"Representatives" should push Personal Agenda?

In March 17th's "Hard to speak the truth", Leonard Pitts (frequent, Miami Herald "Drive-by contributor") once again has trouble separating reality from his rhetoric. He takes to task California State Legislator Roy Ashburn, who got himself arrested for drunk driving and turns out to be gay as well.

Beyond some unsupported bashing of conservatives and hetero males in general, Pitts' issue is that he believes Ashburn is a "Leader". As such, Pitts thinks Ashburn should "think for himself" and put his gay agenda first, rather than "following the wishes of the people he served". His examples include opposing the voters' repeatedly passed and court upheld Proposition 8 ("marriage" = 1 man + 1 woman); and creating a Holiday for San Francisco Mayor Harvey Milk for being gay, and despite his abysmal perfomance in office.

What Pitts forgot is that Ashburn is a "Senator" and (despite needing to be recalled: for actions, not orientation) he is thus a "REPRESENTATIVE" in our system. This means a person whose authority and agenda come entirely from his constituents. "Leader" is not a title under the American Constitution (though it is a status, such as "Majority Leader" like Pelosi). "Leader" translates to "Führer" and National Socialist Germany had one of those in the 1930's and 40's. Communist North Korea still has a "Dear Leader" (Kim, son of Kim) and the Great Socialist People's Libyan Jamahirya has their "Brother Leader" (Qaddafi), like other Communist countries. Our Republic does not.

Our elected officials only act within the Constitution, and then only for the wishes of their constituents. To do otherwise - - such as ignoring the clear and repeated will of We the People, or calling them names, or using volumes of complex and confusing language for special interests, or fabricating "crisis" after "crisis" to rush bills through, or using parliamentary tricks to pass them when there aren't enough votes - - is so crazy I cannot even imagine it.

Can you?