Saturday, December 6, 2008

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.


Andrew Meyer

No comments: