Chris Douglas

On Kathryn Densborn, Candidate for Indiana House

Filed By Chris Douglas | October 07, 2006 2:39 PM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags:

I've always felt it important, whether pro- or con, to know a candidate's position on issues important to the glbt community. How a candidate is likely to vote can often be misconstrued, so until a candidate signals a strong affinity for one position or another, it can sometimes be self-defeating to characterize that candidate's position. On the other hand, if a candidate is forthright about a position, whether pro or con, it is important for the community to know that, and a candidate won't necessarily view it a disservice to promulgate that candidate's views. Who occupies a seat is unimportant; what the occupant's inclinations are in public policy can be paramount. Voters certainly have a right to make a decision on a candidate based on that candidate's positions impacting public policy.

With that in mind, I think it is important to understand that Kathryn Densborn characterizes herself as a social conservative, and that this conservatism has ramifications in how she will vote on some issues, and is likely to vote on others. Regarding an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and banning any of its legal protections from being applied to same sex couples, Kathryn Densborn has signalled convincingly in several different civic contexts that whatever its problems, this amendment is a project of the current House Republican leadership, that by her religious convictions she identifies with the ban, and that she is not one who would challenge its momentum.

On the topic of nondiscrimination, although it is possible she could one day be persuaded that gays should be protected legally from discrimation in the work place just as (for instance) women, caucasians, and religious conservatives are, she is not of that view today. To her credit, she seems open to discussion and to building bridges, but her views are more conservative than the majority of the American population and the majority of Hoosiers, and reflect the views of the social conservative wing of the Republican Party. In my opinion, and probably in hers, she is no Scott Keller, no Lance Langford, no Mitch Daniels, no Carl Brizzi, no Donna Edgar, and no Todd Rokita.

While Densborn may seek endorsement or identity with any of these personages, and while she may run on an economic program (with which I agree), it seems to me it would be a disservice to her views, and contrary to the understanding of her base of support, to characterize her as moderate on matters important to the glbt community. Both fiscally and socially, Kathryn Densborn is conservative, and is proud to say so.

Those who favor banning same sex couples from any of the legal protections that civil marriage provides; those who favor making this ban a Constitutional one to ensure that the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and religious freedom will not apply to same sex couples; and those who are uneasy with providing to glbt citizens the same protection from discrimination in the workplace, in housing, and in public accomodation enjoyed by other Americans can vote for Kathryn Densborn in good conscience. Whether or not she agrees with the full ramifications of the amendment, she has made clear that her vote would be in its favor.


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Rick Sutton | October 7, 2006 3:38 PM

Excellent post, Chris.

I am a longtime fan of my friend, David O. His stance on many issues is thoughtful and he doesn't listen to the birdbrains who run the caucus. Thankfully. He's his own man...when the prayer issue came up last session, he requested an excused absence a day in advance, and volunteered at a social services agency that day. Instead of pandering.

So I was distressed when I received some pretty hard-hitting direct mail this week, on behalf of David.

It was over the top and unnecessary. KD got some unwarranted news coverage out of it from Ch. 13.

I'm hoping this race doesn't get hateful. David has been a tireless neighborhood advocate and he's out almost every weekend working the streets, 52 weeks a year. His intellect is second to none.

And I know how he feels about The Amendment.
As well as general civil rights issues.

He must be re-elected. Control of the House may be on the line, although I doubt it.

I think there may be some media attempts to draw KD out of her shell, and expose her views on issues. I do know, she's a staunch supporter of school vouchers, and there's one more reason she needs to lose.


I agree, Chris. David Orentlichter should win that race. He is a true friend to the community and deserves our support. KD is not someone we want replacing him. Not in the least!

Wilson46201 | October 8, 2006 8:32 AM

I like to kid David O. that he is not only omniscient, he's also omnipresent !

Chris, The amendment will affect all. unmarried couples, not just gays and lesbians. That is an important distinction. Both versions are hateful, but the actual amendment adds lack of concern for what a constitutional amendment actually says and for its unexplained consequences to the indended hatefulness.

I don't care for either of the major parties. And I don't like these holier than thou conservative Republicans, who pay lip service to the needs of the people while taking care of big business. On the other hand, I don't care for for Democrats and their Liberal agenda. And I don't believe that either party should imposed their sense of morality on the people. As for Kathryn Densborn, I will not vote for her. If the opportunity presented itself, however I would go to bed with her. She's definitely an MILF.

I am not a Liberal Democrat, nor am I a "Compassionate" Conservative Republican. Both sides tend to not only insult my intelligence, but offend me; However, I would like to say that an individual should not be discriminated against on the job because of his/her sexual orientation. Within the last year, I believe the Indianapolis City council voted narrowly to protect employees at the workplace from discrimination because of their sexual orientation. Had I been a member of the City council, I would have voted for it. And if I were an employer, I would not care what my employees did in their private lives so long as they refrained from imposing their views on others. However I don't think I would go so far as to equate a Gay union with a heterosexual union, for which I hope you will pardon me. We'll just have to agree to disagree agreeably. As for a conservative like Densborn, she is too morally upright(Possibly uptight) in my opinion and should be open minded. And she should also loosen up by spreading her legs more often.

Kathryn Densborn was soundly defeated at the polls on Tuesday, November 7th. Frankly, I was not surprised as I regarded her as a rather inflexible and rigid individual in terms of her morality.On a personal note, it wouldn't surprise me if she has never done it in other than the missionary position. Maybe that was one of her problems.

Chris Douglas | November 14, 2006 2:00 PM

(RM, I think some of your personal comments are inappopriate.)

In that case Chris, why don't you have them deleted? That is, if you are able to do that.

I can answer that for you, RM. I control the comments. I believe in free speech - and it's your right to act like an uncouth ass if you'd like. I wonder though, if you actually signed your name like both Chris and I do would you be as likely to be so demeaning and vulgar in your comments? I doubt it.

There is a line that I won't allow to be crossed, but you haven't hit it yet. When you do, you'll get warned once and then banned if it continues.