Before Teri's presentation, I was unaware that as a leader, Murray and his caucus voted against same-sex adoption rights. I wondered how could a person who voted against rights for people be appointed the director of the Canadian Museum for HUMAN RIGHTS. In an interview after his appointment as human-rights museum boss, Murray said he was just following the wishes of his caucus during the vote seven years ago.
Even if his personal views do not reflect those of his party, should he really be the one chosen as director? Should the fact that he was involved and associated in voting against against gay rights, even though he claims it was not his personal belief be held against him?
My family and I discussed this topic and we discovered there were many examples of people who have different personal opinions from the party they belong to. My dad recently sent me an interest link, relating to the topic. The following video is of Phillip Spooner, a lifetime Republican, World War II veteran and a gay marriage supporter. The 86-year-old gave a heartfelt speech in support of gay marriage to Maine's Judiciary Committee in April. Spooner states that he is a true American, and that he fought for his country in order for equality for all.
I feel that Spooner's stance is similar to that of former Vice President of The United States, Dick Cheney, whose daughter Mary, is a lesbian. Cheney received a lot of criticism after he distanced himself from President Bush’s call for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. At a campaign rally in Mississippi, Cheney spoke supportively about gay relationships, saying “freedom means freedom for everyone,” when asked about his stand on gay marriage.
"Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue our family is very familiar with," Cheney told an audience. "With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone... People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to."
In all 3 instances, it seems as though just because a person belongs to a certain party, does not mean their personal beliefs on a subject fully complies with the party's stance.
