They say that if you want people to read something you wrote, you have to open with a hook. So, pretending that this and the previous sentence doesn't exist, here's my opening statement.
I completely disagree with Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's decision and actions related to SB 1062.
Yep. That has to be one of the most brilliant things I have ever said; right behind, "I, Christopher Hipsman, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me [my] God." And I said that one twice.
This statement has nothing to do with whether you are for or against this bill. Has nothing to do with your understanding of this bill. Nothing to do with the fact that an overwhelming majority of people that have anything to say about this bill haven't taken the time to read all one page and a half of it. It has nothing to do with the fact that the bill amounts to nothing more than an amendment to an original law that, while not ever stated in said law, allowed native American tribes-people to smoke 'em peace pipes.
My statement is based on this. Jan Brewer, regardless of my opinion about her, was put into a position that she didn't need to be in. It is my opinion, that, instead of vetoing and killing this bill, she should have sent it back to be revoted on. Just basically say, "I'll entertain the idea of doing something about this if you can pass it again." This is a don't-give-a-shit governor in a state that also appears to not give a shit. Whether she could send it back for a revote rather than pass or veto is something I'm not sure is allowed, but I think she should have done it. She should have done that because people who were for the bill disagree with what she did and people who were against the bill think she did what she did because of the pressure and negative attention the bill was getting.
Nope, she should have sent this bill back to be voted on again. A bill overwhelmingly passed in a dominantly Republican State Senate. A bill that, once negative connotation was applied to it, no one could find any of these representative that voted for it that would stand by or explain their decision. A bill that 80% of registered Republican votes that were asked were against it. All of that, in a nut shell, is that a group of representatives created and passed something that an overwhelming majority of the people they represent were against. That situation should not rest on a Governor to make it right. It also is the most perfect example of everything wrong with government, but I digress.
If not for the simple fact that I am completely curious how that bill would fair in a revote. That's the main reason I want it. I want to see these spineless 'tards vote 'nay' on something only weeks earlier they we all 'this is single-handedly the most important thing facing the individuals we represent in the great state of Arizona. We're 36th out of 50 in state education rankings, but protecting the individual religious rights is one of the most important thing right now. We should pass a law will prevent future laws that would prohibit the free exercise of religious beliefs.' Oh good, Arizona is back to passing laws that are already covered at the federal level or are the basis of all American forms of government.
It seems Arizona has become the New Mexico of state laws as in controversial laws are tested in this desert to see what the fall out effects will be. SB 1070 passed and a slew of other states completed their waiting versions of it. SB 1062 fails and states openly decide they will hold off on their versions. Yep, a test bed for stupid laws that ends up putting our Governor in a position to rule on them. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure she lives for that kind of power, and I honestly believe she would have passed SB 1062 if it wasn't misunderstood and caused such a firestorm. Instead, she cites that the Senate should be working on a budget and coming up with a solution for her decision to get rid of Child Protective Services. I agree, those were more important, and this whole 'protecting business owners from discriminating against the nontraditional sexual activities community under the guise of religious beliefs' should have been tucked deep into a bill that made it an law that all child molesters should be executed in a fashion not limited to being tied to a stake in a pit of scorpions located in the middle of the desert. I mean, who's not going to pass that law?
