Today I conclude (until the start of the next Congress) my correspondence with Alabama's congressional delegation with Congressman Arthur Davis, Democrat, representative of Alabama's 7th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Davis,
I write to you as a fellow Democrat and a concerned citizen to urge you to change your stance on the issue of same-sex marriage. Your record in Congress testifies to your robust commitment to the cause of civil rights, yet you crossed party lines to vote in favor of the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment" that would have deprived same-sex couples of the right to marry. Indeed, during the 2004 election campaign you went on record as denying that the cause of same-sex marriage rights may be classed as a civil rights issue: "The civil rights movement was more of a movement for the equal rights of all Americans: education, voting rights, jobs. Whereas gay rights in terms of gay marriage is a movement for a special group of Americans. So I would not compare civil rights with gay rights."
This declaration employs the same flawed logic used by opponents of earlier civil rights movements: that blacks or women or Latinos or any other aggrieved group constitute a "special interest" whose demands for "particular consideration" place a burden on the rest of society. But as you note, Congressman, any civil rights struggle is ultimately about the rights of all Americans. As long as rights are denied to a few, they can never really be fully enjoyed by the many. The right to marry the partner of our choice is one that all human beings cherish, which is why Mildred Loving, whose courageous stand against so-called "miscegenation" laws ended discriminatory laws barring interracial marriage, came out in favor of same-sex marriage rights before her passing earlier this year.
Moreover, the question of same-sex marriage rights can not be isolated from issues of "education, voting rights, jobs," or other such concerns. As long as there is any group within our community that are treated as second-class citizens the solidarity of the whole is impaired, and the power of the people to agitate for fairer conditions in the classroom, the workplace, or the voting booth is diminished. Exclusion from the marital bond is the chief (though by no means the only) means by which gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender citizens are relegated to second-class status. Until that fundamental injustice is redressed the welfare of all Americans will be eroded.
The state of our basic law as it stands now is unjust and discriminatory. Our Constitution must be amended to read, "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Until it is the individual rights and dignity of all Americans will not be fully protected under law.
I urge you to give this issue careful consideration, Congressman. I admire your long record of service to Alabama and to the United States. In any event, I trust you to act conscientiously. Thank you for your attention, I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Alabama (VI) Congressman Spencer Bachus
The Democratic representative of Alabama's 5th Congressional District, Congressman Bud Cramer, is retiring (to be replaced by Democratic Congressman-Elect Patrick Griffith). Today's letter is thus addressed to the representative of of Alabama's 6th Congressional District, Congressman Spencer Bachus, Republican:
Dear Congressman Bachus,
I write to you as a concerned citizen to urge you to change your stance on the issue of same-sex marriage. On your website you include a statement entitled "The Defense of Marriage Requires a Constitutional Amendment." I would agree with this proposition, yet I would insist that the constitution must be amended to read, "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."
Your statement fosters many common misconceptions about marriage and its history. For example, you declare, "More than 200 years of American law and thousands of years of human experience should not be arbitrarily changed by a handful of judges and local authorities." Yet if we are to discuss the long sweep of "human experience," it must be acknowledged that same-sex love and same-sex union have been attested to in virtually all human societies for as long as written records have been kept. The only factor that prevented same-sex unions from being deemed "marriages" in the past was the rigidly patriarchal and illiberal nature of pre-modern society. Only men and women could be married because marriage, like all other social bonds, was defined as a union between two unequal partners: husband-lord and subject-wife. The "natural" imbalance of powers in the marital bond was considered an organic product of the "natural" superiority of men over women. To allow a union between two people of the same gender would be to create a marriage in which there was no "natural" master and subject, thus inviting social anarchy.
We live in more enlightened times now, however, in which we recognize that differences in gender do not entail a difference between the fundamental worth or basic rights of two human beings. Denying loving and committed same-sex couples entrance to the marital state perpetuates the illiberal and regressive values of past ages. It is that dysfunctional past from which marriage must be defended, not the aspiration of present-day Americans to support one another in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer.
I urge you, Congressman, to reflect carefully on this matter. You may disagree with the principles underlying the above amendment, but please know that millions of Americans believe the right to marry the partner of one's choice to be inalienable, and we shall not rest until those rights are guaranteed in law to all citizens of our Republic.
Thank your for your attention, I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Bachus,
I write to you as a concerned citizen to urge you to change your stance on the issue of same-sex marriage. On your website you include a statement entitled "The Defense of Marriage Requires a Constitutional Amendment." I would agree with this proposition, yet I would insist that the constitution must be amended to read, "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."
Your statement fosters many common misconceptions about marriage and its history. For example, you declare, "More than 200 years of American law and thousands of years of human experience should not be arbitrarily changed by a handful of judges and local authorities." Yet if we are to discuss the long sweep of "human experience," it must be acknowledged that same-sex love and same-sex union have been attested to in virtually all human societies for as long as written records have been kept. The only factor that prevented same-sex unions from being deemed "marriages" in the past was the rigidly patriarchal and illiberal nature of pre-modern society. Only men and women could be married because marriage, like all other social bonds, was defined as a union between two unequal partners: husband-lord and subject-wife. The "natural" imbalance of powers in the marital bond was considered an organic product of the "natural" superiority of men over women. To allow a union between two people of the same gender would be to create a marriage in which there was no "natural" master and subject, thus inviting social anarchy.
We live in more enlightened times now, however, in which we recognize that differences in gender do not entail a difference between the fundamental worth or basic rights of two human beings. Denying loving and committed same-sex couples entrance to the marital state perpetuates the illiberal and regressive values of past ages. It is that dysfunctional past from which marriage must be defended, not the aspiration of present-day Americans to support one another in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer.
I urge you, Congressman, to reflect carefully on this matter. You may disagree with the principles underlying the above amendment, but please know that millions of Americans believe the right to marry the partner of one's choice to be inalienable, and we shall not rest until those rights are guaranteed in law to all citizens of our Republic.
Thank your for your attention, I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Friday, November 28, 2008
Alabama (V) Congressman Robert Aderholt
Today Congressman Robert Aderholt, Republican, representative of Alabama's 4th Congressional District (1433 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515):
Dear Congressman Aderholt,
I write as a fellow American to urge you to change your stance on the issue of same-sex marriage. You are obviously a man of deeply held religious principles, as attested by your sponsorship of House Resolution 2045 of the 108th Congress, the "Ten Commandments Defense Act." Your devotion to the Ten Commandments is admirable, but if you honor the Bible in whole and in spirit rather than in part and in letter I find your stance on same-sex marriage difficult to understand. Does not the Gospel of Matthew say, “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” You have the good fortune of being married to a person that you love and cherish. Think how you would feel if the bond you had formed with your wife was arbitrarily declared null and void, if your family enjoyed none of the rights and protections that other families are granted by law.
The current state of our law is unjust and discriminatory. Marriage to the partner of one's choice is an inalienable civil right, one that can not be deprived by any government or institution. These rights will only be safeguarded for all citizens, however, when our Constitution is amended to read, "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." I urge you to rethink your position on this issue, and to lend your support to this needful change to our basic law.
Thank you for your attention, I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Aderholt,
I write as a fellow American to urge you to change your stance on the issue of same-sex marriage. You are obviously a man of deeply held religious principles, as attested by your sponsorship of House Resolution 2045 of the 108th Congress, the "Ten Commandments Defense Act." Your devotion to the Ten Commandments is admirable, but if you honor the Bible in whole and in spirit rather than in part and in letter I find your stance on same-sex marriage difficult to understand. Does not the Gospel of Matthew say, “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” You have the good fortune of being married to a person that you love and cherish. Think how you would feel if the bond you had formed with your wife was arbitrarily declared null and void, if your family enjoyed none of the rights and protections that other families are granted by law.
The current state of our law is unjust and discriminatory. Marriage to the partner of one's choice is an inalienable civil right, one that can not be deprived by any government or institution. These rights will only be safeguarded for all citizens, however, when our Constitution is amended to read, "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." I urge you to rethink your position on this issue, and to lend your support to this needful change to our basic law.
Thank you for your attention, I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Confessions of a Lazy Blogger
By way of full disclosure, I feel compelled to confess a trick that I have learned that I intend to employ in future as part of my letter-writing campaign. It seems that many members of Congress have configured their websites to only receive email from constituents. However, their websites almost invariably contain links to organizations within their districts that provide a ZIP code that may be used to get through their email filter. In the case of Jo Bonner I actually printed out my letter and ran down to the post office to post it. In the case of Mike Rogers I gave my ZIP code and mailing address as that of the Cherokee County Chamber of Commerce. This is deceptive, of course, but I feel that my transgression is no worse than that of the Congressman who has arbitrarily placed obstacles in the path of citizens seeking to contact him.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Alabama (IV) Congressman Mike Rogers
I hope all who read this blog had a Happy Thanksgiving.
The Congressman from Alabama's 2nd Congressional District, Terry Everett, is a lame duck (soon to be replaced by Democrat Bobby Bright). So today I am addressing a letter to Congressman Mike Rogers (324 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515), Republican, of Alabama's 3rd Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Rogers,
I write you as a concerned citizen to urge you to change your stance on the issue of same-sex marriage. You are obviously a person of faith, as evinced by your proposal of a Constitutional amendment to allow prayer in schools. You may feel that your faith justifies your support of the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment" that would deprive same-sex couples of the right to marry throughout our Union, but is that the charitable or Christian stance? If two people love one-another and are committed to establishing a family, what earthly power may legitimately deny them?
The question does not merely reduce to one of individual liberty or personal happiness, however, but extends into the realm of religious freedom. Certain religious denominations offer the sacrament of marriage to same-sex couples. By licensing all marriages performed by certain religious groups but only some marriages performed by others, does not the United States violate its First Amendment commitment to make no "establishment of religion?" How can you ask that all people be free to pray in school on the one hand and insist that clergy are not free to form a marital bond in their own churches on the other?
Individual civil liberties and genuinely ecumenical religious freedom will only be a reality in our Republic when the Constitution is amended to read, "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." I urge you to scrutinize your own principles and carefully consider your position on this issue.
I thank you for your attention, I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
The Congressman from Alabama's 2nd Congressional District, Terry Everett, is a lame duck (soon to be replaced by Democrat Bobby Bright). So today I am addressing a letter to Congressman Mike Rogers (324 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515), Republican, of Alabama's 3rd Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Rogers,
I write you as a concerned citizen to urge you to change your stance on the issue of same-sex marriage. You are obviously a person of faith, as evinced by your proposal of a Constitutional amendment to allow prayer in schools. You may feel that your faith justifies your support of the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment" that would deprive same-sex couples of the right to marry throughout our Union, but is that the charitable or Christian stance? If two people love one-another and are committed to establishing a family, what earthly power may legitimately deny them?
The question does not merely reduce to one of individual liberty or personal happiness, however, but extends into the realm of religious freedom. Certain religious denominations offer the sacrament of marriage to same-sex couples. By licensing all marriages performed by certain religious groups but only some marriages performed by others, does not the United States violate its First Amendment commitment to make no "establishment of religion?" How can you ask that all people be free to pray in school on the one hand and insist that clergy are not free to form a marital bond in their own churches on the other?
Individual civil liberties and genuinely ecumenical religious freedom will only be a reality in our Republic when the Constitution is amended to read, "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." I urge you to scrutinize your own principles and carefully consider your position on this issue.
I thank you for your attention, I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Alabama (III) Congressman Jo Bonner
Today I continue through Alabama's congressional delegation with Congressman Jo Bonner, (422 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515, 202-225-4931), Republican, representative of Alabama's 1st Congressional District (NOTE: Congressman Bonner does not accept emails from non-constituents, out-of-state correspondents will have to contact him by regular post):
Dear Congressman Bonner,
I write to you as a concerned citizen to urge you to change your stance on the issue of same-sex marriage. Your record in the House of Representatives, such as your sponsorship of House Resolution 1946 of the 110th Congress extending recognition to the Mowa Band of the Choctaw Indians or your co-sponsorship of House Concurrent Resolution 273 of the 109th Congress commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the Montgomery bus boycott, demonstrates a concern for the protection and promotion of civil rights. Yet you voted in favor of the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment" that would have stripped same-sex couples of their right to marry the partner of their choice. Indeed, your record on the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender citizens is abysmal. The Human Rights Campaign Congressional Scorecard gives you a score of "eleven (out of 100)" for the 108th Congress and a score of "zero(!)" for the 109th and 110th.
Why, Congressman, are you so responsive to the rights of African and Native Americans and so unconcerned for the plight of millions of Americans being denied their right to marry? I find it bewildering that you would sympathize with Rosa Parks' righteous desire to ride a bus with her fellow citizens but are unmoved by the basic and natural desire of millions of Americans to marry the persons whom they love and cherish. Just as you joined your colleagues in honoring the dignity and courage of Rosa Parks in defying the once unjust and discriminatory laws of your home state of Alabama, Americans in ever-increasing numbers honor the dignity and courage of same-sex couples in building and maintaining families in defiance of the unjust and discriminatory state of our current laws.
If your deed was as good as your word, Congressman, you would join in the struggle to redress the assault upon civil liberties that stems from marriage inequality. Civil rights will only be guaranteed to all Americans when our Constitution is amended to read, "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." You may disagree with the principles that underly such a change to our basic law, but please know that millions of Americans take these rights to be inalienable and inviolable, and will not rest until they are guaranteed to all citizens of our Republic. I urge you to reconsider your stance on this issue, and trust in any case that you shall act conscientiously.
Thank you for your attention, I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Bonner,
I write to you as a concerned citizen to urge you to change your stance on the issue of same-sex marriage. Your record in the House of Representatives, such as your sponsorship of House Resolution 1946 of the 110th Congress extending recognition to the Mowa Band of the Choctaw Indians or your co-sponsorship of House Concurrent Resolution 273 of the 109th Congress commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the Montgomery bus boycott, demonstrates a concern for the protection and promotion of civil rights. Yet you voted in favor of the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment" that would have stripped same-sex couples of their right to marry the partner of their choice. Indeed, your record on the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender citizens is abysmal. The Human Rights Campaign Congressional Scorecard gives you a score of "eleven (out of 100)" for the 108th Congress and a score of "zero(!)" for the 109th and 110th.
Why, Congressman, are you so responsive to the rights of African and Native Americans and so unconcerned for the plight of millions of Americans being denied their right to marry? I find it bewildering that you would sympathize with Rosa Parks' righteous desire to ride a bus with her fellow citizens but are unmoved by the basic and natural desire of millions of Americans to marry the persons whom they love and cherish. Just as you joined your colleagues in honoring the dignity and courage of Rosa Parks in defying the once unjust and discriminatory laws of your home state of Alabama, Americans in ever-increasing numbers honor the dignity and courage of same-sex couples in building and maintaining families in defiance of the unjust and discriminatory state of our current laws.
If your deed was as good as your word, Congressman, you would join in the struggle to redress the assault upon civil liberties that stems from marriage inequality. Civil rights will only be guaranteed to all Americans when our Constitution is amended to read, "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." You may disagree with the principles that underly such a change to our basic law, but please know that millions of Americans take these rights to be inalienable and inviolable, and will not rest until they are guaranteed to all citizens of our Republic. I urge you to reconsider your stance on this issue, and trust in any case that you shall act conscientiously.
Thank you for your attention, I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Alabama (II) Senator Jeff Sessions
Today I continue through Alabama's congressional delegation with Senator Jeff Sessions (335 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-4124), Republican, junior senator from Alabama:
Dear Senator Sessions,
I write as a concerned citizen to urge you to change your position on same-sex marriage. On June 7, 2006 you spoke on the floor of the Senate in support of the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment," an attempt to effect a national ban on same-sex marriages. In your statement you declared:
Marriage is important. Our culture and the quality of life of our people in this Nation are important. Just yesterday, the people of my State, by an 81-percent majority, approved a constitutional amendment to the Alabama Constitution which said that no marriage license shall be issued in Alabama to parties of the same sex and the State shall not recognize a marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred as a result of the law of any other jurisdiction. But that amendment is in jeopardy by the court rulings in the United States, and a ruling that the U.S. Constitution requires that same-sex marriage be recognized just like other marriages will trump Alabama's constitution and that of the 19 other States which passed such resolutions by a vote of 71 percent.
I agree with you, Senator, that marriage is vitally important, which is why it is imperative that our U.S. Constitution be amended in precisely the opposite manner that you and your like-minded colleagues proposed. Several states have already recognized the rights of same-sex couples to marry, establishing a trend that will no doubt continue. Even without such a Supreme Court ruling as you describe, we are now left with the extraordinary circumstance that couples recognized as married in some parts of our Union can not have their bond acknowledged in other parts of our Union. Even if you are unmoved by concern for the rights and welfare of the individuals so affected, I would think you stirred by concern for the institution of marriage itself. If marriage comes to mean different things in different places, if its rights and protections are not guaranteed to all equally, it will lose some of its force as a binding ligament of our greater society.
The problem is not a mere abstraction, however, but has an urgent human dimension. What if, while traveling through Alabama, one member of a married same-sex couple became incapacitated? If her natal family intervened to separate her from her spouse, would the courts and government offices of Alabama side with them against that individual's chosen next of kin? What if children were involved? Does the state of Alabama really want to legally nullify the families that individual citizens have formed from bonds of mutual love, devotion, and respect?
I appeal to your basic sense of fairness, Senator. To protect the institution of marriage, the integrity of the American family, and the rights of all our citizens, the U.S. Constitution should be amended to read, "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." I urge you to consider this issue carefully, and trust that in any case you will act conscientiously.
I thank you for your attention. I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Senator Sessions,
I write as a concerned citizen to urge you to change your position on same-sex marriage. On June 7, 2006 you spoke on the floor of the Senate in support of the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment," an attempt to effect a national ban on same-sex marriages. In your statement you declared:
Marriage is important. Our culture and the quality of life of our people in this Nation are important. Just yesterday, the people of my State, by an 81-percent majority, approved a constitutional amendment to the Alabama Constitution which said that no marriage license shall be issued in Alabama to parties of the same sex and the State shall not recognize a marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred as a result of the law of any other jurisdiction. But that amendment is in jeopardy by the court rulings in the United States, and a ruling that the U.S. Constitution requires that same-sex marriage be recognized just like other marriages will trump Alabama's constitution and that of the 19 other States which passed such resolutions by a vote of 71 percent.
I agree with you, Senator, that marriage is vitally important, which is why it is imperative that our U.S. Constitution be amended in precisely the opposite manner that you and your like-minded colleagues proposed. Several states have already recognized the rights of same-sex couples to marry, establishing a trend that will no doubt continue. Even without such a Supreme Court ruling as you describe, we are now left with the extraordinary circumstance that couples recognized as married in some parts of our Union can not have their bond acknowledged in other parts of our Union. Even if you are unmoved by concern for the rights and welfare of the individuals so affected, I would think you stirred by concern for the institution of marriage itself. If marriage comes to mean different things in different places, if its rights and protections are not guaranteed to all equally, it will lose some of its force as a binding ligament of our greater society.
The problem is not a mere abstraction, however, but has an urgent human dimension. What if, while traveling through Alabama, one member of a married same-sex couple became incapacitated? If her natal family intervened to separate her from her spouse, would the courts and government offices of Alabama side with them against that individual's chosen next of kin? What if children were involved? Does the state of Alabama really want to legally nullify the families that individual citizens have formed from bonds of mutual love, devotion, and respect?
I appeal to your basic sense of fairness, Senator. To protect the institution of marriage, the integrity of the American family, and the rights of all our citizens, the U.S. Constitution should be amended to read, "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." I urge you to consider this issue carefully, and trust that in any case you will act conscientiously.
I thank you for your attention. I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Monday, November 24, 2008
Alabama (I) Senator Richard Shelby
I plan to conduct this run through Congress state-by-state, alphabetically. Today begins with Alabama. The following letter is to Senator Richard Shelby (110 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-5744), Republican, the senior Senator from Alabama:
Dear Senator Shelby,
As a fellow American I write to urge you to reconsider your position on the issue of same-sex marriage. As a cosponsor of the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment," you have been one of the most vocal opponents of the legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States Senate. In your statement to the Senate of June 7, 2006, you express shock that defenders of same-sex marriage rights are "redefining a fundamental institution of our society." Yet the institution of marriage has been redefined by and in our Republic since the beginning of our ongoing American Revolution. There was a time in world history, for example, when most marriages could be joined despite the unwillingness of one or both spouses to enter the marital bond. You declare in your Senate statement:
If you had told me 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago that I would be standing before the United States Senate advocating a Constitutional Amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman I would have thought you had lost your mind. Why in the world would you ever need to do that – doesn’t it go without saying that men and women get married?
But would not the same be true if you had told someone in Alabama fifty years ago that it would someday be illegal to ban the marriage of a black woman to a white man? Yet Loving v. Virginia would have been less than ten years away, in 1967.
Marriage is not only a fundamental social institution, it is one of the principal means we may exercise as individuals to define our place in the community and the world at large. Our spouse is the one kinship relation that we may freely choose, and forming that bond is among the most important and powerful steps we may take in establishing ourselves as social beings. As such, marriage to the partner of one's choice is an inalienable civil right, one that can not be denied to any citizen, even by a vote of the majority. You cite the words of Abraham Lincoln naming ours a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." But Lincoln also said, of the Founders' articulation of humanity's equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness:
They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere.
We live today through one more phase of the "spreading and deepening" influence of the Founders' seminal vision. Same-sex marriage preserves the same values of love, fidelity, devotion, and care that have been the positive moral core of marriage throughout human history. If Lincoln were alive today and could witness all that transpires in our society, I believe he would earnestly approve these words of Mildred Loving:
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry.
Though I disagree with many of your policies and opinions, I sincerely admire your long record of public service to our country. I appeal to your proven sense of decency and patriotism to rethink your stance on this issue, and to give your support to a constitutional amendment in defense of the rights of same sex couples to marry. Such a "Marriage Equality Amendment" would read, "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." You may disagree with the principles underlying such a change to our basic law, but please know that millions of Americans believe these rights to be inviolable and that they must be protected for all citizens throughout our Union.
I thank you for your attention, I hope this letter finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Senator Shelby,
As a fellow American I write to urge you to reconsider your position on the issue of same-sex marriage. As a cosponsor of the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment," you have been one of the most vocal opponents of the legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States Senate. In your statement to the Senate of June 7, 2006, you express shock that defenders of same-sex marriage rights are "redefining a fundamental institution of our society." Yet the institution of marriage has been redefined by and in our Republic since the beginning of our ongoing American Revolution. There was a time in world history, for example, when most marriages could be joined despite the unwillingness of one or both spouses to enter the marital bond. You declare in your Senate statement:
If you had told me 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago that I would be standing before the United States Senate advocating a Constitutional Amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman I would have thought you had lost your mind. Why in the world would you ever need to do that – doesn’t it go without saying that men and women get married?
But would not the same be true if you had told someone in Alabama fifty years ago that it would someday be illegal to ban the marriage of a black woman to a white man? Yet Loving v. Virginia would have been less than ten years away, in 1967.
Marriage is not only a fundamental social institution, it is one of the principal means we may exercise as individuals to define our place in the community and the world at large. Our spouse is the one kinship relation that we may freely choose, and forming that bond is among the most important and powerful steps we may take in establishing ourselves as social beings. As such, marriage to the partner of one's choice is an inalienable civil right, one that can not be denied to any citizen, even by a vote of the majority. You cite the words of Abraham Lincoln naming ours a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." But Lincoln also said, of the Founders' articulation of humanity's equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness:
They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere.
We live today through one more phase of the "spreading and deepening" influence of the Founders' seminal vision. Same-sex marriage preserves the same values of love, fidelity, devotion, and care that have been the positive moral core of marriage throughout human history. If Lincoln were alive today and could witness all that transpires in our society, I believe he would earnestly approve these words of Mildred Loving:
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry.
Though I disagree with many of your policies and opinions, I sincerely admire your long record of public service to our country. I appeal to your proven sense of decency and patriotism to rethink your stance on this issue, and to give your support to a constitutional amendment in defense of the rights of same sex couples to marry. Such a "Marriage Equality Amendment" would read, "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." You may disagree with the principles underlying such a change to our basic law, but please know that millions of Americans believe these rights to be inviolable and that they must be protected for all citizens throughout our Union.
I thank you for your attention, I hope this letter finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Marriage Equality Amendment
It is past time that the United States Constitution be amended to protect the rights of same-sex couples to marry. Marriage to the partner of one's choice is an inalienable civil right, one that can not be denied to any individual by any government or institution, even by a vote of the majority. The numerous state bans and federal prohibitions that have been enacted in recent years are in flagrant violation of the founding principles of our Republic. In order to prevent and undo injustices like California's "Proposition 8," our basic law must be amended to clearly safeguard the rights of all citizens. The amendment that I propose be passed by Congress and the states reads:
The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation.
On this blog I will be posting one letter every day to members of the House of Representatives and Senate, requesting them to sponsor or support the adoption of this amendment on the floor of Congress. I invite all readers to join in my letter-writing campaign. I encourage everyone who reads this blog and cares deeply about this issue to write a letter (or better yet, numerous letters) to your own Representative and Senators. The links on the left sidebar of this blog can help you find out who your Representative and Senators are. They also provide postal addresses and easy point-and click tools for use in sending your congressional legislators email. Feel free to source my letters or compose ones of your own.
I have started a Facebook group dedicated to promoting this amendment. Please join and invite others to do so.
Comments to this blog are welcome. However, though I believe in free speech, I will not support a platform for the broadcasting of hatred or bigotry. Civil dialogue and alternative opinions that are reasonably expressed will be retained, but any comments expressing contempt for or hatred of same-sex couples or LGBT citizens will be (and have been) deleted. Please choose another forum in which to express such thoughts, they are not welcome here.
The following is the text of a letter I sent to my Representative, Congressman Rush Holt, and New Jersey Senators Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez:
Dear Congressman Holt,
As your constituent and supporter I write you with an urgent matter. Like many I am shocked and saddened by the injustice that has been done in California with the passage of Proposition 8, that has nullified the newly joined families of so many same-sex couples. Marriage to the partner of one's choice is a civil right, and as such it should be protected for all citizens, even from the whims of the majority. It is time that our United States Constitution be amended to protect the rights of same-sex couples from depredations like Proposition 8. I propose that the following amendment be put to the Congress and the states: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Would you sir, in coordination with your colleagues in the House and Senate, be willing to sponsor this amendment or one like it? I appeal to your proven sense of decency, fairness, and patriotism. I will be contacting other members of Congress with this request. Thank you for your attention, I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation.
On this blog I will be posting one letter every day to members of the House of Representatives and Senate, requesting them to sponsor or support the adoption of this amendment on the floor of Congress. I invite all readers to join in my letter-writing campaign. I encourage everyone who reads this blog and cares deeply about this issue to write a letter (or better yet, numerous letters) to your own Representative and Senators. The links on the left sidebar of this blog can help you find out who your Representative and Senators are. They also provide postal addresses and easy point-and click tools for use in sending your congressional legislators email. Feel free to source my letters or compose ones of your own.
I have started a Facebook group dedicated to promoting this amendment. Please join and invite others to do so.
Comments to this blog are welcome. However, though I believe in free speech, I will not support a platform for the broadcasting of hatred or bigotry. Civil dialogue and alternative opinions that are reasonably expressed will be retained, but any comments expressing contempt for or hatred of same-sex couples or LGBT citizens will be (and have been) deleted. Please choose another forum in which to express such thoughts, they are not welcome here.
The following is the text of a letter I sent to my Representative, Congressman Rush Holt, and New Jersey Senators Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez:
Dear Congressman Holt,
As your constituent and supporter I write you with an urgent matter. Like many I am shocked and saddened by the injustice that has been done in California with the passage of Proposition 8, that has nullified the newly joined families of so many same-sex couples. Marriage to the partner of one's choice is a civil right, and as such it should be protected for all citizens, even from the whims of the majority. It is time that our United States Constitution be amended to protect the rights of same-sex couples from depredations like Proposition 8. I propose that the following amendment be put to the Congress and the states: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Would you sir, in coordination with your colleagues in the House and Senate, be willing to sponsor this amendment or one like it? I appeal to your proven sense of decency, fairness, and patriotism. I will be contacting other members of Congress with this request. Thank you for your attention, I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.png)
