Idaho (II) Senator Mike Crapo

Seasons greetings to all who read this blog. Today I continue my correspondence with the Senate with Idaho's junior senator, Mike Crapo, Republican:

To the Honorable Senator Mike Crapo:

I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. You have been a consistent supporter of discriminatory legislation denying the right of same-sex couples to marry, going so far as to advocate the amendment of the U.S. Constitution to establish discrimination as part of our basic law. Your website decries recent "judicial activism" that threatens the "sanctity of marriage." Those same charges were made in opposition to the Supreme Court's ruling in Loving vs. Virginia, which overturned so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws popularly enforced throughout much of the Union. The same principles upheld by the Supreme Court with respect to marriage between blacks and whites in 1967 hold force with respect to marriage between two persons of the same gender today: neither does or ever did pose a threat to the "sanctity of marriage."

The sanctity of marriage is something that must be upheld by each married couple, through their mutual love, care, and fidelity. Marriage is thus sadly profaned daily by myriad Americans, many of them our leaders whose tawdry affairs are broadcast to the world by the every-growing media juggernaut. These people needed to pass no moral qualifying exam to enter into the institution of marriage, they were free to marry anyone at all, provided their partner of choice was the right gender. Where was the government's resolve to defend the sanctity of marriage then? How can the government claim a special mandate to protect the sanctity of marriage with respect to gender, in which only the bigotry of a few perceives a threat, when it abdicates any responsibility to safeguard the sanctity of all other dimensions of matrimonial life? Such sanctity is no sanctity at all. Rather, the government profanes marriage by grounding it in bias and inequity when it would be best sanctified by being fair for all.

Our Republic is founded on the principle that each citizen should have the opportunity to live the life of his or her greatest potential, and that is only possible when all are free to choose their own place in this world. The choice of one's spouse is among the most significant an individual can make, and any limitation of the freedom to make that choice is a betrayal of the founding promise of our nation. For this reason, I and others propose that the U.S. Constitution must be amended in precisely the opposite manner to that attempted by you and your colleagues, 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." Only when our basic law is thus changed will it be brought into proper alignment with the natural rights of all our citizens.

Perhaps on further reflection you will see the error of your past position and lend your support to this necessary Marriage Equality Amendment. In any case please know that millions of Americans cherish this goal, and will continue to fight until its principles are realized. I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Idaho (I) Senator James E. Risch

I begin my renewed correspondence with the U.S. Senate with Senator James E. Risch, Republican, junior senator from the state of Idaho:


To the Honorable Senator James E. Risch,

I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. Under "family values" on the "issues" page of your website, you express your support of Idaho's discriminatory law banning same-sex marriage and your determination to fight against any attempt to repeal the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act." You go as far as expressing your support for a federal Constitutional amendment that would define marriage in the same language as DOMA.

It is hard to see how any of this amounts to an endorsement of "family values," Senator. Thousands of families led by same-sex couples are economically and socially beleaguered because the government arbitrarily denies them the protections and guarantees that flow to all married couples under U.S. law. The suffering of the children of these families is particularly unjust, as they are forced to do without health benefits or basic security to appease social prejudices.

In order to reliably and securely redress the unjust and discriminatory state of our laws, the federal Constitution must indeed be amended, but not in the manner that you proposed. Rather, a Marriage Equality Amendment should be adopted that would safeguard the rights and privileges of all American families, not just those that satisfy the standards of popular bigotry. Such an 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."

Please reconsider your position on this vital concern, Senator. Marriage equality is the great civil rights issue of our time, those who fall on the wrong side of it will be harshly judged by history. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Change of Mission

A long bout of blog neglect this summer and fall has squandered the time I would have needed to contact every member of the 111th Congress before the next Congress convenes. I thus have left myself no choice but to adopt a more manageable goal: I will petition every member of the current Senate to sponsor a Marriage Equality Amendment, while continuing to use this blog as a platform from which to contact particular Representatives and other officials who play an active role in either promoting or obstructing the cause of marriage equality. I am disappointed in having to lower my sights this way, but my original goal proved unsustainable in the face of other commitments to teaching, parenting, and scholarship. I beg the understanding of those who read this blog and who feel passionately about the cause of marriage equality.

Open Letter to the People of Maine

Dear Compatriots of Maine,

Joyous greetings from New Jersey, the Garden State. Let me congratulate you in advance. When your governor signed the law on May 6, 2009, granting full marriage equality to all citizens of Maine, I and millions of other Americans celebrated. What a triumph of democracy! History books will forever record that Maine was the fifth state in our great nation to recognize the full civil rights of all its citizens, and the second state to do so by legislative action.

Maine's legacy does not end there, however! On November 3, when voters turn out to vote "no" on Question 1, Maine will be the first state in the Union to recognize its citizens' rights of marriage equality by popular referendum. When you stand up and declare, "No, we will not turn on our neighbors, we will not tell them that you may have a right today, but you will not enjoy it tomorrow," then all the world will take notice. To see an entire community reject intolerance and choose freedom will be an inspiring affirmation of our country's founding values. It will remind us all why we are so proud to be Americans.

On that day my wife and I, like millions of parents, will turn to our daughter and say, "See, sweetheart, ordinary people can do great things." And when the whole nation awakens from the dark night of discrimination, and civil rights are enjoyed by all from sea to shining sea, then everyone will say, "Remember Maine. The beacon was first lit there."

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Hawaii (III) Congressman Neil Abercrombie

After a long hiatus, I continue today with Congressman Neil Abercrombie, Democrat, representative of Hawaii's 1st Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Abercrombie,

I write soliciting your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the federal constitution that would secure the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an 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." In 2006 you voted against House Joint Resolution 88, which would have amended the U.S. constitution to permanently bar millions of Americans from the marital bond. In doing so, you issued the following statement:

“This ban would be almost unique among constitutional amendments, because it curtails rather than expands individual rights and liberties. The sole exception was the 18^th amendment, which brought us the ‘noble experiment’ of prohibition. Prohibition was repealed a short time later, because it proved to be an utter failure both in terms of enforceability and of elevating the nation’s moral tone.

“Marriage and civil unions have always been and rightfully remain the province of individual states. Asserting a Federal power to regulate marriage is only a short step away from claiming Federal authority to govern every other aspect of family life—divorce, child support, inheritance, child rearing, etc.

“The U.S. Constitution is the underlying document which: (1) serves as the basic blueprint for the operation of the Federal government; and (2) defines the balance of powers and rights among the national government, states, and individuals. To drag the Constitution into areas beyond those fundamentals is to trivialize the basic document of our freedom.

“That prospect is why the founders made changing the Constitution much more difficult than passing statutory law. Amendments must pass each house of Congress by a two-thirds margin and be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. This is a formidable hurdle, and rightly so. Amending the Constitution because of changes in the political weather endangers the stability of the country and embedded protections for minorities that have served the nation well.”

You are entirely correct in comparing House Joint Resolution 88 to Prohibition, and identifying the inherent failings of such attempts to use the constitution to curtail individual rights. I would point out, however, that the most necessary and successful amendments to our basic law have been those that secure and guarantee individual rights. It is thus not inappropriate to amend the constitution to, borrowing your words, "expand individual rights and liberties" and "protect minorities." Though marriage has been the traditional purview of the states, arbitrary exclusion from the marital bond is such a grievous curtailment of personal liberty that it requires the intervention of federal power to redress. This was the principle underlying the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, and it is the legal, ethical, and moral imperative underlying the need for a Marriage Equality Amendment today in 2009.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law. Perhaps, on reflection, you will see fit to lend this measure your support. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Hawaii (II) Senator Daniel Akaka

Today I continue with Senator Daniel Akaka, junior senator from the state of Hawaii:

Dear Senator Akaka,

I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry across the United States. In 2006, you rose on the floor of the Senate to speak in opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 1 of the 109th Congress, proposing a so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" to the U.S. constitution that would have instituted marital discrimination nationwide, even in states where marriage equality rights had already been recognized. In your remarks, you declared:

"The proposed Marriage Protection Amendment directly contradicts one of the Constitution's fundamental principles-the guarantee of equal protection for all. Since the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791, the Constitution has been amended only 17 times and, with the exception of prohibition, each time it has been to expand the rights of the American people. Adoption of the Marriage Protection Amendment would tarnish that rich tradition by targeting a specific group for social, economic and civic discrimination. I believe that, as government leaders, it is our responsibility to protect individual liberties, not to take them away or restrict them....This amendment will only serve to segregate a portion of our population and prevent them from participating as full citizens. Instead I urge us all to work together to ensure that the freedoms enumerated by the Constitution can be equally enjoyed by all."

You eloquently articulated the philosophical and constitutional imperative underlying the movement for marriage equality, Senator. As you note, marriage equality is not an extraordinary privilege or special consideration, but a fundamental corollary of the 14th Amendment's promise of "the equal protection of the laws." As long as an entire class of citizens is arbitrarily excluded from the marital bond, the founding vision of our Republic remains unrealized.

Because the current state of marital apartheid that prevails in 45 states is intolerable, I and others propose that the federal 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." Though, as you noted in other remarks, marriage law has traditionally been the purview of the states, this federal guarantee of marriage equality is a liberal safeguard wholly consonant with established tradition and constitutional precedent, as exemplified by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case of Loving v. Virginia.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this Marriage Equality Amendment. If you truly hold to heart the principles you expressed in 2006, please lend your voice again to this fair and just reform. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Hawaii (I) Senator Daniel Inouye

Today I begin corresponding with Hawaii's Congressional delegation with Senator Daniel Inouye, Democrat, senior senator from that state:

Dear Senator Inouye,

I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the U.S. Such an 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." This reform is the surest and most durable means to establish justice and equity within our society and legal institutions.

Though efforts to establish marriage equality in Hawaii have been thwarted, you have shown yourself sympathetic to the cause on the national stage. You have taken a politically courageous stand against attempts to hinder or roll back marriage equality, voting against both the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" and the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment." This last stand was made a special point of contention by your Republican opponent in your last reelection campaign.

Having witnessed the internment of fellow Japanese-Americans during WWII, you well understand the urgency of the 14th Amendment's pledge that all deserve "the equal protection of the laws," and have personal experience of the tragedy that ensues when that pledge is broken. As a Medal of Honor recipient you speak with the moral authority of one who has given the highest measure of devotion in defense of the Republic and its principles. Your support of a Marriage Equality Amendment could profoundly alter the state of national discourse on this vital civil rights question.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking sponsorship for this change to our basic law. Perhaps on reflection you will choose to lend it your considerable authority. In any case I thank you for your attention and for your great service to our nation, and I hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Georgia (XV) Congressman David Scott

Today I conclude my correspondence with Georgia's Congressional delegation with Congressman David Scott, Democrat, representative of Georgia's 13th Congressional district:

Dear Congressman Scott,

I write to urge you to change your stance on the issue of marriage equality. In the past you have crossed party lines to vote in favor of the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have denied same-sex couples the right to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment, if passed, would have rebelled against the founding spirit of our Republic, as it would have withdrawn recognition of natural rights already being enjoyed by citizens in certain states.

The current movement for marriage equality is an extension of that begun in 1967, with the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia. The same principle the court upheld then with respect to race holds true today with respect to gender and sexual identity. The state can not arbitrarily exclude citizens from the institution of marriage. Denial of the 1,138 legal benefits and protections of marriage solely on the basis of gender is discrimination, pure and simple.

Because progress has been slow and powerful forces seek to hinder or roll it back, I and others propose that the U.S. 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." Such a Marriage Equality Amendment is the surest and most durable means to establish justice and basic fairness in our society and institutions. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this measure.

Your voting record demonstrates that you are not entirely unsympathetic to the concerns of LGBT Americans and their struggle for equal rights. I would urge you to give further consideration to this issue, and to align yourself with the forces that will secure you the most positive legacy as a legislator and civic leader. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Georgia (XIV) Congressman John Barrow

Today I continue with Congressman John Barrow, Democrat, representative of Georgia's 12th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Barrow,

I write to urge you to change your position regarding marriage equality. In the past you have crossed party lines and joined efforts to deny same-sex couples their right to marry. On the wise decision of Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance C. Russell to strike down a Georgia state ban on marriage equality enacted by referendum, you declared:

“I believe that any individual has the right to live his or her life as they please within
the law, but I also believe that marriage should follow law and tradition and remain
between a man and a woman."

This is an exercise in circular reasoning, Congressman. On the one hand you aver that all have the right to live as they please within the law, on the other you declare that the law should be configured so as to deny thousands the right to live as they please. Such tepid wording does not cut to the crux of the issue, moreover. At stake is not merely a question of personal pleasure or convenience, but the health, security, and general welfare of myriad Americans, many of them children. Marriage carries with it 1,138 legal benefits and protections. Those couples attempting to build families and maintain homes outside of the shelter of the marital bond (and any children that might be in their care) suffer real deprivation and hardship as a result. How does such a situation fulfill our nation's founding promise of the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" or the 14th Amendment's guarantee of the "equal protection of the laws?"

Basic fairness requires that marriage equality be instituted not only in Georgia, but nationwide. To that end, I and others have proposed that the U.S. 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." I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this Marriage Equality Amendment.

Marriage equality is the great civil rights struggle of our generation, and in your opposition to this good cause you imperil your place in the eyes of posterity. Perhaps on reflection you will recant your current views and join the fight against discrimination. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Georgia (XIII) Congressman Phil Gingrey

Today I continue with Congressman Phil Gingrey, Republican, representative of Georgia's 11th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Gingrey:

I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. In 2006 you were very vocal in your support of the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment." In your remarks on the floor of the House during that debate, you declared:

"This Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with exclusion but has everything to do with protecting the traditional and historical definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. And, contrary to what the opponents of this resolution will say today, this Amendment will simply PRESERVE the traditional definition of marriage as it has existed for millennia."

Your argument begins with a fallacy. If one searches the records of history, one of course finds that there has never been one historical and enduring definition of marriage, certainly not one limiting it to a "union between one man and one woman." Polygamy was widely practiced for many centuries, and same-sex unions have been commonplace in certain cultures and eras, extending up to the present day. Even if one limits "real marriage" to some notion of a "Judaeo-Christian" tradition (though why one should in a system dedicated to the separation of church and state is dubious at best), one must acknowledge that marriage has changed radically over the course of recent years, to accommodate society's evolving understanding of the nature of individual rights and personal autonomy. If the public voted to restore certain "historical" dimensions of marriage, such as the power of families to force their members into arranged marriage or the lack of protection against spousal rape, would that serve the interest of justice?

Beyond your appeal to a fictional "millenia-old" definition of marriage, you posited other specious arguments in support of discrimination:

"[T]his Amendment is in response to a few activist judges are trying to throw out the definition of marriage along with over 200 years of American judicial precedent. These judges and these judges alone made this matter an issue, and they did so without one vote cast in either a legislature or at the ballot box. These activist judges substituted legal precedent and the will of the American people with their own personal desires and political beliefs. Their decision to scrap the traditional definition of marriage has forced us to now consider enshrining the definition of marriage into our Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, like most of my colleagues, I would prefer to not have to address this issue in this manner. Unfortunately, I know my constituents and a strong majority of the American people want us to defend the traditional definition of marriage. A poll by the New York Times, not exactly a bastion of right wing conservatism, found that 59%, I repeat, 59% of Americans favor an amendment to the Constitution stating that marriage is a union between one man and one woman."

The decisions of courts in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Iowa can only be deemed "judicial activism" if one ignores their philosophical and jurisprudential bases. The Founders established the powers of the independent judiciary as a safeguard for the rights of individual citizens against the tyrrany of the majority, and that is precisely the role that the courts have played in upholding the principle of marriage equality. This is not a recent move by the courts, moreover, but a precedent that extends back decades. At the time that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws back in 1967, such laws had broad popular support in much of the United States, and would have passed any referendum test. The Supreme Court held that two people could not be kept apart simply because their neighbors deemed them to be of a different "race," that such meddling by the community was a breach of each citizen's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." By your reckoning, Loving v. Virginia was no less an instance of "judicial activism" than the more recent decisions upholding marriage equality handed down by state courts.

Call it what you like, Loving v. Virginia was justice, and an expression of the best principles at the heart of our system of laws. I would hazard to guess that you share my admiration of the court's actions in Loving v. Virginia, Congressman. If so, the difference you perceive between that movement toward marriage equality and what transpires today does not reflect your opposition to judicial activism, but your embrace of one form of discrimination even as you reject others.

Marriage equality is the great civil rights struggle of our generation. Posterity will look back and judge harshly those who stand against it today, just as we look back in shock and disgust at those who supported the "anti-miscegenation" laws struck down in 1967. Unfortunately, many share your views. Progress has been slow and difficult, and powerful forces are gathered to hinder it or roll it back. For that reason, I and others propose that the U.S. 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." Such a Marriage Equality Amendment is the surest means to establishing fairness and justice within our society and laws.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support fo this change to our basic law. Perhaps on reflection you will recant your discriminatory policies and redeem your place in the future history of our Republic. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Georgia (XII) Congressman Paul C. Broun

Today I continue with Congressman Paul Broun, Republican, representative of Georgia's 10th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Broun,

I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. This year you reintroduced legislation that would have amended the U.S. constitution to bar marriage equality throughout the Union, despite its repeated failure to win ratification in previous Congresses and its acute lack of support in the current legislature. Your quixotic devotion to the cause of discrimination might seem quaint if it were not so mean-spirited and frighteningly illiberal.

You cited the recent recognition of marriage equality rights in several states as the motivation for your current initiative. I and others perceive the situation in diametrically opposed terms. Now that American citizens in five state finally are enjoying the natural and inalienable rights that were theirs all along, we only fear that misguided leaders such as you will roll back the tide of progress and return our compatriots to a condition of oppression. Moreover, we can not help but be dismayed that citizens in forty-five states still live in the dark ages. For these reasons, we propose that the constitution be amended in precisely the opposite manner you propose, so as 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 have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this Marriage Equality Amendment.

Perhaps on reflection you will see the error of your views and cease your campaign against the rights of fellow Americans. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Georgia (XI) Congressman Nathan Deal

Today I continue with Congressman Nathan Deal, Republican, representative of Georgia's 9th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Deal,

I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. You have voted in favor of an amendment to the constitution that would have denied same-sex couples across the United States their right to marry. This was not an isolated attack upon their civil rights, moreover, as you have consistently received a rating of "zero" from the Human Rights Campaign for your stance on issues of concern to LGBT citizens.

Marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is the single most socially significant act that a citizen may freely undertake, entailing 1,138 protections, benefits, and changes of legal status under federal law. The freedom to make this choice is thus among every citizen's most sacred and inalienable rights, one that can not be taken away even by a vote of the majority. Your proposed amendment would have been a tragic black mark on our Republic, as it would have profaned our basic law with the taint of injustice and discrimination.

Unfortunately, too many civic and government leaders share your prejudices. For that reason, I and others propose that the U.S. 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." Only when our basic law is thus amended or interpreted will the profanity of marital apartheid end, and the family be truly sanctified through the establishment of justice, fairness, and common decency.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking sponsorship of this reform. Perhaps on reflection you will see the error of your current views, and come over to the side of right. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Georgia (X) Congressman Jim Marshall

Today I continue with Congressman Jim Marshall, Democrat, representative of Georgia's 8th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Marshall,

I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. In the last Congress you crossed party lines to co-sponsor a so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage throughout the United States. This decision was exemplary of a larger pattern of antipathy to the interests of LGBT citizens. You have received failing ratings for each of the last three Congresses from the Human Rights Campaign.

Marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is the single most socially significant act that a citizen may freely undertake, entailing 1,138 protections, benefits, and changes of legal status under federal law. For government to deny citizens the power to make this choice on the basis of gender is senseless and arbitrary discrimination. How can Congress, or any elected body, dictate whom a citizen may love? How can the exclusion of an entire class of people from one of society's most basic institutions be fair? There is no logical answer to these questions, Congressman, and therefore marriage equality is the great civil rights struggle of our generation.

Your efforts against the rights of fellow Americans place you on the wrong side of history. There is yet time to repair your legacy, however. I and others propose that the U.S. constitution be amended to defend all citizens from depredations like the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment." The surest defense against such oppression would be a "Marriage Equality Amendment," 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."

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this reform. Perhaps on reflection you will recant your current views and join this good cause. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Georgia (IX) Congressman John Linder

Today I continue with Congressman John Linder, Republican, representative of Georgia's 7th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Linder,

I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. You have persistently supported efforts to deny same-sex couples of their right to marry, even as far as co-sponsoring a bill calling for the amendment of the U.S. constitution to permanently and universally bar same-sex couples from the marital bond. Such an amendment would have been a travesty of justice and a black mark upon our nation's history, standing as one of the few times when our nation's basic law had been utilized to deprive citizens of their rights.

Marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is indeed a natural and inalienable right. Such was the finding of the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, which overturned state bans on so-called "interracial marriage." The same principle of marriage equality that applied then in the case of race applies now with respect to gender. If two adults come together in mutual love, care, and fidelity, to deny them the 1,138 protections and benefits their compatriots may take for granted simply because they are of the same gender is rank discrimination.

Your actions up to this point put you squarely on the wrong side of history, Congressman. Future generations will look back and judge those who opposed marriage equality in the same light that we view past opponents of the civil rights movement today. There is still time to repair your legacy, however. I and others propose that the Constitution should be amended in the opposite manner you endorsed, 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." If you recanted your former stance and took up the cause of this amendment it would go a long way toward atoning for your past assaults upon the rights of fellow Americans.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this Marriage Equality Amendment. Perhaps on reflection you will lend your voice to this cause. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Georgia (VIII) Congressman Tom Price

Today I continue with Congressman Tom Price, Republican, representative of Georgia's 6th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Price,

I write in protest of your persistent and strident opposition to marriage equality. Not only did you vote in favor of the Bush administration's so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment," but as chair of the Republican Study Committee you have helped initiate other attacks upon the civil rights of same-sex couples. Last month, at a press conference coinciding with the proposal of a so-called "D.C. Defense of Marriage Act," which would prohibit the sanctioning of same-sex unions in the capital district, you declared, “Nothing can be more important than the sanctity of our families."

If you were truly concerned with the sanctity of families, Congressman, you would not impose arbitrary and unjust hindrances on the conduct of family life. If a couple lives together in mutual love, care, and fidelity, if they commit to work for their common welfare and that of the children in their care, would you not call them a "family?" If you single out that couple because they are of the same gender, and deny them the 1,138 legal protections that flow to families under federal law, would you call that justice? Such callous discrimination contributes nothing to the sanctity of the family, but is the among worst kind of profanity imaginable.

Unfortunately, too many civic and government leaders share your prejudices. For that reason, I and others propose that the U.S. 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." Only when our basic law is thus amended or interpreted will the profanity of marital apartheid end, and the family be truly sanctified through the establishment of justice, fairness, and common decency.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking sponsorship of this reform. Perhaps on reflection you will see the error of your current views, and come over to the side of right. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Georgia (VII) Congressman John Lewis

Today I continue with Congressman John Lewis, Democrat, representative of Georgia's 5th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Lewis:

I write seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an 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." This reform would not entail an expansion of federal power at the expense of the states, but like the Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia, would merely safeguard the intrinsic rights that all Americans possess and should justly enjoy.

Your own struggles and sacrifices in the cause of civil rights are renowned, Congressman. Unsurprisingly, you have spoken out strongly condemning attempts to permanently undermine marriage equality within our legal system. In response to the Bush administrations so-called "Marrriage Protection Amendment," you declared: "I have fought too long and too hard to abolish legalized discrimination in America to be silent when the President of the United States advocates writing it into the U.S. Constitution."

As you rightfully observe, denial of marriage equality is discrimination, pure and simple. Unfortunately, such is the reality throughout much of the United States. A constitutional amendment is the surest and most durable means to achieving basic fairness for all Americans with respect to family law. Would you sponsor a Marriage Equality Amendment in the House, Congressman? You speak with a profound and hard-earned moral authority. If you lent your voice to this cause no one could fail to give it due respect and consideration.

I trust you to act conscientiously with regard to this issue. In any case I thank you for your attention to this matter and your great service to our nation, and I hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Georgia (VI) Congressman Hank Johnson

Today I continue with Congressman Hank Johnson, Democrat, representative of Georgia's 4th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Johnson,

I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an 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." This reform is the surest and most durable means to bring fairness to our society and justice to the operation of our laws.

Your record since your election in 2006 has been solidly in support of the rights of LGBT citizens. You earned 95% positive ratings from the Human Rights Campaign for your first term in office. Moreover, you joined other House Democrats in co-sponsoring a bill to re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment, thus you clearly understand the urgency of civil rights issues pertaining to gender and sex.

A Marriage Equality Amendment would accomplish some of the goals of the Equal Rights Amendment. Though it is less ambitious in scope, its concerns are made pressing by the sustained campaign of discrimination and exclusion manifest in policies like Proposition Eight in California or the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" advocated by the last administration. If the champions of intolerance can advocate profaning our constitution with their discriminatory agenda, it is incumbent upon those of us who see the right to point out that the fundamental spirit of Republic will only be preserved by protecting, not obstructing, the inalienable rights of our citizens.

Though only beginning your second term in office, you have demonstrated great energy and seriousness of purpose. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking sponsorship of a Marriage Equality Amendment. Perhaps you will see fit to lend it your voice. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Georgia (V) Congressman Lynn A. Westmoreland

Today I continue with Congressman Lynn A. Westmoreland, Republican, representative of Georgia's 3rd Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Westmoreland,

I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. You made opposition to marriage equality a cornerstone of your election campaign in 2004, and once in Congress were co-sponsor of a constitutional amendment that would have denied the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. More generally, you have established a shockingly poor record on issues relating to the rights of LGBT citizens, earning ratings of 0% for both of the last two Congresses from the Human Rights Campaign.

Marriage equality is the civil rights struggle of our generation, and your opposition to it demonstrates your tone-deafness to the spirit of our times just as your description of President Obama as "uppity" did during the general election campaign last year. No one can fault your religious beliefs as to what constitutes a legitimate marriage, but you may be criticised for attempting to unfairly impose your beliefs at the expense of the rights of your fellow Americans. According to many Christian denominations my wife and I, who were married by a rabbi, are living in sinful adultery. Should the state then refuse us a marriage license? If your answer is no, then the logical case for your opposition to marriage equality becomes quite obscure. If being Jewish does not disqualify two people from the equal protection of the law, why should being of the same sex do so?

The logical imperative of marriage equality is pristinely clear, yet discrimination remains effective through most of the Union. For that reason I and others propose that the federal 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." Only when the constitution is thus amended or intepreted will our laws and institutions be brought into alignment with the basic rights of all our citizens.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking sponsorship of this reform. Perhaps on reflection you will see the error of your current stance and join our righteous cause. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Georgia (IV) Congressman Sanford D. Bishop, Jr.

Today I continue with Congressman Sanford D. Bishop, Jr., Democrat, representative of Georgia's 2nd Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Bishop,

I write to urge you to support the struggle for marriage equality for all Americans. In the past you have crossed party lines to vote in favor of a constitutional amendment that would have denied the right of same-sex couples to marry across the U.S. This attempt to use our basic law to discriminate against a substantial portion of our citizenry was a shameful episode in our history, and your part in it will tarnish your reputation. Your recent record, however, shows a steadily improving stance regarding the rights of LGBT citizens, holding out hope that your understanding on these issues is evolving. If you will recant your former views and reverse your past actions there is yet time to repair your legacy.

The freedom to marry the consenting partner of one's choice is undeniably a basic right. This was the principle established by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia in 1967. The same logic that applied in the case of discrimination on the basis of race applies today in the case of discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation. A citizen who cannot form a family and maintain a legally protected household with the individual he or she loves is denied the American promise of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." To hold millions of citizens in such a state of exclusion and deprivation is a form of apartheid deeply unworthy of our great Republic.

To redress the current injustice, I and others propose that the U.S. 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." Only when our constitution is thus amended or interpreted will justice and fairness be established within our institutions of family law.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this amendment. Perhaps on reflection you will lend this campaign your voice, if only by way of atoning for your past support of discrimination. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Georgia (III) Congressman Jack Kingston

Today I continue with Congressman Jack Kingston, Republican, representative of Georgia's 1st Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Kingston,

I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. As a senior member of the Republican caucus, you led debate in the House in support of House Joint Resolution 88, which proposed an amendment to the federal constitution that would have established marital discrimination within our basic law. During that debate you offered several specious arguments in support of the resolution, for example:

"Mr. Speaker, I would point out that if this amendment does, in fact, make marriage, well, discriminate, and the opponents want to make marriage more inclusive, then is it not also true that we should and will broaden the definition of marriage, so that as Mr. Forbes from Virginia pointed out it is not merely a matter of one same-sex couple....But why are we tripping over the word ``couple''? Why can't marriage be three people or four people? Why can't it be a combination, if that is what we are talking about."

This is a rehearsal of one of the most fallacious canards put forward by opponents of marriage equality. Marriage is such a profoundly powerful and important institution in our society precisely because the relationship effected by the marital bond is unique. A citizen can have many friends, siblings, and co-workers, but he or she can only have one spouse. An individual is free to choose one person to whom he or she is intimately and intensely joined. Because this relationship is both voluntary and unique it is especially privileged within our institutional system: married status carries with it 1,138 discrete benefits and protections under federal law. Opening the marital bond to multiple partners would fundamentally alter these aspects of marriage, making it resemble other more common relationships that enjoy fewer protections and privileges.

Opening the marital bond to partners of the same sex does not in any way alter the voluntary and unique nature of marriage. Moreover, because a citizen is free to choose only one person with whom to share this extraordinarily significant legal relationship, basic fairness dictates that the state must place the fewest possible restrictions on that choice. If two unrelated and consenting adults profess to love, honor, and respect one-another, the fact that they are of the same sex does not constitute fair cause to deny them the legal protections of marriage. Acknowledging the right of same-sex couples to marry thus does not in any way constitute a "slippery slope" leading to the legalization of polygamy. Marriage between same-sex partners is founded upon the same principles of mutual care and fidelity that have been the legal basis of marriage since the founding of our Republic.

For these reasons, I and others propose that the U.S. constitution must be amended in precisely the opposite manner proposed by you and your Republican colleagues. We would see it 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." Only when the constitution is thus amended or interpreted will our laws and institutions be brought into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for such a Marriage Equality Amendment. Perhaps on reflection you will see the error of your current stance and lend your voice to this cause. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Georgia (II) Senator Johnny Isakson

Today I continue with Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican, junior senator from the state of Georgia:

Dear Senator Isakson,

I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. You were a co-sponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 1 of the 109th Congress, that would have permanently established marital discrimination as a matter of constitutional law. Of your support for that amendment you write:

"I have co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Amendment [sic] because I believe it is important for the sanctity of marriage and for the laws of this country that we have a seamless definition of marriage, and the only way to do that is to establish one in the Constitution."

It is difficult to understand how the inscription of exclusion and discrimination into our basic law would contribute to the sanctity of marriage. Configuring our laws so that thousands of loving, committed couples are deprived of the 1,138 benefits and protections flowing from marital status under federal law has no positive or redeeming effects. When my wife and I were married six years ago it never occurred to us that we took upon ourselves a moral burden. But as we raise our daughter together and have come to understand how important the legal shelter of marriage is to the hard work of maintaining a family, it becomes increasingly clear that we have unfairly taken advantage of an institution from which our compatriots are arbitrarily excluded. The fact that same-sex couples are denied the basic rights that my wife and I enjoy does not make our marriage more sacred, but profanes it with the taint of bigotry and injustice.

Ironically, I could make a declaration of principles almost identical to the one that you wrote, Senator. In order for marriage to truly reflect my values of fairness and respect for the rights and dignity of all Americans, I and others believe that the constitution must be amended to create a "seamless" national definition of marriage. The constitutional amendment we propose, however, 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." Only when the constitution is thus amended or interpreted will the basic and inalienable rights of all citizens be embodied in the institution of marriage.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking sponsorship for such a Marriage Equality Amendment to the federal constitution. Perhaps on reflection you will see the error of your prior stance, and lend your voice to this righteous cause. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Georgia (I) Senator Saxby Chambliss

Today I begin my correspondence with Georgia's Congressional delegation with Senator Saxby Chambliss, Republican, senior senator for the state of Georgia:

Dear Senator Chambliss,

I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. You were a co-sponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 1 of the 109th Congress, which would have amended the constitution of the United States to deny same-sex couples their right to marry. Had your efforts succeeded, it would have been one of the few occasions on which our basic law was used to restrict citizens' freedom. The shame of such an act would have been epochal, as you sought to permanently and arbitrarily deprive millions of Americans of a fundamental and inalienable right.

If we have two pairs of unrelated adults, both professing to love one another, and the state grants 1,138 benefits and protections to the first but zero to the second, what would have to be true to make that fair? Would the deprived couple have to have committed some heinous crime? What could possibly make such an inequity anything but rank discrimination? Yet today that is precisely the state of affairs we find in most of the nation. A couple may enjoy the 1,138 benefits and protections of marriage (according to the findings of the Government Accountability Office) despite being convicted felons, financially bankrupt, incarcerated in prison, or known pedophiles. The one and only contingency that will exclude them from the shelter of the marital bond is being of the same sex. No other word can describe this form of injustice: it is apartheid, pure and simple.

The enormity of the situation contemplated in the abstract is outweighed only by its concrete human impact in the daily lives of millions of Americans. Thousands of same-sex couples struggle to maintain households and raise families under the handicap of state discrimination. Without rights of joint coverage, shared property, and insured inheritance, same-sex couples must bear extraordinary burdens and make inordinate sacrifices to compensate for their legal vulnerability. Most cruelly affected are the children in the care of same-sex parents. They live without the security that the children of heterosexual couples may take for granted, not because of any choice they made, but because society disapproves of the lifestyle of their parents. To punish the child on account of the parent is a barbarity that most of the world left behind long ago.

To redress these inequities, I and others propose that the U.S. constitution be amended in precisely the opposite manner entailed by your resolution. We would see it 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 have set out to write every member of Congress seeking sponsorship for this reform.

You should give some thought to your legacy as a legislator, Senator. Marriage equality is the great civil rights struggle of our generation. Posterity will look back on today's leaders and judge them for the stance they took in this contest. Just as we look back with incomprehension and disgust at those who supported slavery or Jim Crow, future Americans will condemn those who stood in the path of progress on the issue of marriage equality. Perhaps on reflection you will see the error of your current stance and come over to the side of right. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Florida (XXVII) Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart

Today I conclude my correspondence with Florida's Congressional delegation with Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, Republican, representative of Florida's 25th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Diaz-Balart,

I write urging you to reconsider your stance on the issue of marriage equality. In 2006 you crossed party lines to vote against the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have refused recognition of same-sex couples' right to marry across the U.S. You issued a statement, however, making clear that this action was taken out of regard for federalist principles, declaring:

"Congress must be diligent in its efforts not to overstep and impede on more than two centuries of a successful Republic without absolute necessity. I strongly believe that marriage should only be the union between one man and one woman, but I do not believe that the threshold for constitutional change has been reached."

While I respect your conscientious vote, I would contest your characterization of the legal history of our Republic. It is true that the adjudication of family law has largely been left to the states, but the federal government has rightly interceded in cases where state law violated citizens' fundamental rights. Among the most basic of these is the right of an adult to marry the consenting partner of his or her choice. The United States have overturned state law on numerous occasions to protect this right for all Americans, most famously in Loving v. Virginia when the Supreme Court struck down all so-called "anti-miscegenation laws" then effective at the state level in much of the Union.

We are now again at a watershed moment in the struggle for civil rights. Across the country same-sex couples are struggling to form and maintain family, arbitrarily deprived of the 1,138 legal benefits and protections that the majority of their compatriots may take for granted. Such a discriminatory state of affairs is deeply unworthy of our great democracy, and must be redressed. For that reason I and others have proposed that the federal 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." This is the surest and most durable means to turn back the tide of unjust discrimination militating against the basic rights of American citizens.

On reflection perhaps you will see the justness of this cause and lend it your support in the House. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Florida (XXVI) Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas

Today I continue with Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas, Democrat, representative of Florida's 24th Congressional District:

Dear Congresswoman Kosmas,

I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Your defeat of Congressman Tom Feeney last fall was a clear step forward for the cause of civil rights in Congress. Though this is your first term in national office, as a state legislator you were outspoken in defense of a woman's right to choose. You also voted against a ban on marriage equality for same-sex couples in 1998 when few in your own party had the courage to stand up against discrimination. These present a stark contrast with Mr. Feeney, who pledged not to let "San Francisco taxes and values infiltrate [Florida]" after the California Supreme Court overturned a ban on marriage equality last year.

