After listening to Eric's comments at the Hinckley Institute, I am disgusted. He is the typical politician who tells people what he thinks they want to hear -- and who has not one once of political courage to do the right thing when it may by risky.

The truth: Dozens of SLC residents appeared before the City Council week after week prior to the US invasion of Iraq, requesting the Council to pass a "resolution for peace".

The Council sat there, with their eyes glazed over, listening to the impassioned pleas without any of the Council members uttering one word. Not one member of the Council sought to place a resolution on the Council agenda, and no one on the Council ever spoke out against commencing the war. The only public statement made was when certain Council members were asked by reporters about the matter and they said, essentially, that it was none of the Council's business. They said the Council only acts on local issues and does not weigh in on matters like this. (By the way, dozens of city councils around the country were passing peace resolutions at the same time our City Council took a pass.) Rocky signed a resolution (or was it a proclamation) urging that the weapons inspectors be given an opportunity to complete their job (which, had they been allowed to do that, it would have been better established that Iraq did not have WMDs) and that, before any action was taken against Iraq, the US work with our long-term allies rather than going it mostly alone.

The Council refused to even consider such a resolution. For Eric to represent that the Council worked hard on an anti-war resolution is dishonest and enraging. All they worked hard at, was dodging the issue -- just as they are working hard now to dodge the issue of equality for employees, regardless of sexual orientation. Someone should call Eric and ask him for an explanation as to what, exactly, the Council did -- what HE did -- in speaking out against the war before it began -- and what they have done since then to oppose the war.

Eric's comment at the Hinckley Institute was the first thing I've ever heard him say about the war. He is such a moral and political coward.

I’d like to post my thoughts concerning Eric’s comments on the following issues:

Domestic Benefits and The War on Iraq: “Where is his MORAL courage?”

Our elected officials will have to address and face issues that affect our community, city, state, and nation. They should be leaders who will formulate policy based on word and promises and a compassionate understanding of their constituenency. And if in hindsight, those policies are not implemented, perhaps because of a changed opinion or otherwise. My hope is to have leaders who have the moral courage to explain the decision behind the change.

We need leaders who understand that at times it takes moral courage to publicly speaking out on basic human rights such as domestic partner benefits or hate crimes. To do so is often “difficult” or otherwise unpopular. But it is the morally right thing to do. Why not help and cover those that can be today while attentively working toward covering the “broader group” along the way?

When I think of the term ‘moral courage,’ I can’t help but to respectfully refer to a quote from Robert F Kennedy.

“Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, and the wrath of their society. Moral Courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change.”