Editor, Times-Union: On the eighth of this month, I asked several questions to David Kolbe, about his stance on RFRA. To this date, he has not replied publicly or privately to me on any question. So I would like to ask him again: First, how can the federal government force a state to allow something (in this case, gay marriage) that the federal government itself cannot legalize? By the 10th Amendment, gay marriage is a matter for the state of the people. The federal government can only make law based on 17 delegated powers that the Constitution laid out in Article 1, Section 8. A follow-up question would be, where in that section would gay marriage come from, Mr. Kolbe? Second, why should the courts use another amendment that contradicts one of the Bill of Rights? If the court upholds that gay marriage is legal nationwide and states cannot ban it if they wish, aren’t they saying that businesses ultimately have no protection under the law? So does the Equal Protection Clause give some parties more rights than other parties? Third, how is it to be permitted in a free society that a person should lose their business because of a decision that did not violate another person’s life, liberty or justly acquired property? It seems we’re now a nation that is litigation-happy because of “hurt feelings.” The 13th Amendment prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude. Why should someone else be able to force me to serve them just to prevent them from getting hurt feelings? And lastly, my last question is, if you would have had a flood of calls telling you to support this bill, and to vote for it, would you have seriously gone against the will of your constituents? I actually have one more question on an unrelated topic. Several weeks ago, 2016 Presidential Candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was asked by a reporter about his stances on abortion because the DNC picked up their comments and wanted a position statement from the Kentucky senator about his position on the issue. His response was to ask the head of the DNC, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), about whether, “Is it OK to kill a 7-pound baby that has not been born yet?” Her response: “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story.” There are several points I can make about this, but the frank question to ask here is, where is the condemnation from pro-life Democrats? On the topic of abortion, I would like to spell out that during last year’s campaign. Mr. Kolbe claimed to be a pro-life Democrat. If so, why isn’t he condemning Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s remarks? Gary D. Eppenbaugh Warsaw, via email
