Works Consulted:
9)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/nyregion/new-jersey-judge-rules-state-must-allow-gay-marriage.html?_r=0
No comments:
Post a Comment