California (V) Congressman Dan Lundgren

Today I continue with Congressman Dan Lundgren, Republican, representative of California's 3rd Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Lundgren,

I write as a concerned citizen to protest your stand on the issue of same-sex marriage. In the most recent election you threw your support behind California's "Proposition 8," declaring that the state Supreme Court's ruling had "overturned the will of the people." You issued this statement:

“From coast to coast, from Massachusetts to California, courts have taken away the people’s right to decide how they should be governed. This decision by the California Supreme Court is an astounding example of judicial fiat from the bench. This is a decision that should concern not only those who hold traditional values regarding marriage, but also anyone who believes in the rule of law and a representative form of government.”

Such reasoning is either misguided or deeply disingenuous, Congressman. In deciding that same-sex couples were guaranteed the right to marry under the state's constitution, the California Supreme Court was acting in perfect accord with its constitutional role. The people's right "to decide how they should be governed" does not extend to the power to deprive any individual of his or her basic civil rights, and policing that boundary has always been the time-honored duty of the courts.

Moreover, no action of the courts in California, Massachusetts, or anywhere else has deprived "those who hold 'traditional' values regarding marriage" from fulfilling or adhering to them. Marriage is a civil institution. As such, though there will always be differences between religious groups and cultural communities over how it is defined and what makes it legitimate, society must come to a reasonable and fair consensus as to whose marriages will enjoy the protections and sanction of the state. There is no philosophically or logically sound argument that can be made for excluding same-sex couples from the civil marriage bond. They make the same mutual commitments that all couples do, incur the same risks, and offer up the same sacrifices. They thus are owed the same protections (1, 138 of them, according to the audit of the Government Accountability Office) that are enjoyed by everyone else. Moreover, many of them are caring for children who are left significantly vulnerable without the guarantees that marriage affords. The current state of our laws is thus not merely unfair, it is unjust, illiberal, and discriminatory.

Clear as this logic is to me and others of like mind, misfortunes like the recent passage of Proposition 8 demonstrate that in the current state of general confusion, the rights of same sex-couples will not be dependably recognized and safeguarded by our governing institutions. To be true to the founding spirit of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution must thus 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." Please understand that millions of Americans find the truths underlying the need for such a legal change self-evident, and will work tirelessly to see them realized. I appeal to you to search your conscience and give due reflection to your position on this issue.

Thank you for your attention in this matter, I hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (IV) Congressman Wally Herger

Today I continue with Congressman Wally Herger, Republican, representative of California's 2nd Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Herger,

I write you as a concerned citizen to protest your stand on same-sex marriage. You have been an active opponent of all measures recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry, and lent your support to the recently passed Proposition 8. You campaigned around your state and the country, giving speeches declaring that same-sex marriage not only distorts the "traditional" definition of marriage but poses a threat to "healthy" family life, implying, for example, that the legalization of same-sex marriage in Europe can somehow be correlated to a supposed increase in children born out of wedlock. All the while, you maintain that your opposition to same-sex marriage does not mean that you are "anti-gay." With all due respect, Congressman, such a claim is equivalent to the bygone pleas of segregationists that, though they advocated separation of the races, they were not racists.

Same-sex marriage poses no threat, either to the institution of marriage itself or to the family life of the nation. The only real threat is the one that the discriminatory and unjust nature of our current laws poses, both to the rights of our citizens and to the ongoing family life of same-sex couples and their children. I am frankly appalled that a person of your education and experience would work, not only to deny fellow Americans recognition of their rights, but to strip them of protections they have already won. Such deeds rebel against the founding spirit of our Republic and are beneath the dignity of the office you hold.

Our laws will only be brought into alignment with the basic and inalienable rights of our citizens when our U.S. 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 expressed in this proposed reform, Congressman, but please know that millions of Americans cherish them and will work tirelessly to see them realized. I urge you to search your conscience and give further reflection to this issue. If you can not lend your support to the legalization of same-sex marriage, you may at least relinquish your opposition.

Thank you for your attention in this matter. I hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (III) Congressman Mike Thompson

Today I continue with Congressman Mike Thompson, Democrat, representative of California's 1st Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Thompson,

I write to you as a concerned citizen pleading your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry. You have long been an advocate for civil rights, and joined colleagues in co-sponsoring House Joint Resolution 40 of the 110th Congress that would have reintroduced the Equal Rights Amendment to the states for ratification. At present the position of same-sex couples is one of urgent crisis. Not only are hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples and their children systematically deprived of their natural rights by our discriminatory laws and institutions, but because of travesties like Proposition 8, even many families that have briefly enjoyed hard-won recognition of their rights have seen them stripped away.

The dignity and personal autonomy of millions of our citizens and the welfare of thousands of families hinges upon an end to marital inequality. To that end, the only sure and just solution is an amendment to our federal Constitution which 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." The Equal Rights Amendment, correctly interpreted, would no doubt secure rights of marital equality to same-sex couples. Recent history has shown that social prejudices are so pervasive and profound, however, that one would be foolish to rely upon such an operation of clear juristic logic. At the very least, therefore, the Equal Rights Amendment would have to be revised to include language specifically guaranteeing the rights of same-sex couples in order to reliably serve the cause of marriage equality.

You have been an outspoken leader in the Democratic caucus, Congressman, would you not contemplate taking up this fight? I trust you to give the issue due consideration, and to act with the same conscientious integrity you have demonstrated throughout your career. Thank you for your many years of service and for your attention on this matter. I hope this message finds you well and enjoying the holiday season.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (II) Senator Barbara Boxer

Today I continue with Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat, the junior Senator from California:

Dear Senator Boxer,

I write you as a fellow Democrat and concerned citizen to plead for your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry. In the wake of the dispiriting passage of Proposition 8 in California on November 4, you offered words of encouragement, saying: “The fight for equality goes on and on. The fight for a more perfect union goes on and on.”

Like you I view the fight for marriage equality as fundamentally a question of civil rights, it is indeed the great civil rights struggle of our generation. The next logical step to take in that fight is an amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Proposition 8 demonstrated how fragile the most hard-won recognition of marriage rights can be at the state level. Same-sex couples and their children will thus never securely enjoy the protections and guarantees that are theirs by right until our federal 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."

