Friday, February 14, 2014

Randy Truitt, Traitor to Everyone

An Open Letter to Indiana State Representative, Randy Truitt

Dear Randy,

Randy Truitt, a traitor?
Congratulations!  You have very publicly alienated just about everyone by being on not just both sides of one of the most important issues of our time and certainly this legislative session.  You have invented new sides of this issue!  Credit to you for being creative.

You say that you support one man and one woman marriage yet you voted exactly the opposite in both of your votes.  Actually, it is diabolically clever to vote the way you did, and I believe you are the only state representative who voted that way, Republican or Democrat.

You initiated and voted FOR the amendment/resolution to remove the second sentence from the bill, thus insuring that the citizens/voters in the state of Indiana would not be able to vote on this in November of this year.  Your vote guaranteed that result.

If you had voted AGAINST the change, as the Democrats did, then the bill could have come up again later in the session.  Again, your vote prevented that.  But the real "tell" was your vote on the amended version of the bill, releasing it to the Senate.  You voted NO!  On your own bill!  On the bill that you insisted on amending your way, and the bill that was written to accommodate you and include your own amendment!  Your vote against the whole bill, if you had been able to convince enough other representatives, would have killed it for yet another additional legislative session.

So, your combination of votes on these two bills (remember, not even any Democrats voted the way you did!) was exactly and only the exactly combination of votes that would be the most damaging and destructive to the cause of one-man-one-woman marriage in the state of Indiana.

Although I don't live in your district, your vote matters and affects me directly, as it does every voter in the state of Indiana.  You voted to specifically and expressly deny MY opportunity to vote on this very important issue.  And that's what this was about: providing the opportunity for the voters of Indiana to be able to decide for ourselves whether to continue the current situation as it has existed since the state of Indiana was established.

So, Randy Truitt, you may say that you support marriage as it has been known, understood, and accepted by all societies throughout all of recorded history, but a person and a legislator and their position is known by their actions, not their words.  And your actions tell us everything we need to know.

It sounds to me like you are more concerned with being elected than doing the right thing, the very thing you say you believe.  You can't stand up to the pressure.  What a shame!  How can anyone trust anything you would say in the future?


Pat Henry


  1. Or maybe, just maybe, Randy took note of what his constituents were saying and changed his vote to reflect the people not his own personal belief which should be kept in his own personal home.

  2. Melissa, we live in a republic, not a democracy. Suppose Randy's constituents decided that they wanted him to vote in favor of slavery. Suppose Randy had campaigned on the fact that he was opposed to slavery. Suppose there are thousands of Randy's constituents who were afraid to speak out against slavery for fear of having their houses burned down or being beaten? What should Randy do? A true statesman is to vote his convictions, which are likely what he campaigned on. This is why we our founders so wisely created a republic, where majority (or in this case a perceived majority) doesn't necessarily get their way. The gay lobby was well-prepared. I heard they had out-of-staters calling in pretending to be Hoosiers! The law wasn't a vote against homosexuals getting married. The law merely gave Hoosiers an opportunity to vote for or against gay marriage. If there was all this overwhelming support for gay marriage why not let Hoosiers vote? I think Randy Truitt needs an opponent next time, and I think the silent majority will remember his betrayal.

  3. Shouldnt we all be able to live how we choose not how the majority thinks we should live??? Personally I agree marriage is between a man and a woman but who am I to say how you shoud live. In a truly free society we should be able to live our lives how we choose as long as we arent harming others...

  4. No one is telling anyone how to live. Gays are free to live how they choose. The law was merely about placing the question of a definition of marriage on a ballot. People should get an opportunity to vote. It's the American way.