Bjorn AgainstBjorn Against's Journal
Last spring Michael Brodkorb was worried because he thought his marriage was being threatened by some scary gay people. Brodkorb was the Republican Communications Director for the Minnesota Senate and he stood firmly behind his party to help push forward a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman...and perhaps another woman on the side.
That other woman on the side was Amy Koch, the family values Republican Senate Majority Leader who did everything she could to make sure that no marriages would be destroyed by gay people. In working together to protect marriage Koch and Brodkorb got very close, much closer than either of their spouses would have liked. Don't blame them though, I am sure they would have never had the affair if gay people had not tried to destroy marriage by allowing more marriage.
When Koch and Brodkorb's affair went public Koch resigned her position as Senate Majority Leader, she will stick around the Capitol just long enough to see whether or not the public will vote to defend her marriage from gay people.
Brodkorb does not get that opportunity, once it became known that Brodkorb was a Koch Sucker he was fired. Of course he is the victim here, he was only fired because he is a man and the state senate is sexist against men. That may sound like an argument coming from some drunk guy stumbling off the end of the bar, but it is actually the legal argument Brodkorb intends to use.
Mr. Brodkorb has evidence that similarly situated female legislative employees, from both political parties, were not terminated from their employment positions despite intimate relationships with male legislators. It is clear that Mr. Brodkorb was terminated based on his gender, the legal document said.
So Brodkorb claims there are female staffers who have had affairs with other members of the legislature from both parties. Brodkorb has provided absolutely no evidence of any other affairs yet, but he is suing the state for wrongful termination because he says the state will allow women to have sex with their boss but men are treated differently. To prove this he plans to have his attorneys question several legislators and their staffers about possible sexual activity, remember we have no evidence at this point that any of these people have actually had affairs but Brodkorb claims they did and wants to put them on the stand to talk about their sex lives so that they are humiliated along with him.
Yes Brodkorb is slime and his lawsuit is totally frivolous, I feel bad for some of the staffers who are going to be subject to Brodkorb's witch hunt. I can't feel bad for the Republicans however, they knew this guy was a smear merchant and that is why they hired him in the first place, their only mistake was thinking he would only go after Democrats and never turn on them. Brodkorb says he has info on affairs from members of both parties, but I don't think Democrats are going to face any damage from what is clearly a frivolous law suit.
Republicans on the other hand? This is going to be a nightmare for them. Even though the lawsuit will probably eventually be dismissed, the damage the publicity around it will do could be quite severe.
And who pays for the legal costs for the state in defending itself from this law suit? Us taxpayers do, we get to fund the lawyers for the state to defend itself from a Republican who is suing because the Republicans fired him for having sex with another Republican. This is purely a Republican scandal, but the state is paying the costs of a frivolous lawsuit from a guy who rants about how bad frivolous law suits are and demands tort reform.
This is what the defenders of marriage have given us, a legal battle over an affair between two of the leaders in the fight against equality. As we see this lawsuit play out over the next year I hope many people take the time to think about who is really damaging the institution of marriage and vote no on the constitutional amendment this fall.
I won't speak ill of the dead.
I won't speak ill of the children who were killed by the bombs that were dropped on Iraq, the right-wing pundits may have cheered the bombings that killed those children but I won't.
I won't speak ill of the people who die every single day because they can not afford health insurance and were not able to get public assistance because the corporate shills scream "socialism" whenever someone tries to get help for people in need.
I won't speak ill of the homeless who die on the streets of America, some of them received help from community organizations such as ACORN for example but when those organizations came under attack underprivileged communities that were already struggling were left with even less support.
I won't speak ill of the gay teen who commits suicide after being bullied, maybe if the right-wing media had not spent so much time convincing people that being a homophobe is a moral duty the bullying would have never happened and that teen might still be alive.
I won't speak ill of the cancer victim who died because they were exposed to toxic chemicals in the environment, nor will I speak ill of the workers who die after safety standards are lowered because the Tea Party demanded less regulation.
I won't speak ill of the former death row inmate in Georgia who the evidence suggested may be innocent but was killed anyways while a group of people who call themselves "pro-life".
No I won't speak ill of the dead, and I demand those who cheer wars of aggression to stop speaking ill of the dead as well.
Profile InformationMember since: Mon May 22, 2006, 06:07 PM
Number of posts: 12,041
- 2016 (22)
- 2015 (30)
- 2014 (16)
- 2013 (21)
- 2012 (8)