Your words suggest that you understand the severity of the ongoing injustice and the urgency of the call to action, Senator. Will you take the lead in championing this reform to our basic law among your colleagues in the House and Senate? The fight may take many years and involve serious political risks, but those costs are small when viewed against the centuries-long struggle for "a more perfect Union" to which you alluded.

I trust you to give this issue due consideration and to act with the same conscientious integrity you have displayed throughout your career. Thank you for your attention in this matter, I hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (I) Senator Dianne Feinstein

Today I begin a correspondence with California's congressional delegation with the senior senator for that state, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat:

Dear Senator Feinstein:

I write you as a fellow Democrat and concerned American to plead your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment recognizing the rights of same-sex couples to marry. Your own stance on the issue of same-sex marriage has evolved over time. Initially you withheld support for the legalization of same-sex marriage but favored the granting of civil unions at the state level. In the wake of California's full legalization of same-sex marriage and in the fight over Proposition 8, however, you expressed a change of heart, declaring, "As a state, I believe we should uphold the ability of our friends, neighbors and co-workers who are gay and lesbian to enter into the contract of marriage."

Though regrettably Proposition 8 passed by a narrow margin in the most recent election, your unequivocal support for the rights of same-sex couples helped shift the terms of our discourse, both in your home state and in the nation as a whole. Would you not contemplate exerting that leadership yet again? In the past you have expressed disapproval of a federal Constitutional amendment regarding marriage, rising on the floor of the Senate on June 6, 2006 to voice your opposition to the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" urged by President Bush. In those extensive and eloquent remarks, you grounded your opposition to such an amendment in three principles: 1)family law was the traditional and proper purview of the states, not the federal government; 2) a Constitutional amendment is too difficult to pass and lacks the required support in either the Congress or the individual states; 3)the nation has far more urgent concerns, and can not afford to spend time debating the particulars of same-sex marriage.

Though I admire your principled opposition to the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment," I hope that the convictions you voiced in opposing it will not dissuade you from lending your support to a Marriage Equality Amendment. Though you are unimpeachably correct that family law has been the traditional purview of the states, the protection of civil rights is the rightful domain of the federal government, and the U.S. has intervened in the states' legislation and adjudication of family law where it has violated the natural rights of our citizens. Such was so in the case of Loving vs. Virginia, and such is the case now with respect to the situation of same-sex couples across the Union. The 2000 U.S. Census estimated that more than 600,000 same-sex couples are living in committed relationships that conform to the parameters of marriage in every way but legal status, and most experts would agree that that number is underestimated by several orders of magnitude. The welfare of these couples is not the only concern at stake moreover, as thousands of children are in the care of same-sex parents and left vulnerable by their lack of the protections and guarantees that marital status affords.

The situation, in short, is a crisis of epic proportions. The current state of our laws and institutions systematically violates the basic civil rights of millions of our citizens on a daily basis, many of them children who are being arbitrarily punished for the gender of their parents. You were undoubtedly right in underscoring the difficulty of passing a Constitutional amendment, but even that consideration can not undermine the urgency and magnitude of the injustice faced by same-sex couples and their children. Even if it took many years to accomplish (indeed, even if such efforts never ultimately bore fruit), advocacy of a national Constitutional amendment is the best way to reorient the debate about same-sex marriage in this country in ways that will inspire maximum regard and respect for the rights and concerns of same-sex couples and their children. Moreover, whatever may be said about its practical chances, it is in principle nothing more than what is ultimately fair and just.

The laws of our nation will never be brought fully into alignment with the rights of our citizens until the U.S. 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." Would you consider, in cooperation with your colleagues in the House and Senate, championing such a reform to our basic law? I appeal to your proven sense of fairness, patriotism, and civic engagement. In any case, I trust you to give this matter due consideration and to act with the conscientious integrity that you have displayed throughout your career.

Thank you for your attention in this matter and your many years of dedicated public service. I hope this message finds you well and enjoying the holiday season.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Arkansas (VI) Congressman Mike Ross

Today I conclude my correspondence with Arkansas' congressional delegation with Congressman Mike Ross, Democrat, representative of Arkansas' 4th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Ross,

I write you as a fellow Democrat and a concerned citizen to urge you to change your stance on the issue of same-sex marriage. You have twice crossed party lines to vote in favor of the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment" that would ban same-sex marriage across the United States, even in states where it is currently legal. I can not help but be surprised that you or any other legislator would vote to inscribe the curtailment of existing rights into our Republic's basic law.

The rights you would have taken from our fellow citizens are more than incidental, moreover. The protections and benefits being enjoyed by same-sex couples in Connecticut and Massachusetts (and, until recently, California) are, no more and no less, the fundamental civil rights that are due to all citizens without regard to sex or sexual orientation. The Government Accountability Office lists 1,138 legal benefits and privileges that flow from married status. Marriage is thus the most profound and powerful way (short of becoming a parent) that a citizen may voluntarily shape his or her own position in society and the world. As a devoted husband and parent yourself you must understand the enormously consequential impact of this life change. Why then would you deny millions of our compatriots entry into the marital state? To grant these couples legal marriage would not be an act of extraordinary grace or toleration, but the simple recognition of their already intrinsic and inalienable rights. The current state of our laws is discriminatory and unjust, to speak nothing of the execrable amendment to which you lent your support.

Our laws and institutions will not be brought into alignment with the basic and natural rights of our citizens until the U.S. 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." Please give this matter due consideration, Congressman. I appeal to your proven sense of fairness, patriotism, and concern for the public good.

Thank you for your attention on this issue. I hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Arkansas (V) Congressman John Boozman

Today I continue with Congressman John Boozman, Republican, representative of Arkansas' 3rd Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Boozman,

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 post this declaration about so-called "Values Legislation":

"I firmly believe that traditional marriage, a union between a man and woman, is the backbone of our society. Studies have shown that marriage between a man and a woman makes for strong families, which in turn, makes for a strong nation. Unfortunately, many activist judges across America are trying to change the definition of marriage to fit their own agenda.

In an effort to end this, I have cosponsored and voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment, a bill that would define marriage in the Constitution and protect it from being radically redefined by judges who overstep their constitutional boundaries. This bill will hold judges accountable and prevent them from redefining marriage. It also allows for state voters and legislatures to determine if they wish to grant civil unions, without imposing on the rights of other states."

I frankly, Congressman, can not see any values expressed here except those rooted in bigotry. Your language is so imprecise that I suspect a tone of disingenuous cynicism. You must know that most of the credible "studies" to which you refer do indeed find that children thrive in two-parent households, thus it would be accurate to characterize them as asserting that "marriage between a man and a woman makes for strong families." However, almost no credible research has shown that the gender of both parents makes any difference to a child's welfare, thus the fact that "marriage between a man and a woman" can strengthen a family does not prove that marriage between "a man and a man" or between "a woman and a woman" will not. Indeed, many thousands of healthy, happy children are in the care of single-sex couples today, and are undoubtedly better off than they would be in the care of a single parent or in a group home. The only thing that would make their lives a bit easier is if their parents could enjoy the rights and benefits that flow from marriage.

Your allusion to the sinister-sounding "agenda" of "activist judges" is quite typical of the rhetoric deployed to oppose marriage equality, but what does it mean? If you insist that "traditional marriage" is defined as "between a man and a woman," I must ask- where and by whom? In human history there have been almost as many definitions of "traditional marriage" as there have been cultures and societies, and in each of these the institution of marriage has evolved over time. In imperial China a man could marry as many wives as he could afford to support. Among the Igbo people of Nigeria an older woman can take a younger one as her wife (the relationship is non-sexual, but as "husband" the older woman acquires rights of property and adoption that are reserved to men). In ancient Greece, where male same-sex love was a norm, marriage was only restricted to couples of opposite gender because it was defined as a relationship of master to subordinate, thus requiring that a male "superior" wed a female "inferior."

Here in the U.S. we have already instituted many facets of civil marriage that fly in the face of the traditions of numerous societies. The fact that American couples can only be wed if both partners are willing, that they may choose to employ contraception, and that they may dissolve the marital bond through mutual consent are three examples of marital custom that, from the perspective of certain cultures or religious groups, serve as the hallmarks of a nefarious "agenda." Americans have established these changes in the civil institution of marriage because they reflect our shared commitment to the protection of individual autonomy, dignity, and freedom. The extension of these guarantees of the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is the sole "agenda" at the heart of the movement for marriage equality.

I can only hope that you are unaware of the offense you cause with your "concession" that states may grant "civil unions" so long as they do not impose on the rights of other states. What other case can you think of, Congressman, in which the rights of states trump those of individual citizens? Two first cousins who have been married in California will not fail to have their marriage recognized in any of the 26 states in which first-cousin marriage is illegal, because it is understood that the state's right to regulate marriage can not fairly be preserved at the expense of rights and privileges those citizens already enjoy. Why should that principle be different in the case of same-sex couples? Is their personhood any less valid, that the same legal reasoning should not apply to them?

If what you object to is same-sex love, Congressman, I can only wish that you had the courage to come out and declare it. Your religious beliefs might compel you to find same-sex love immoral, and if so that is your prerogative. Seeking to conceal this prejudice under the cover of rhetorical half-truths and logically flawed plausibilities shows a lack of integrity, however.

Even if you object to the morality of same-sex love, moreover, that is not a cogent principle on which to oppose the legality of same-sex marriage. Many aspects of civil marriage that are deeply offensive to the religious sensibilities of particular faith groups (the ease of divorce, the equality of men and women in the marital bond, etc.) remain fundamental to U.S. family law. The basic principles of our Republic compel us to legally and socially tolerate in our fellow citizens customs and practices that are proscribed within the confessional communities in which we conduct our private spiritual lives. In this respect the right of same-sex couples to marry is no different than the right of a butcher to sell pork on the same street which holds a synagogue or a liquor store to open shop in a community that houses a mosque.

The right to marry the partner of one's choice is basic and inalienable, it can not be taken away by the whims of the majority or the deliberations of the individual states. The current state of our laws and institutions is thus unjust and discriminatory. The situation will only be redressed when the U.S. Constitution is amended to read, "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on the basis of sex or sexual orientation." You may disagree with the principles underlying such a reform, but please know that millions of citizens believe passionately that it is necessary, and will not rest until marriage rights are fairly guaranteed to all citizens.

Thank you for your attention on this matter. I hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Arkansas (IV) Congressman Vic Snyder

Today I continue my correspondence with Arkansas' Congressional delegation with Congressman Vic Snyder, Democrat, representative of Arkansas' 2nd Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Snyder,

I write you as a fellow Democrat and a concerned citizen to plead your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry. Alone among your colleagues in Arkansas' Congressional delegation you not only voted against the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment," but voiced your opposition to Arkansas' state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. You have shown great political courage and stalwart independence of mind by speaking openly in defense of the rights of same-sex couples, in a state where even opposition to a federal ban on same-sex marriage on the pretext of "states' rights" can have political consequences. Indeed, your Republican opponents in Arkansas have lost no time in exploiting this issue for maximum advantage, stooping so low as to impugn your wife's remarks as a Unitarian pastor by way of scoring crass political points in the most recent election.

Admirable and exemplary as your stand has been, you have stopped short of supporting full legalization of same-sex marriage, endorsing instead the widely shared notion that institution of "civil unions" could sufficiently guarantee the rights of same-sex couples. Experience and statistical data show, however, that this "solution" is no solution at all. Same-sex couples that enter into civil unions in states where they have been instituted continue to be deprived many of the rights and privileges of marriage even within their home states, and face cruel discrimination in other parts of the Union. Moreover, since the federal government has refused to recognize civil unions same-sex couples are excluded from all the benefits of marriage that flow from U.S. law. The sum effect of civil unions is to create a system of marital apartheid in which same-sex couples are relegated to second-class status. Such a breach of fairness and justice can not stand. As Congressman John Lewis wrote in the Boston Globe in October of 2003:

"Some say let's choose another route and give gay folks some legal rights but call it something other than marriage. We have been down that road before in this country. Separate is not equal. The rights to liberty and happiness belong to each of us and on the same terms, without regard to either skin color or sexual orientation."

Justice will not prevail in our Republic until our U.S. 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 have been such a daring and outspoken voice in the House, Congressman, would you not be willing to take up the cause of this amendment? I know that some would argue that the country is not ready for this change, but if the most recent election has taught us anything, it is that no one can be sure what change the country is ready for until someone tries to lead it there.

I trust you to give this matter due consideration, Congressman, and to act in any case with the same conscientious integrity you have displayed throughout your legislative career. Thank you for your service and your attention in this matter. I hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Arkansas (III) Congressman Marion Berry

Today I continue with Congressman Marion Berry, Democrat, representative of Arizona's 1st Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Berry,

I write as a fellow Democrat and concerned citizen to urge you to change your stance on the issue of same-sex marriage. On your website you post the following statement from February of 2004 concerning same-sex marriage:

"I personally believe that marriage is, and should remain, a union between one man and one woman.

'The current law clearly states marriage is a union between only a man and a woman. I believe this law is adequate to protect the sanctity of marriage; as Congress continues to debate how best to address this issue, I will be advocating this point of view.'"

This position would be distressing enough to those of us concerned for the rights of same-sex couples. Yet you subsequently voted "yea" to House Joint Resolution 88 of the 109th Congress, that would have amended the Constitution of the United States to ban same-sex marriage throughout the Union. Luckily, that piece of legislation failed on the floor of the House, but voters like myself can not help but be distressed by your retreat to an even more hostile posture with respect to the rights of same-sex couples.

The logic of your statement of personal belief might seem intuitively obvious, Congressman, but that is only because it rides upon the currents of popular prejudice. If two mutually consenting adults profess to love one-another and treat one-another with all the outward signs of affection, respect, care, and fidelity, what rational authority can plausibly judge them false? This question compelled the Supreme Court to rule against so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws in the case of Loving v. Virginia. Declaring one's choice of whom to love "unnatural" on the basis of gender is as arbitrary, unfair, and illogical as doing so on the basis of race. Unless you can produce some cogent argument for why same-sex love does not exist, moreover, you can not persuasively argue against the intrinsic and inalienable right of same-sex couples to marry.

The unjust and discriminatory state of our laws and institutions will only be remedied 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." Such a reform might fly in the face of your personal beliefs, Congressman, but please understand that millions of Americans hold these rights to be self-evident and inviolable, and will not rest until the exclusion of same-sex couples from the marriage bond is ended.

I appeal to you to give this issue profound consideration, and trust you in any case to act conscientiously and in the spirit of good faith. I thank you for your attention in this matter, I hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Arkansas (II) Senator Mark Pryor

Today I continue my correspondence with Arkansas' congressional delegation with Senator Mark Pryor, Democrat, the state's junior senator:

Dear Senator Pryor,

I write you as a concerned citizen to urge you to change your stance on the issue of same-sex marriage. Though you have voted against the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage nationally, on your website you include this press release:

"I oppose gay marriage. In 2004, I supported the amendment to the Arkansas constitution to ensure the status of marriage in our state remains only between a man and woman. I support the federal law we already have on the books, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between only a man and a woman and further declares that no state is required to honor a same-sex relationship sanctioned by another state. At this point, I do not think there is a need for a constitutional amendment given Arkansas’s amendment, federal law, and a judicial process that prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages."

The curtness of this declaration suggests that your opposition to same-sex marriage is self-explanatory, but such an assumption would be erroneous. It is not at all intuitively obvious why same-sex couples have any less right to marry than any other citizens, indeed quite the contrary is true. Throughout our Union millions of same-sex couples love and honor one-another with the same care, affection, and fidelity that exemplify the best ideals of marriage. Many of them are working together to raise children. Yet despite all their dedication and sacrifice, they are denied the basic guarantees and protections (1, 138 of them, according to the assessment of the U.S. Government Accountability Office) that flow from the marital bond.

Marriage to the partner of one's choice is an inalienable right. As such it should not be left to the whims of the voting booth or the disputations of the individual states. Enjoyment of this right will only be guaranteed to all U.S. citizens 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." Until such an amendment is enacted, the civil rights of same-sex couples shall continue to be held daily under siege by the operation of our discriminatory laws and institutions.

I trust you to give due consideration to this issue, Senator, and in any case to act conscientiously. Thank you for your service to our Nation and your attention in this matter. I hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Arkansas (I) Senator Blanche Lincoln

Today I begin my correspondence with Arkansas' congressional delegation with Senator Blanche Lincoln, Democrat, Arkansas' senior senator:

Dear Senator Lincoln:

I write you as a concerned citizen to beg your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment protecting the right of same-sex couples to marry. In 2006 you took a politically brave stand by opposing the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage across the Union. Your courage was underscored by the fact that a state ban on same-sex marriage had passed in Arkansas with 75% of the vote. Nor was your action taken without inviting consequences; you came under harsh criticism from many of your constituents.

However, your public statements at the time could not help but disappoint those concerned for the rights of same-sex couples. As the Arkansas Times reports:

“I oppose same-sex marriage,” Lincoln said. “Throughout my life, my religious faith has guided my strong belief that marriage is only between a man and a woman. I support the current federal law that grants states the right not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.”

Much as I admire the integrity exemplified by your independent stand, I regret that you have used your public platform to perpetuate misconceptions about the issue of same-sex marriage. Your statement misconstrues, in a way that is unfortunately all too common in our public discourse, the nature of marriage as a social institution. The definition of marriage dictated by one's faith is not germane to the issue of same-sex marriage's legality. Civil and religious marriage are two separate institutions that, though they coincidentally share a name, are wholly distinct in form and substance, even for couples that choose to enter into both. A couple joined by an exclusively civil ceremony are still living in sin from the perspective of most religious authorities, and a couple married by a priest or minister in the absence of a legal license is not genuinely married in the eyes of most state governments.

Since the religious and civil definitions of marriage are mutually incommensurate questions, contemplation of one should not be allowed to confuse deliberation about the other. If matters of faith do not bear upon the issue of same-sex marriage, then what factors do? The answer is provided among the issues statements on your website, Senator. There you include this statement pertaining to civil rights:

"As the youngest woman ever to serve in the U.S. Senate, I understand how important it is that the principles of equality and opportunity apply to all Americans. I feel Congress has a duty to ensure that discrimination does not prevent anyone from realizing their full potential. Throughout my public service, I have supported anti-discrimination policies and will continue to support such policies in the Senate."

Is not the exclusion of millions of devoted couples from the marital bond an attack upon their enjoyment of "equality and opportunity?" By being denied the guarantees and legal protections (1,138 of them, according to the estimate of the Government Accountability Office) of marriage, are they not being denied the chance to "realize their full potential?" Any amount of reflection on this matter leads inexorably to the same conclusion: marriage to the partner of one's choice is an inalienable civil right, recognition of which can not be left to the whims of the electorate or the deliberations of the individual states. Our laws and institutions will only be brought into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens when the U.S. 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 realize that your stand on this issue has probably already taken you to and beyond the limits of what is politically expedient in your home state, Senator. Real change requires real leadership, however, and at times no leadership is more powerful than to confront one's fellow citizens with ideas that challenge their misconceptions, especially those that they take most for granted. I appeal to you to search your conscience and give due consideration to what action would be right and just in this instance. In any case, I trust you to conduct yourself with the same mindfulness and integrity you have demonstrated throughout your legislative career.

Thank you for your service to our Nation and for your attention on this matter. I hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Arizona (IX) Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords

Today I conclude my correspondence with Arizona's congressional delegation with Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat, representative of Arizona's 8th Congressional District:

Dear Congresswoman Giffords,

I write to you as a fellow Democrat and concerned citizen to request your support for a Constitutional amendment recognizing the rights of same-sex couples to marry. Since being elected to your first term in 2006, you have been recognized as a dynamic and rising new force in the Democratic caucus, championing immigration reform, alternative energy development, and fiscal restraint. Though you have not seen fit to join your colleagues int the LGBT Equality Caucus, your voting record shows you sympathetic to the concerns of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender citizens. You received an 81% on the Human Rights Campaign Congressional Scorecard.

Your romance with and marriage to Mark Kelly during your first term in Congress is already the stuff of fable. Imagine, Congresswoman, if having found the one person with whom you felt destined to be, you were kept from solemnizing your union by arbitrary and discriminatory laws. As someone new to the institution of marriage you understand its life-altering potential. Indeed, as you may be aware, the federal Government Accountability Office lists 1, 138 legal protections, privileges, and benefits that accrue to a married couple under federal law. Like you I have been fortunate to find the one partner to accompany me in life, and since we are different genders we are able to enjoy the legal rights that flow from the marital bond. Millions of citizens whose chosen partners are of the same gender are unjustly denied these rights, however.

The calamity of Proposition 8 in California demonstrates that Americans' marriage rights will never be fully secure until they are Constitutionally guaranteed. Our basic law must thus 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 such an amendment is ratified millions of couples will be denied the legal protections and benefits that are naturally theirs by right.

I appeal to your obvious sense of dedication and patriotism, Congresswoman. Please lend your sponsorship to this amendment, or one like it, in coordination with your colleagues in the House and Senate. You have already distinguished yourself as a natural leader, will you take up the mantle of leadership yet again? In any case I trust you to give this issue due consideration, and to act conscientiously.

Thank you for your attention, I hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Write the LGBT Equality Caucus

One of the advantages of undertaking a project like this is that one learns a great deal about Congress and our government in general. In researching my letter to Congressman Raul Grijalva I first learned of the recently formed LGBT Equality Caucus, formed this June to advocate for issues of concern to LGBT citizens. The Caucus is co-chaired by Congressman Barney Frank (Democrat, MA) and Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (Democrat, WI) and currently lists 77 members. I have written an email to the Caucus pleading their support for a Marriage Equality Amendment and would encourage anyone who feels similarly about this issue to do so as well. Concerned citizens can email the Caucus here.

Below is the text of the email I sent using the contact address provided on the Caucus' website:

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the LGBT Equality Caucus,

I write you as a concerned citizen to request your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment recognizing same-sex couples' right to marry. Recent events in California have demonstrated how precarious any safeguards of these liberties may be. The only sure and stable guarantee of same-sex couples' right to marry would be an amendment to the U.S. Constitution reading: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." No political action short of such a reform to our basic law can genuinely serve the cause of justice in this instance.

Some may say that the nation is not ready for this radical step. That may well be so, but refraining from its advocacy will not make the nation any more ready. The shameful passage of Proposition 8 in California is a call to arms. We need leaders who will set the terms of our national discourse rather than merely responding to it. Even if it evoked passionate disapproval in the short term, advocacy of a Constitutional amendment legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the Union would force citizens to begin thinking about the issue differently. Too many voters, even those sympathetic to (or members of) the LGBT community, conceive of marriage as some form of extraordinary "gift" that might be granted to same sex couples. It is time to dispel that fallacy and give full-throated voice to the truth: marriage to the partner of one's choice is an inalienable civil right, and the current state of our laws amounts to a constant assault upon the basic freedoms of millions of our citizens.

I have started a group on Facebook, named "Gay Marriage Amendment (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=44515717994) that has attracted over 700 members in the few weeks since the election. I have also started a blog, "Marriage Equality Amendment (http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/)," on which I intend to post a letter to every member of Congress pleading the case for this reform.

You have all shown great courage in forming this caucus in the face of resilient social prejudice. Please give due consideration to this further act of political bravery. Leadership and audacity are what is needed in this hour for action.

Thank you for your service and your attention, I hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Arizona (VIII) Congressman Raul Grijalva

Today I continue with Congressman Raul Grijalva, Democrat, representative of Arizona's 7th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Grijalva,

I write as a fellow Democrat and concerned citizen to ask your support for a Constitutional amendment acknowledging the rights of same-sex couples to marry. As the recently elected Chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), you have been a dynamic leader in efforts to fight poverty, expand educational opportunity, and protect the environment. On the issue of same-sex marriage you and your colleagues likewise have an opportunity to exert groundbreaking leadership that would positively impact the lives of millions of Americans.

The website of the CPC lists, among elements of the "Progressive Promise," this commitment:

» To eliminate all forms of discrimination based upon color, race, religion, gender, creed, disability, or sexual orientation.

This promise will never be fulfilled until a proactive and just solution is instituted for the systematic and oppressive discrimination imposed upon same-sex couples by our current laws and institutions. As a married man of 35 years you must understand that the freedom to form a family with the partner one loves and cherishes is at the heart of the American dream; a basic fulfillment from which millions of citizens are arbitrarily excluded with tragic results.

I congratulate you for your courageous stand against the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment" that would have intensified and solidified the discriminatory character of our system. Such action is not enough, however. Marriage to the partner of one's choice is an inalienable right, one that cannot be left to the whims of the electorate or the discretion of the individual states. Recent unfortunate events in California demonstrate how vulnerable the rights of same-sex couples are to political contingencies and shifting social forces. The basic freedoms of our citizens will only be secure when the U.S. 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."

The enactment of such a reform would obviously be a long, uphill struggle fraught with profound political risks. To whom can America turn if not the CPC, however, to take the vanguard on this issue? However difficult the fight might be, it would further the principles and goals of the CPC merely in the undertaking. Such a shift in the national discourse over same-sex marriage would deprive it of much of its utility as a "wedge issue" for those who stand opposed to the progressive agenda more generally.

I appeal, Congressman, to your proven sense of principle and engaged activism. Please take up the cause of this amendment or one like it with your colleagues in the House and Senate. I trust you to give this matter your fullest consideration, and in any case to act conscientiously and with the integrity you have displayed throughout your legislative career.

Thank you for your service and for your attention on this matter. I hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Arizona (VII) Congressman Jeff Flake

Today I continue with Congressman Jeff Flake, Republican, representative of Arizona's 6th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Flake,

I write to you as a concerned citizen to urge you to change your stance on same-sex marriage. In a recent editorial following November's general election you wrote of the Republicans' need to find a way "out of the wilderness," saying:

I suggest that we return to first principles. At the top of that list has to be a recommitment to limited government.... Second, we need to recommit to our belief in economic freedom.

Does not your vote to impose a federal ban on same-sex marriage amount to an expansion of the intrusive powers of government and a curb to basic freedoms? What good is the freedom to produce, earn, and consume if it is not joined to the freedom to share one's prosperity with the life partner of one's choice? Is the right to love any less fundamental than the right to own? Is building one's family less intrinsic to one's happiness than building one's material estate?

The best service of the the "first principles" you write of, Congressman, would be to reform our laws to bring them into alignment with the inalienable rights of our citizens. That will only happen 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 give careful consideration to this issue. Thank you for your attention, I hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Arizona (VI) Congressman Harry Mitchell

Today I continue with the Democratic representative of Arizona's 5th District, Congressman Harry Mitchell:

Dear Congressman Mitchell,

I write to you as a fellow American to request your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the rights of same-sex couples to marry. Since your election in 2006 you have proven a dynamic and engaged new presence in the Democratic caucus, cosponsoring a sweeping GI Bill with Senator Jim Webb in support of our brave men and women in the armed forces. You have shown yourself responsive to the concerns of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender citizens, earning a rating of "70%" on the Human Rights Campaign's Congressional Scorecard.

On your website you celebrate your forty-five years of marriage to your high school sweetheart, Marianne, which has produced two children and five grandchildren. Surely a marriage as long and fulfilled as yours has not been without trials or sacrifices. Imagine if, in addition to all of the incidental impediments that life threw in your way, you had been faced with discriminatory laws and institutions that did not acknowledge your and your wife's commitment to one-another or your shared resolve to protect and nurture your family. That is the situation faced by millions of same-sex couples living, working, and struggling together today. Many have been together for decades and are caring for children as did you and Marianne. They are in urgent need of aid, will you not rally to their cause as you did to that of our veterans?

Same-sex couples will not be able to thrive in full enjoyment of the rights they are due as citizens until our U.S. 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." Would you be willing, in concert with colleagues in the House and Senate, to sponsor such an amendment or one like it? I appeal to your proven sense of fairness and patriotism.

Thank you for your good work on behalf of our veterans and for your attention in this matter. I hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Arizona (V) Congressman Ed Pastor

Today I continue with Congressman Ed Pastor, Democrat, representative of Arizona's 4th Congressional District,

Dear Congressman Pastor,

I write you as a fellow Democrat and American to plead for your support for a Constitutional amendment acknowledging the rights of same-sex couples to marry. Any cursory review of your legislative record reveals your robust commitment to civil rights and issues of social justice. I hope that these admirable impulses might inspire you to lead the fight to redress one of the most egregious injustices persisting in the current state of our laws and institutions.

You obviously possess a profound and personal appreciation for the institution of marriage. On April 20, 2005 you rose to commemorate the 50th wedding anniversary of Fred and Rosemary Gortler, noting that they had "been blessed with five children and eighteen grandchildren," and praising their "devotion and love for family" and their "strong sense of family values, self-sacrifice, and commitment to public service." Earlier, on February 17, 2005, you offered similarly laudatory remarks on the 50th wedding anniversary of Lou and Georgia Poulos.

Like you, Congressman, I take inspiration from such examples of marital fulfillment. I and my wife Emilie have been married for just over five years, and our life together with our daughter, Ada, is the source of my greatest happiness and contentment. Because all these experiences and examples impress me with a profound reverence for and appreciation of the institution of marriage itself, I am especially pained at the fact that so many millions of our fellow citizens are excluded from the marital bond, despite their being equally disposed to participating in its joys and in need of its protection.