Long strides in the struggle for marriage equality have obviously been made in recent years and months. Five states now recognize the rights of same-sex couples to marry, and more may follow. The forces of injustice and discrimination remain active and powerful, however. California's Proposition 8 and your own state's Hate Amendment are only two examples of the cruel tactics employed by those who would deny basic freedoms to their fellow Americans.

For this reason, I and others propose that the federal 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." This is the surest and most durable means to bring justice and basic fairness to our laws and our society. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking sponsorship for this reform.

As a newly elected legislator you will no doubt be cautious in choosing those causes in which you will invest your advocacy. Perhaps the moral urgency of this struggle will motivate you to disregard the political risks and lend this fight your voice, as you have done in the past. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and congratulate you on your new office.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Florida (XXV) Congressman Alcee L. Hastings

Today I continue with Congressman Alcee L. Hastings, Democrat, representative of Florida's 23rd Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Hastings,

I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an 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." Your record suggests that you may understand and agree, this is the surest and most durable way to bring fairness to our society and basic dignity to our citizens.

You have been an outspoken advocate for civil rights in the House, and have consistently earned perfect scores from the Human Rights Campaign for your support of the rights of LGBT Americans. You voted against George W. Bush's execrable, so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" and before that broke with Bill Clinton in rejecting the deplorable, so-called "Defense of Marriage Act." Surely you have been aware that agitation for these forms of discrimination is on the rise. California's "Proposition 8" and your own state's Hate Amendment are only two of the worst examples to have appeared recently.

Such a climate calls for robust action. Despite hopeful developments in Iowa, Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire the tide of discrimination continues to threaten to overtake progress. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to protect the basic rights of all Americans from those who would relegate their compatriots to second-class citizenship. The campaign for this reform would obviously entail political risk, but you have not shown yourself shy of such risks in the past. Perhaps you will lend your voice to this effort in the House. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope that this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Florida (XXIV) Congressman Ron Klein

Today I continue with Congressman Ron Klein, Democrat, representative of Florida's 22nd Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Klein,

I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Since your election to Congress in 2007 you have been a consistent advocate for the rights of LGBT Americans. You have stopped short of supporting full marriage equality, however, opting instead to promote the establishment of "civil unions." I hope you may persuaded that more robust action is needed to redress the injustices endured by millions of citizens today.

Vermont, one of the few states to experiment with civil unions, has since enacted statutes according rights of full marriage equality to same-sex couples. Why is this so? As has occurred repeatedly in the history of civil rights in our country, separate was not equal: establishing a "second track" system for same-sex couples proved to be a path to institutionalized discrimination. If we recognize that same-sex couples should, in fairness, have all the rights of marriage, there is only one way to insure that is so. To have the rights and benefits of marriage (1,138 of them, according to the Government Accountability Office) one must be married, pure and simple.

The stakes in the current struggle are very high. The institution of marriage itself is being strained in ways unprecedented in our history. As more states legally establish marriage equality, we are increasingly faced with the phenomenon of citizens whose marriage in one state is not recognized in another. This was virtually unheard of in the past. Even states that had enacted so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws generally respected the rights of "interracial" couples married in other parts of the U.S. When Virginia refused to respect the marriage of Mildred and Richard Loving it led the Supreme Court to strike down all such discriminatory laws in 1967. This decision underscored the principle that the vitality of marriage as an institution flows from its universality, a principle that is under assault again today as the scope of civil rights naturally and logically expands.

More than the resilience of marriage in the abstract is at stake, however. Exclusion of same-sex couples from the marriage bond causes human suffering for millions of Americans on a daily basis. Couples who are struggling to care for one-another or raise children are faced with cruel and unfair obstacles because they are arbitrarily denied rights and protections that most citizens may take for granted. Such unjust discrimination is unworthy of our great Republic, and must end. I and others thus propose that the federal 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." This reform is the surest and most durable means to restore fairness to our society and basic dignity to all of our citizens.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law. Perhaps on reflection you will see the justness of this campaign and lend it your voice in the House. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Florida (XXIII) Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Today I continue with Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Republican, representative of Florida's 21st Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Diaz-Balart,

I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. As a Republican lawmaker, you have consistently taken a moderate stance on the issue of marriage equality. In 2006 you crossed party lines to vote against a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, though you did vote in favor of the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996.

I have not been able to find a public record of your views pertaining to marriage equality, so I do not know if your record reflects an ambivalent stance or a change in outlook over time. You display obvious independence of mind, however, and should give some thought to your legacy as a civic leader. Marriage equality is the great civil rights issue of our generation. As values continue to evolve the achievement of full marriage equality for all Americans is an eventual certainty, at which time public figures will be judged on whether they aided or impeded progress to that point. You should be remembered as someone who stood up for the rights and welfare of your compatriots.

More than the good opinion of posterity is at stake, however. Right now many couples are struggling in the absence of the protections and assistance that marital status affords, some while they work to care for children. If you or your child lack health insurance because you cannot share in your spouse's benefits, or you are denied the right to visit your spouse in hospital, it is cold comfort to know that "eventually" things will change. Marriage equality is an immediate moral imperative, one impacting the lives of millions of Americans as I write these words.

Because of this urgency, I and others propose that the federal 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." Such a reform is the surest means to bringing our laws into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this Marriage Equality Amendment. I appeal to your proven sense of fairness and decency, Congressman. Perhaps on reflection you will see the justness of this cause and lend it your voice in the House. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Florida (XXII) Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Today I continue with Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat, representative of Florida's 20th Congressional District:

Dear Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz,

I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an 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." This change to our federal constitution is the surest and most durable means to ending the present state of marital apartheid prevailing in most of the nation.

As a Vice-Chairperson of the LGBT Equality Caucus you have long been a spokesperson for the right of LGBT citizens. At a press conference announcing the founding of the Caucus you declared:

"Equality for our gay, lesbian and transgender friends is not negotiable...Our Constitution demands equal justice under the law, nothing more, nothing less. As a Member of the House Judiciary Committee, I know that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered Americans are awash in a sea of inequality."

No one could give a more concise or cogent summation of the basic rightness and imperative necessity of marriage equality. As you imply, same-sex couples are relegated to second-class citizenship by our current laws and institutions. Though some selective progress has been made on the state level in specific regions, full equality remains a distant goal. Until a same-sex couple married in Maine can be confident that they will remain married should they travel or move to Alabama, Utah, or any other state they will not truly enjoy the "equal protection of the laws" promised by the 14th Amendment. Moreover, despite progress in states like Maine and Iowa, powerful forces have organized to impede or roll back advances in marriage equality, as exemplified by the tragic case of California and your own state's Hate Amendment.

True equality for all citizens waits upon (among other things) the establishment of federal protections for all Americans' right to marry. I have thus set out to write every member of Congress pleading support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the U.S. constitution. Would you, as an outstanding leader in the cause of civil rights, lend your voice to this cause? Though such a campaign would obviously engender vehement opposition, your proven integrity and sense of civic duty would give it unimpeachable credibility and genuine momentum. In any case, I thank you for your service and attention on this matter, and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Florida (XXI) Congressman Robert Wexler

Today I continue with Congressman Robert Wexler, Democrat, representative of Florida's 19th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Wexler,

I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. You have been outspoken in the House in defense of the rights of LGBT Americans, receiving perfect scores from the Human Rights Campaign for each of the last three Congresses, and have joined colleagues in the LGBT Equality Caucus. You have stopped short of declaring yourself in favor of full marriage equality, however. The "issues" section of your web page declares:

"I support civil unions for same-sex couples and believe that a majority of Americans rightfully recognize that same-sex couples who are committed to a lifelong relationship should enjoy all of the civil benefits that come with marriage. The ability to make medical decisions for a incapacitated partner, inherit property without large tax penalties and receive Social Security survivor benefits are a few examples of domestic benefits that every couple joined in a state-sanctioned union should enjoy and are wholly unrelated to religious matters."

You are right that basic fairness cries out against the arbitrary denial of basic protections to same-sex couples. You note, however, that statutes such as DOMA absolve both the federal government and other states from any responsibility to honor marriages and civil unions performed for same-sex couples in the states where they are legal. Though you acknowledge that DOMA is of dubious constitutionality, you stop short of calling for its repeal.

Though yours is a moderate and seemingly reasonable stance, the times call for a more unequivocal position. Experience has shown that separate is never equal, creating a "second track" system for same-sex couples will not secure them enjoyment of "all the civil benefits that come with marriage." DOMA, to seize upon only one example, ensures that they may not enjoy the peace of mind of knowing that their union will be honored in the 49 states of the Union other than that in which it was sanctioned.

On reflection it must be clear that acknowledging the right of citizens' to marry in the abstract is simply not enough. It is cold comfort to know that most Americans feel one should enjoy all the benefits of marriage while one's life waits on hold for our laws to catch up with public sentiment. Moreover, well-funded, well-organized and militant forces have rallied to block or roll back the progress of marriage equality across the nation. How can we be complacent when citizens who once had the right to marry have now seen it stripped away by Proposition 8?

Because the issue has reached such a dire impasse, I and others propose that the federal 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." Your deeds and words demonstrate that you are cognizant of the justness of the principles underlying this reform. If you would lend it your voice in the House the cause of marriage equality would benefit significantly from your credibility and good name.

I have set out to write every member of Congress asking support for this change to our basic law. Perhaps on reflection you will decide to champion it among your colleagues. In any case, I thank you for your attention and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Florida (XX) Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

Today I continue with Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Republican, representative of Florida's 18th Congressional District:

Dear Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen,

I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an 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." Such a change to the federal constitution is the surest and most durable means to ending the unjust state of marital apartheid that currently prevails in most of the nation.

You have already shown outstanding leadership on the issue of marriage equality. You crossed party lines to vote against the so-called "Marriage Equality Amendment" and are currently the only Republican member of the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus. Last year you spoke out forcefully against Florida's "Amendment 2," declaring: "[A]lthough some proponents would like to phrase this debate as a gay versus straight issue, it is not that at all. We're talking about basic, fundamental rights that could be in jeopardy."

A Marriage Equality Amendment would obviously attract strident opposition. As your wise obsevation implies, however, the risks of such a campaign are dwarfed by what is at stake. Though a constitutional amendment might not be achieved for many years (if ever), in advocating it we declare what we know to be true, that the freedom to marry the consenting partner of one's choice is a basic and inalienable right, one that cannot be taken away from any citizen even by a vote of the majority.

Your unimpeachable credibility and proven integrity would greatly aid the campaign for a Marriage Equality Amendment. I and others would be most grateful if you would take up the cause of this reform in the House. In any case I thank you for your attention and your service, and hope that this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Florida (XIX) Congressman Kendrick Meek

Today I continue with Congressman Kendrick Meek, Democrat, representative of Florida's 17th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Meek,

I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. You have vigorously opposed measures aimed at stonewalling the advance of marriage equality. In 2004, during debates over the so-called "Marriage Protection Act," you offered the following remarks:

"Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice strong objections to H.R. 3313, the so-called Marriage Protection Act. This Act prohibits federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, from hearing cases on the constitutionality of provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act, including those relating to same-sex marriage licenses.

“This bill is phony, and it is a sham. The title of the bill itself is false advertising. While claiming to 'protect' marriage, all the bill does is strip federal courts of jurisdiction so that they cannot even consider whether laws on same-sex marriages are consistent with our United States Constitution. For over 200 years, our Constitution has defined our nation and protected our rights. It is a document of empowerment, not limitation. But the Republican leadership wants to put a fence around it and padlock the gate, and they are doing it for purely political purposes....Even for people who, like myself, believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, this measure does nothing to strengthen or protect those bonds....

“Today, the very nature of the typical American family is changing. Just as families headed by only one adult were rare only a few decades ago but are common today, non-traditional couples are now a widespread fact of American society. Nearly 200 Fortune-500 companies and numerous municipalities and organizations have already recognized this fact on their own and provide benefits to same sex couples. In addition, several municipalities have adopted local ordinances prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing and employment.

“It is simply unfair to deny law-abiding American citizens the protections of civil law with respect to taxation, inheritance, hospital visits and the like, and it is wrong to shackle the federal courts by preventing them from even considering court cases pertaining to these matters."

Even as you express your reservations about the marriage of same-sex couples, you eloquently exposit the imperative of marriage equality. As you note in closing, the current state of our laws is simply and clearly unfair. Whatever one's personal feelings might be about same-sex love, to deny two consenting adults the equal protection of the law (to be specific, the 1,138 benefits and protections of marital status under federal law) is blatantly discriminatory.

What then, is the remedy? Allowing federal courts to review the constitutionality of ordinances like the so-called "DOMA" is of course important, but not enough. Civil unions are a solution that has been tried but proven inadequate: as the civil rights struggle demonstrated, separate is never equal. In the face of militant agitation for discrimination (such as California's Proposition 8 and your own state's Amendment 2), robust measures are required in order to establish basic equity and fairness into the operation of our laws and institutions.

I and others thus propose that the federal 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." Such a reform is the surest and most durable means to securing recognition of the rights of marriage equality for all Americans. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking sponsorship of this amendment or one like it in the House and Senate.

Will you consider taking up the cause of this reform, Congressman? Such a step would obviously entail political risks, but would be commensurate with your outspoken defense of basic fairness on the issue of marriage equality. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and your conscientious service, and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Florida (XVIII) Congressman Thomas Rooney

Today I continue with Congressman Thomas Rooney, Republican, representative of Florida's 16th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Rooney,

As a concerned citizen I urge you to give your support to the cause of marriage equality, both in Florida and the nation as a whole. As a candidate you reportedly pledged to support so-called "traditional marriage," unfortunately registering your support for the unjust discrimination that remains the law of the land in most states. This stance puts you on the wrong side of history.

As a newly elected Congressman you should search your conscience and give some thought to your future place in the history of our Republic. Marriage equality is the great civil rights struggle of our generation, and future Americans will weigh present-day leaders in light of the stance each takes today while the battle is joined. Just as we look back on past supporters of slavery or Jim Crow with mixed incomprehension and distaste, today's advocates of marital apartheid will suffer the condemnation of posterity.

Because the issue is so pressing and the forces of discrimination remain robust, I and others feel that aggressive measures are necessary. We propose that the U.S. 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." Though the many state-level bans on marriage equality are in flagrant violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, a Marriage Equality Amendment is the surest and most durable means to bring our operative laws and institutions into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law. Perhaps on reflection you will recant your misguided pledge and lend your support to this campaign for fairness and decency. In any case I congratulate you upon your election to the House and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Florida (XVII) Congressman Bill Posey

Today I continue with Congressman Bill Posey, Republican, representative of Florida's 15th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Posey,

I write to urge you to take the side of right in the ongoing debate over marriage equality in our country. As a newly elected Congressman, you have yet to establish a legislative record on this issue. You reportedly did endorse the recently passed Hate Amendment to the Florida constitution, however, which denies same-sex couples recognition of their right to marry. I implore you to reconsider your stance, Congressman, and side with the cause of justice rather than that of discrimination.

The freedom to marry the consenting partner of one's choice is an inalienable right, one that cannot be taken away even by a vote of the majority. This was the principle of marriage equality that informed the Supreme Court's decision in Loving vs. Virginia, when it struck down the democratically instituted "anti-miscegenation laws" then current in much of the United States. The same principle of marriage equality applies with respect to same-sex couples today. One cannot arbitrarily deny a whole class of people 1,138 benefits and protections and still insist that they nonetheless enjoy equal opportunity of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The current state of marital apartheid in this country is a legal absurdity and a moral offense; it can not stand indefinitely.

For this reason I and others have proposed that the United States 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." Such a reform would redress the injustice wrought by travesties like Florida's Hate Amendment and California's "Proposition Eight." It is the surest and most durable means to bringing our laws into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law. Perhaps on reflection you will see the rightness of this cause and lend your voice to our campaign. In any case I hope this message finds you well and wish you success in your new office.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Florida (XVI) Congressman Connie Mack

Today I continue with Congressman Connie Mack, Republican, representative of Florida's 14th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Mack,

I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. In contrast to your wife, Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack, you have have embraced an extreme right-wing stance on this issue. Though your wife has crossed party lines to vote against the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment," you voted for it. Moreover, where she has pursued a moderate voting record, you have consistently earned 0% ratings from the Human Rights Campaign for your record on issues of concern to LGBT citizens.

All of this is quite ironic, as your marriage is one of the great Capitol Hill romances and an illustration of the continued importance of marriage in our society. One can only wish that your wife's more progressive views had made an impact on you, opening you to recognition of the rights that you as a couple have enjoyed for the millions of Americans to whom it remains denied. Thousands of couples are arbitrarily excluded from the marital bond for no other reason but that they are of the same gender. Would you insist that your love for your wife is more genuine? So much more so that you may enjoy 1,138 benefits and protections under federal law while same-sex couples may enjoy none?

The blatant unfairness of this situation has moved I and others to propose that the U.S. 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." Such a reform is the surest and most durable way to bring our laws into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens. On this Memorial Day when we honor those who have sacrificed their lives to defend our rights, no tribute would be more fitting than to speak out in support of those whose natural rights remain unrecognized.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment. On reflection and after consulatation with your spouse, perhaps you will see the error of your current stance and join in this latest phase of the ongoing struggle for civil rights. In any case I thank you for your attention on this issue and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Florida (XV) Congressman Vern Buchanan

Today I continue with Congressman Vern Buchanan, Republican, representative of Florida's 13th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Buchanan,

I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. In your first term in Congress you supported a federal constitutional amendment that would have denied the right to marry to same-sex couples throughout the United States. More generally, you earned a 0% rating for your voting record on issues of concern to LGBT citizens from the Human Rights Campaign.

These aspects of your performance manifest a basic failing of fairness and empathy on your part. Your website understandably broadcasts your pride in your marriage of more than thirty years and your fatherhood of two grown children. With your own experience of how profoundly significant marriage can be toward the achievement of personal fulfillment, why would you seek to discriminate against fellow Americans who seek nothing more than the happiness you have been so blessed as to enjoy?

Like you I am a husband and a father, and because my wife is of a different gender I have never been forced to contemplate how difficult life would be if my family did not enjoy the 1,138 legal benefits and protections that flow to married couples under federal law. You and I may take the secure shelter of marriage for granted, but that does not excuse our being complacent in seeing it arbitrarily denied to other citizens- quite the contrary. Because, as you and I know, marriage is such a potentially powerful means toward the enrichment of life and the pursuit of happiness, the freedom to marry the consenting partner of one's choice is an inalienable right that cannot reasonably be denied to millions of Americans to satisfy social prejudice. That was the finding of the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, when it declared all so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws at the state level unconstitutional. The same principle of marriage equality that informed the Court in 1967 applies in the case of same-sex couples today.

Unfortunately, the forces of discrimination that would block progress toward full marriage equality are well-organized and well-funded. Aggressive measures are thus required to rescue Americans suffering today under the yoke of unjust laws. I and others therefore propose that the federal 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." Such a Marriage Equality Amendment is the surest and most durable means to bring our institutions into alignment with the basic rights of all Americans.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law. A reversal on this issue would no doubt draw criticism, but it would have the virtue of redeeming your place in the future history of our Republic. Marriage equality is the great civil rights issue of our generation, and it would be regrettable for you to be remembered as an agent of intolerance and discrimination when the annals of our time are written. Perhaps on reflection you will see the error of your current stance. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Florida (XIV) Congressman Adam Putnam

Today I continue with Congressman Adam Putnam, Republican, representative of Florida's 12th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Putnam,

I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. As one of the youngest members ever elected to Congress and the third-highest ranking Republican in the House of Representatives you occupy a position of considerable influence for good or ill. Your support of the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" placed you squarely on the wrong side of history, marking you as a voice for discrimination in what will be remembered as the great civil rights struggle of this generation.

I have read the suggestion that though you are not personally homophobic, you vote against the rights of LGBT citizens out of political necessity. If that is so then you should be ashamed. How can bear to you build your political fortunes on the suffering of others? Right now thousands of families in Florida and across the United States, many with children, persist without the legal protections that would help secure their prosperity and well-being. It is not only illogical, but immoral to deny millions of Americans the 1,138 legal benefits and protections of marriage simply to satisfy social prejudice, no matter how broadly held.

Because so many well-funded and well-organized political leaders and groups have shared your disposition, aggressive measure are required to redress the resulting injustice. I and others propose that the federal 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." Such a Marriage Equality Amendment is the surest and most durable means to realizing the principles of fairness and decency upon which our Republic is founded.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment. Perhaps on searching your conscience you will awaken to the error of your current stance and lend your voice to this reform. Such a reversal would no doubt invite criticism from your co-partisans, but it would show principled leadership and redeem your place in the memory of posterity. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Florida (XIII) Congresswoman Kathy Castor

Today I continue with Congresswoman Kathy Castor, Democrat, representative of Florida's 11th Congressional District:

Dear Congresswoman Castor,

I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an 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." Though this reform would obviously occasion fierce resistance from certain precincts, it is the surest and most durable means to bringing our laws into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens.

Since first being elected to Congress in 2006 you have proven yourself a staunch supporter of the rights of LGBT citizens. You earned a 100% approval rating from the Human Rights Campaign for the 110th Congress and were outspoken in your opposition to Florida's Amendment 2, aptly named "The Hate Amendment" by its detractors. Sadly, despite the conscientious opposition of you and others, Amendment 2 legally established marriage discrimination in your home state. It is travesties like the Hate Amendment that make a federal Marriage Equality Amendment an urgent necessity.

I have set out to write evey member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment. Please consider lending this campaign your voice among your colleagues in the House and Senate. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer