"Representation"

So I got a form letter today from Chuck Hagel's office. (Are you listening, Tom?) I had contacted them to register my opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. I would assume, or hope, that all such contacts get a letter in reply, but I'd have to imagine they had more than usual on this issue. A press release is attached to the letter explaining his position on the matter.

"Americans and Nebraskans have been presented with a false choice between amending the Constitution of the United States or allowing same sex marriage across our country... Over our nation's history, social and policy issues have been best handled by the state... Amending the constitution, the founding document of our nation, should always be a final option, not a first." Brilliantly put, Chuck. I couldn't have said it better myself.

But then he goes off a cliff. The matter never made it to a vote; instead, senators voted on whether or not to continue debate ("cloture", if you're curious). He voted to keep the issue alive. "There is much misinformation about this amendment. I believe the American people would have benefited from continued debate and a further understanding of this deeply complicated and important issue."

Excuse me? The proposed amendment was one sentence long. I'm pretty damn sure I understood exactly what it said. Further, the debate I heard was doing precious little to combat misinformation; if anything, there were senators throwing more into the pot. Perhaps more importantly, had the amendment come to a real vote, how would you have voted, Chuck? Your press release implies "no", but your beliefs and voting record on related issues implies "yes". Since it's certain to come up again, year after year, it's something that I, the represented, urgently want to know. For goodness sake, stop trying to talk around it. Please.

On the plus side, though? Franking privileges are awesome.