Evan Wolfson, in his book Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry, writes of Maureen Kilian and Cindy Meneghin of Butler, New Jersey. They have been together for more than thirty years, and are raising two children- Josh and Sarah. Neither of them can stay home to care for their children because without marital status they are not eligible for family health insurance. Don't Maureen and Cindy exemplify the same kind of "devotion and love for family" displayed by the Gortlers and Pouloses? If so, is it really fair that their fulfillment of these values should be made so much more difficult by the discriminatory state of our laws? No one is well-served by the situation confronting Maureen and Cindy, least of all their children. And they are only one example among millions.

I applaud your vote against the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment" that would have mandated a ban on same-sex marriage throughout our Republic. Much more is needed, however. The laws of our Nation will only be brought into alignment with the needs and natural rights of our citizens when the U.S. 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." Would you, in cooperation with your colleagues in the House and Senate, sponsor such an amendment or one like it, Congressman? Such an action would be in keeping with your long record of service in the cause of civil rights and social justice.

I thank you for your service, your consideration of this matter, and for your attention. I hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Arizona (IV) Congressman John Shadegg

Today I continue my correspondence with Arizona's congressional delegation with Congressman John Shadegg, Republican, representative of Arizona's 3rd Congressional District:


Dear Congressman Shadegg,


I write to you as a concerned citizen to plead with you to change your stance on the issue of same-sex marriage. You have consistently voted in favor of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage throughout our Union. Such a reform would exacerbate the already monstrous injustice of our laws. The Government Accountability Office lists 1, 138 rights, privileges and protections that married couples enjoy under federal law. The exclusion of same-sex couples from the marital bond thus strips them of these myriad advantages freely granted even to convicted and incarcerated felons, so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.

Unless our basic law is reformed in exactly the opposite manner for which you have voted, the unfair and oppressive condition of our institutions will persist. Our 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 appeal to you to carefully reconsider your stance on this issue. Thank you for your attention, I hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Arizona (III) Congressman Trent Franks

The indicted representative of Arizona's 1st District, Republican Congressman Rick Renzi, will be replaced by Congresswoman-elect Ann Kirkpatrick, Democrat. Today I thus contact Congressman Trent Franks, Republican, of Arizona's 2nd Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Franks,

I write to you as a concerned citizen to urge you to change your stance on the issue of same-sex marriage. During the 110th Congress, you joined colleagues in co-sponsoring two pieces of legislation, House Joint Resolution 22 and House Joint Resolution 89, seeking an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage throughout the Union, even in states where the rights of same-sex couples are already acknowledged. I would suggest to you, Congressman, that these actions are in violation of the very principles you profess. On your website you include this Issues Statement:

"As Ranking Member on the Constitution Subcommittee, I remain absolutely committed to preserving our sacred Constitution and the inalienable rights it enumerates. In the spirit of our nation’s Founders, we must remember the self-evident truth that human beings do not have rights because of government, they have government because of their rights. America’s revolutionary experiment in liberty birthed a "shining city upon a hill," the freest, strongest, and wealthiest nation in the world, and as we continue to champion liberty, Congress must reaffirm the cornerstones of both national security and protecting the sanctity of all human life."

I firmly agree that "human beings do not have rights because of government," and thus I urge you to realize that a ban on same-sex marriage amounts to a violation of the inalienable rights that same-sex couples intrinsically possess. On what logical or empirical basis can you deny that the loving and consensual union of two adults does not deserve the same civil protections and guarantees extended equally to all others simply because the two people entering upon that bond are of the same gender? For many if not most people, finding the one person to whom one will pledge to be joined "in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer" is indispensable to the fulfillment of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." To set our institutions systematically against the free choices made by millions of citizens in that regard is a monstrous injustice.

The laws of our nation will not be brought into alignment with the natural rights of our citizens until 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 give due consideration to this matter, and trust that in any case you will act conscientiously.

Thank you for your attention, I hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Arizona (II) Senator Jon Kyl

Yesterday teaching duties kept me from the blogosphere, but today I continue my correspondence with Arizona's congressional delegation with Senator Jon Kyl, the junior senator from that state:

Dear Senator Kyl,

I write you as a concerned American to urge you to change your stance on the issue of same-sex marriage. As a co-sponsor of the so-called "Marriage Defense Amendment" you rose on the Senate floor on June 6, 2006, to speak in its defense, saying:

Traditional marriage --marriage between a man and a woman--is the fundamental institution of our society. That is primarily because marriage is the best environment for the protection and nurturing of children. Traditional families are where we hope that children will be born and raised and where we expect them to receive their values. If we want our Nation's children to do well, we need to do everything we can to ensure that children grow up with mothers and fathers. And the place where that happens best is where mothers and fathers properly unite, in marriage . The state sanctions and encourages marriage not only because it wants to validate a lifelong personal relationship, but, more importantly, because we need a stable institution for child-rearing. That is why this issue is of such great importance.

If this is your principal argument against the rights of same-sex couples to marry, it does not hold the force of logic. One may cite conflicting studies about whether or not children are better off in a "traditional" two-parent household. How one comes down on this question is moot, however. Common sense dictates that any household with two loving, responsible parents is a better environment for a child than a single-parent household or an institutional group home. Given that globally there are more children who need homes than couples who are willing to provide them, refusing same-sex parents the sanction of marriage is at best a penny-wise and pound-foolish approach to the issue of child welfare.

Moreover, withholding entrance into the marital bond, even if it is combined with a comprehensive ban on same-sex couple adoption, will not effectively prevent children from being raised by same-sex parents. Circumstances will always bring a certain number of children into the care of same-sex couples; refusing those couples a marriage license is no help either to the children themselves or the institution of marriage. The net result is simply more children being raised out of wedlock, decreasing the prestige of the institution even as it increases the vulnerability of the families excluded from it.

Finally, please consider the welfare and happiness of the couples themselves, and the test of basic fairness that they must expect from their government. Heterosexual couples are never scrutinized in the slightest as to their fitness to be parents. Two convicted child-molesters may marry as long as they are of different sex. To ignore the most egregious particular harms that might arise in one group but to hold another group accountable in the abstract for the most tenuous, relative (and contested) harms does not merit being called a double standard- it is sheer bigotry.

As Loving v. Virginia established with respect to unjust bans on interracial marriage, marriage to the partner of one's choice is an inalienable right, one that can not be deprived to a citizen even by a vote of the majority. For this reason, I agree with you, Senator, that this is a matter than can not be left to the states to adjudicate. For marriage rights to be equally guaranteed to all citizens throughout our Union, our U.S. 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." Please know that millions of Americans believe passionately in the principles that underlie such a change to our basic law.

Though I disagree with many of your policies and opinions, I admire your long career of public service and share your love for our Nation. I appeal to you to newly consider this issue, and trust that in any case you will act conscientiously. Thank you for your attention, I hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Arizona (I) Senator John McCain

Today I begin a correspondence with Arizona's Congressional delegation with the senior senator from Arizona, Senator John McCain:

Dear Senator McCain,

I write you as a fellow American to plead for your support for a Constitutional amendment to protect the right of same-sex couples to marry. On the issue of same-sex marriage, like many others, you have shown a stalwart independence of mind. You audaciously broke ranks with President Bush and your own party in opposing the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment."

You stood against a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage because, in your estimation, it would "usurp from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and impose a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them." Your defiance of the GOP thus did not entail a different opinion about same-sex marriage, but a different opinion about states' rights.

Indeed, within the jurisdiction of Arizona itself you supported a ban on same-sex marriage, saying, "I'm proud to have led an effort in my home state to change our state constitution and to protect the sanctity of marriage as between a man and woman."

The principles you have professed and on which you have acted thus do not mark you as amenable to the idea of a "Marriage Equality Amendment," as such a reform would contradict both your notion of states rights and the "sanctity of marriage." I dare to hope, however, that your proven flexibility and openness to alternative opinions might make you persuadable on both these counts.

First I would ask, Senator, even if one accepts (and I do not) that same-sex union is somehow "unsanctified," why is that the concern of either the federal or state government? From a religious perspective, all marriages not performed by one's own denomination are profane, and yet no one would tolerate the government's issuing marriage licenses to Catholics but not Baptists, Muslims but not Jews. The "sanctity of marriage" is a concern, yes, but it is a matter of individual conscience and confessional deliberation. If a particular religious group finds a particular union profane, no one can compel them to give it the sacrament of marriage.

The concern that does implicate the government is citizens' rights, and in this regard who can deny that the rights of same-sex couples are being violated? If two Jews profess to love one-another and act with mutual affection and fidelity, no one would argue that their marriage should be deemed civilly illegitimate on the opinion of their Christian neighbors. Why is this principle any different in the case of two women or two men? Marriage to the partner of one's choice is the most powerful way (short of becoming a parent) that we can shape our place in society at large. If that choice is taken from us, our personal horizons within which to exercise "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are drastically narrowed.

Viewed in this regard, marriage to the partner of one's choice is an inalienable right, one that can not be adjudicated on a state-by-state basis. The only way these rights will be safeguarded for all citizens within our Union is if 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." Your career of service and sacrifice to our Nation is an inspiration to all Americans, you speak with a moral authority bought with the currency of arduous patriotism. I appeal to you to give careful consideration to this matter and to lend your voice to this cause. In any case no one can doubt that you will act conscientiously.

Thank you for your attention, I hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Alaska (II) Congressman Don Young

Today I conclude my correspondence with Alaska's congressional delegation with a letter to Congressman Don Young, Republican, representative-at-large for Alaska:

Dear Congressman Young,

I write you to urge you to change your stance on the issue of same-sex marriage. As one of the most senior members of the House you have a long record of service, but it is not marked by a high regard for the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender citizens. You have voted to ban same-sex marriage across the Union, to ban the adoption of children by same-sex couples in the District of Columbia, and against legislation that would protect gay citizens from discrimination in the work place. Indeed, the Human Rights Campaign gives you a score of "zero" for all of the last three sessions of Congress.

I fear, Congressman, that you are blind to what will ultimately be perceived as the great civil rights struggle of our generation. If you truly believed in the principles of individual autonomy and dignity that are at the heart of our Republic, you would not favor a comprehensive ban on same-sex marriage, but would advocate that the Constitution 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 such guarantees are encoded in our basic law, the individual rights of millions of Americans will be violated by our courts and institutions.

Please reconsider your position on this issue, Congressman. I thank you for your attention, and hope that this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Alaska (I) Senator Lisa Murkowski

Ted Stevens, Republican, the senior senator from Alaska, lost his reelection bid to Mark Begich, Democrat. I thus begin my correspondence with Alaska's congressional delegation with Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican:

Dear Senator Murkowski,

I write as a concerned citizen to urge you to change your stance on same-sex marriage. During your 2004 campaign against Republican contender Mike Miller, you declared that your one reservation about the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment" was that it did not contain sufficient guarantees of state rights. Ultimately, however, you voted in favor of a federal ban on same-sex marriage.

It is not the rights of our states that are of greatest concern with regard to this issue, but rather the rights and welfare of our citizens. May the basic definition of marriage really be allowed to differ from state to state? Marriage to the partner of one's choice is a basic civil right, one that cannot be negotiated or reworked on a local basis. A couple who is married in Connecticut is married in Alaska, and is entitled to expect the same rights and protections there and in any other part of our great Union. Think of the problem from the perspective of another fundamental human relationship- parenthood. If states were allowed to pick and choose which adoptions of other states each would recognize, an entire family could find itself torn apart upon moving from one state to another. Your expressed concern for states rights seems to indicate that you would tolerate the legalization of same-sex marriage in some states. But pragmatic concerns like those above force you to ask yourself, if it is fair and just for some states to license same-sex marriages, is it fair or just for any state not to recognize them?

Until the U.S. 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," the civil rights of all Americans will continue to be curtailed by unjust and discriminatory laws. You have demonstrated some independence of mind on social issues in the past, Senator, and have gotten into trouble with your more radical conservative constituents for your willingness to embrace moderation and tolerance. Please reconsider your position on this issue. In any case, I trust you to act conscientiously.

Thank you for your attention, I hope this letter finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer