Today I continue with Congressman Devin Nunes, Republican, representative of California's 21st Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Nunes,
I write you as a concerned citizen to protest your stance on same-sex marriage. You have voted with your party in favor of the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment" that would have imposed a ban on same-sex marriage throughout the Union. With the passage of Proposition 8 in California, the goals of your campaign against marriage equality have been furthered in your own state.
This kind of antipathy to the rights of your fellow citizens flies in the face of the founding principles of our Republic, Congressman. Marriage is the one kinship relationship that we as citizens may freely choose, it is thus the single greatest social act we may undertake in shaping our identity and position in the community. It should thus be self-evident that marriage to the partner of one's choice is a sacred and inalienable right, one that can not be denied by any government or institution, even by a vote of the majority.
I have resolved to write every member of Congress in support of a Marriage Equality Amendment recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the U.S. Such an amendment to our federal constitution 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 hope that on further reflection you will lend your support to this reform, or at least refrain from promoting its converse.
Thank you for your attention on this matter. I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
California (XXII) Congressman Jim Costa
Today I continue with Congressman Jim Costa, Democrat, representative of California's 20th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Costa,
I write you as a concerned citizen to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. In the campaign for your initial election to the Congress in 2004, your Republican opponent, Roy Ashburn, made an issue of your support for even so moderate a concession to marriage equality rights as "domestic partnerships." As reported by the Fresno Bee (9/1/04, page A12), Ashburn publicly accused you of supporting same-sex marriage even though you had clearly stated your opposition. Such rhetorical shenanigans demonstrate the utility of the anti-marriage equality campaign as a "wedge issue" for cynical pols. The issue is not one that allows for half-measures or compromises, thus any politician who is willing to take an unequivocal stand (even one as reprehensible as Roy Ashburn's) enjoys the electoral advantage.
You have declared that you support domestic partnerships because you favor civil rights. If the latter is truly so, however, you must see that there is no true guarantee of marital rights in the absence of marriage equality. Experience demonstrates that separate can never be equal: a marriage by any other name is less than a marriage in legal terms.
Given this hard reality, there are only two solutions that will safeguard the civil rights of all citizens. Either all civil unions must be deemed "domestic partnerships" in legal terms (which would be fair, but seems absurd), or the institution of civil marriage must be opened to admit same-sex couples throughout the Union. To this latter end, I have set out to write every member of Congress pleading support for the following amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "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 hope that on reflection you will be persuaded of the justness of this reform and lend it your support. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend you my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Costa,
I write you as a concerned citizen to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. In the campaign for your initial election to the Congress in 2004, your Republican opponent, Roy Ashburn, made an issue of your support for even so moderate a concession to marriage equality rights as "domestic partnerships." As reported by the Fresno Bee (9/1/04, page A12), Ashburn publicly accused you of supporting same-sex marriage even though you had clearly stated your opposition. Such rhetorical shenanigans demonstrate the utility of the anti-marriage equality campaign as a "wedge issue" for cynical pols. The issue is not one that allows for half-measures or compromises, thus any politician who is willing to take an unequivocal stand (even one as reprehensible as Roy Ashburn's) enjoys the electoral advantage.
You have declared that you support domestic partnerships because you favor civil rights. If the latter is truly so, however, you must see that there is no true guarantee of marital rights in the absence of marriage equality. Experience demonstrates that separate can never be equal: a marriage by any other name is less than a marriage in legal terms.
Given this hard reality, there are only two solutions that will safeguard the civil rights of all citizens. Either all civil unions must be deemed "domestic partnerships" in legal terms (which would be fair, but seems absurd), or the institution of civil marriage must be opened to admit same-sex couples throughout the Union. To this latter end, I have set out to write every member of Congress pleading support for the following amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "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 hope that on reflection you will be persuaded of the justness of this reform and lend it your support. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend you my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
California (XXI) Congressman George Radanovich
Today I continue with Congressman George Radanovich, Republican, representative of California's 19th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Radanovich,
I write you as a concerned citizen to protest your stand on same-sex marriage. You were a proponent of California's Proposition 8, which recently withdrew the recognition of the marriage rights of same-sex couples so wisely affirmed by California's Supreme Court last May. In response to that court decision you issued the following statement:
“The family institution is too important to society to be manipulated by activist judges’ [sic]. California, since its conception, has legally understood marriage as a union between a man and a woman and no redefinition by the courts will change that truth. I urge the voters of California to put this issue to rest by supporting the California Marriage Protection Act, an amendment to the California constitution recognizing marriage for what it is—a relationship between a man and a woman.”
This conveys a very anemic understanding of marriage, Congressman. Surely you would not insist that marriage reduces simply to "a relationship between a man and a woman." By that standard thousands of purely professional transactions that transpire every day rank as "marriages." A marriage is a relationship that embodies mutual love, care, trust, devotion, fidelity, and responsibility. Would you really deny that a couple whose relationship embodies all these qualities are married simply because they are of the same gender?
Even if you would, the question you must face as a legislator is not what you deem "proper" but what is fair as a matter of law. You may not recognize a same-sex couple as married, but this is no different than a Roman Catholic believer's not recognizing the marriage of anyone not wed by a priest. Such a stance is a perfectly valid one from the perspective of Catholic faith, but it is not a fair basis for civil law. The Government Accountability Office lists 1,138 rights, benefits, and privileges that flow to a citizen from married status under federal law. To arbitrarily exclude any group from such a personally significant institution because of particular religious views or biases (even widespread ones) is blatantly discriminatory and unjust.
Marriage to the partner of one's choice is a civil right, one that can not be denied to a citizen by any government or institution, even by a vote of the majority. The surest way that this right will be safeguarded for all Americans is for the U.S. Constitution to 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 pleading support for this change to our basic law. You might disagree with the principles underlying such a reform, but please understand that millions of Americans view the rights of marriage equality to be sacred and inalienable, and will fight until they are recognized for all couples throughout the Union.
I hope that on further reflection you shall change your stance on this issue. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend you my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Radanovich,
I write you as a concerned citizen to protest your stand on same-sex marriage. You were a proponent of California's Proposition 8, which recently withdrew the recognition of the marriage rights of same-sex couples so wisely affirmed by California's Supreme Court last May. In response to that court decision you issued the following statement:
“The family institution is too important to society to be manipulated by activist judges’ [sic]. California, since its conception, has legally understood marriage as a union between a man and a woman and no redefinition by the courts will change that truth. I urge the voters of California to put this issue to rest by supporting the California Marriage Protection Act, an amendment to the California constitution recognizing marriage for what it is—a relationship between a man and a woman.”
This conveys a very anemic understanding of marriage, Congressman. Surely you would not insist that marriage reduces simply to "a relationship between a man and a woman." By that standard thousands of purely professional transactions that transpire every day rank as "marriages." A marriage is a relationship that embodies mutual love, care, trust, devotion, fidelity, and responsibility. Would you really deny that a couple whose relationship embodies all these qualities are married simply because they are of the same gender?
Even if you would, the question you must face as a legislator is not what you deem "proper" but what is fair as a matter of law. You may not recognize a same-sex couple as married, but this is no different than a Roman Catholic believer's not recognizing the marriage of anyone not wed by a priest. Such a stance is a perfectly valid one from the perspective of Catholic faith, but it is not a fair basis for civil law. The Government Accountability Office lists 1,138 rights, benefits, and privileges that flow to a citizen from married status under federal law. To arbitrarily exclude any group from such a personally significant institution because of particular religious views or biases (even widespread ones) is blatantly discriminatory and unjust.
Marriage to the partner of one's choice is a civil right, one that can not be denied to a citizen by any government or institution, even by a vote of the majority. The surest way that this right will be safeguarded for all Americans is for the U.S. Constitution to 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 pleading support for this change to our basic law. You might disagree with the principles underlying such a reform, but please understand that millions of Americans view the rights of marriage equality to be sacred and inalienable, and will fight until they are recognized for all couples throughout the Union.
I hope that on further reflection you shall change your stance on this issue. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend you my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Monday, January 26, 2009
Not Gonna Happen?
Recently a blogger at Starboard Broadside, Cpt. Robespierre, was kind enough to link to this blog. Although he praised the general effort, he did so in the context of an expression of pessimism, entitling his post "Not Gonna Happen." I am genuinely grateful for the notice and encouragement he has given my efforts, and extend my thanks. At the same time, and with no desire to appear churlish, I feel compelled to offer some explanations and qualifications.
I have no illusions (delusions might be more apt) about the ease or speed with which a Marriage Equality Amendment might be passed. However long it might take (if, in fact, it ever happens), one must admit that doing nothing will not hasten the day. That point aside, however, I feel confident of only two things:
1)Marriage equality will be achieved some day here in the U.S. The injustice of our current state of marital apartheid is too monstrous and the liberal impulses of our foundational institutions are too robust.
2)True marriage equality will require federal constitutional reform of some kind. The power of the states to make and adjudicate marriage law within our system of justice is deeply ingrained in precedent and tradition. This is why opponents of same-sex marriage have sought a constitutional ban: they recognize that a federal statute disallowing same-sex marriages instituted in Massachusetts and Connecticut would not pass a Supreme Court challenge. Anyone working in the reverse direction is thus faced with the opposite challenge. There is no remedy that may be sought outside the federal constitution: either it will have to be amended, or, as was so in the case of Loving v. Virginia, it will have to be reinterpreted.
Given the size and scope of the challenges, those of us who see the right have to roll up our sleeves and get to work. The fact that a Marriage Equality Amendment is not politically feasible now does not make it any less right or just. Nor does the depth or breadth of social prejudice argue for the wisdom of remaining silent or doing nothing. The fight for marriage equality might appear a quixotic one at the moment, but in the battle with this particular windmill the good money is on Quixote in the long run.
I have no illusions (delusions might be more apt) about the ease or speed with which a Marriage Equality Amendment might be passed. However long it might take (if, in fact, it ever happens), one must admit that doing nothing will not hasten the day. That point aside, however, I feel confident of only two things:
1)Marriage equality will be achieved some day here in the U.S. The injustice of our current state of marital apartheid is too monstrous and the liberal impulses of our foundational institutions are too robust.
2)True marriage equality will require federal constitutional reform of some kind. The power of the states to make and adjudicate marriage law within our system of justice is deeply ingrained in precedent and tradition. This is why opponents of same-sex marriage have sought a constitutional ban: they recognize that a federal statute disallowing same-sex marriages instituted in Massachusetts and Connecticut would not pass a Supreme Court challenge. Anyone working in the reverse direction is thus faced with the opposite challenge. There is no remedy that may be sought outside the federal constitution: either it will have to be amended, or, as was so in the case of Loving v. Virginia, it will have to be reinterpreted.
Given the size and scope of the challenges, those of us who see the right have to roll up our sleeves and get to work. The fact that a Marriage Equality Amendment is not politically feasible now does not make it any less right or just. Nor does the depth or breadth of social prejudice argue for the wisdom of remaining silent or doing nothing. The fight for marriage equality might appear a quixotic one at the moment, but in the battle with this particular windmill the good money is on Quixote in the long run.
GAO List of 1,138 Benefits, Rights, and Privileges of Marital Status
I frequently cite an audit done by the Government Accountability Office (GAO, also known as the General Accounting Office) which listed 1, 138 discrete benefits, rights, and privileges that flow to individuals as a result of being married to one-another under federal law (for example: the protection against being compelled to testify against one-another in court, the right to file a joint tax return, etc.). The entire document may be view at the GAO's website. Rather than include that link in every letter in which I cite the study, I have linked to it here, and will include a link to this post in the sidebar of the blog for general reference.
California (XX) Congressman Dennis Cardoza
Today I continue with Congressman Dennis Cardoza, Democrat, representative of California's 18th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Cardoza,
I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. As a Blue Dog Democrat you have been a moderate presence in the House, and your record on issues of LGBT rights has reflected your generally centrist disposition (you were given a positive rating of 63% by the Human Rights Campaign). One legislative project to which you lent your support suggests your potential sympathy for the cause of marriage equality, however.
You co-sponsored a bill authorizing the reintroduction of the Equal Rights Amendment for ratification by the states. Since that amendment provides that "equal treatment under the law" can not be denied or abridged on account of sex, it would almost certainly entail a move toward universal marriage equality in time. Nothing is more egregiously exemplary of the denial of "equal treatment under the law" on account of sex than the denial of entry into the marriage bond to inviduals merely because they are the same sex. The Government Accountability Office lists 1, 138 privileges, protections, and changes in legal status that derive from marriage. Denial of those safeguards due to gender, sex, or sexual orientation is among the most blatantly arbitrary forms of discrimination being practiced in our nation today. The injury is not limited to same-sex couples whose rights have been violated, moreover, but extends to their children and to the institution of marriage itself, the cogency and integrity of which is impaired by the erratic impositions of social prejudice.
To protect the rights of individual citizens, the security of the American family, and the resilience of the marital bond itself, the U.S. Constitution should be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." If you believe in the rightness of the principles of the ERA, I hope you will see the urgency and justness of this less ambitious but no less necessary reform.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this amendment or one like it. I hope that on reflection you will lend this cause your voice and your efforts. In any case I thank you for your attention and extend my best wishes for success in the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Cardoza,
I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. As a Blue Dog Democrat you have been a moderate presence in the House, and your record on issues of LGBT rights has reflected your generally centrist disposition (you were given a positive rating of 63% by the Human Rights Campaign). One legislative project to which you lent your support suggests your potential sympathy for the cause of marriage equality, however.
You co-sponsored a bill authorizing the reintroduction of the Equal Rights Amendment for ratification by the states. Since that amendment provides that "equal treatment under the law" can not be denied or abridged on account of sex, it would almost certainly entail a move toward universal marriage equality in time. Nothing is more egregiously exemplary of the denial of "equal treatment under the law" on account of sex than the denial of entry into the marriage bond to inviduals merely because they are the same sex. The Government Accountability Office lists 1, 138 privileges, protections, and changes in legal status that derive from marriage. Denial of those safeguards due to gender, sex, or sexual orientation is among the most blatantly arbitrary forms of discrimination being practiced in our nation today. The injury is not limited to same-sex couples whose rights have been violated, moreover, but extends to their children and to the institution of marriage itself, the cogency and integrity of which is impaired by the erratic impositions of social prejudice.
To protect the rights of individual citizens, the security of the American family, and the resilience of the marital bond itself, the U.S. Constitution should be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." If you believe in the rightness of the principles of the ERA, I hope you will see the urgency and justness of this less ambitious but no less necessary reform.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this amendment or one like it. I hope that on reflection you will lend this cause your voice and your efforts. In any case I thank you for your attention and extend my best wishes for success in the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Friday, January 23, 2009
California (XIX) Congressman Sam Farr
Today I continue with Congressman Sam Farr, representative of California's 17th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Farr,
I write to you as a concerned citizen to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. You have taken up the cause of LGBT rights, co-sponsoring H. Con. Res. 328 of the 110th Congress, in support of the National Day of Silence commemorated to raise awareness of the harassment that LGBT teens face in school. Marriage equality is an equally fundamental civil rights issue. Just as no one should face bullying or harassment simply because of who he or she is, no one should be excluded from a universal institution the benefits of which all citizens enjoy just because of whom he or she loves.
The passage of Proposition 8 in California underscores the urgency of the issue in today's politics. It is bad enough that same-sex couples should be denied enjoyment of marital rights by the status quo conditions of our laws and institutions, far worse when they should see hard-won recognition of those rights stripped away by the whim of a slender majority of voters. If your deed is as good as your word, Congressman, you will join in efforts to redress this injustice and secure the civil rights of all citizens.
The surest way to safeguard the right to marry the partner of one's choice is to amend the U.S. Constitution 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 requesting support for this amendment. If you truly care about the civil rights of all Americans, I ask that you please consider lending this reform your efforts in the House.
Thank you for your attention on this matter. I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Farr,
I write to you as a concerned citizen to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. You have taken up the cause of LGBT rights, co-sponsoring H. Con. Res. 328 of the 110th Congress, in support of the National Day of Silence commemorated to raise awareness of the harassment that LGBT teens face in school. Marriage equality is an equally fundamental civil rights issue. Just as no one should face bullying or harassment simply because of who he or she is, no one should be excluded from a universal institution the benefits of which all citizens enjoy just because of whom he or she loves.
The passage of Proposition 8 in California underscores the urgency of the issue in today's politics. It is bad enough that same-sex couples should be denied enjoyment of marital rights by the status quo conditions of our laws and institutions, far worse when they should see hard-won recognition of those rights stripped away by the whim of a slender majority of voters. If your deed is as good as your word, Congressman, you will join in efforts to redress this injustice and secure the civil rights of all citizens.
The surest way to safeguard the right to marry the partner of one's choice is to amend the U.S. Constitution 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 requesting support for this amendment. If you truly care about the civil rights of all Americans, I ask that you please consider lending this reform your efforts in the House.
Thank you for your attention on this matter. I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Thursday, January 22, 2009
California (XVIII) Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
Today I continue with Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, Democrat, representative of California's 16th Congressional District:
Dear Congresswoman Lofgren,
I write you as a fellow American to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the U.S. constitution that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Republic. I know that you are sympathetic to the cause of marriage equality, because you praised the joint statement of 59 California constitutional law scholars opposed to California's Proposition 8, saying, "Californians deserve to know the facts. I am grateful California’s best legal scholars have taken the time to review the facts and the law and to share their conclusions with the public." The statement of these legal scholars declared, in part:
"First, Proposition 8 would change existing California law and would require the state to discriminate against gay men and lesbians. Proposition 8 would forbid government officials from according gay men and lesbians a fundamental right they now enjoy and that all other adults in California will continue to enjoy: the right to marry a person of their choice. Just as California’s long ago-repudiated ban on interracial marriage constituted racial discrimination, so too, a ban on same-sex marriage would constitute discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The ability of same-sex couples to enter into registered domestic partnerships does not eliminate that discrimination. Thus, the claim made by some of Proposition 8’s supporters that the amendment does not discriminate against gay men and lesbians is simply false."
These scholars are absolutely correct. Marriage to the partner of one's choice is a fundamental right, and as such any governmental impediment to enjoying that right is discriminatory and unjust. If travesties like Proposition 8 delimited the extent of such discrimination the situation would be bad enough, but in fact the right to marry is denied (with the passage of Proposition 8) to same-sex couples in all but two states, and even same-sex couples who obtain marriages in Massachusetts and Connecticut must fear that their rights and privileges will not be respected when they travel out of state. This is an intolerable situation that is bad not only for our citizens (including both same-sex couples and their children) but for the institution of marriage itself, which has before now been treated as a bond so powerful as to be perfectly portable from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
The surest redress to this unjust and harmful situation is to amend the United States Constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." I appeal to your proven sense of commitment and integrity, Congresswoman, to take up the cause of this reform in the House and Senate. It is no more or less than what is right and fair.
I trust you to give this issue due consideration and to act conscientiously, and in any case thank you for your attention on this matter. I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congresswoman Lofgren,
I write you as a fellow American to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the U.S. constitution that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Republic. I know that you are sympathetic to the cause of marriage equality, because you praised the joint statement of 59 California constitutional law scholars opposed to California's Proposition 8, saying, "Californians deserve to know the facts. I am grateful California’s best legal scholars have taken the time to review the facts and the law and to share their conclusions with the public." The statement of these legal scholars declared, in part:
"First, Proposition 8 would change existing California law and would require the state to discriminate against gay men and lesbians. Proposition 8 would forbid government officials from according gay men and lesbians a fundamental right they now enjoy and that all other adults in California will continue to enjoy: the right to marry a person of their choice. Just as California’s long ago-repudiated ban on interracial marriage constituted racial discrimination, so too, a ban on same-sex marriage would constitute discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The ability of same-sex couples to enter into registered domestic partnerships does not eliminate that discrimination. Thus, the claim made by some of Proposition 8’s supporters that the amendment does not discriminate against gay men and lesbians is simply false."
These scholars are absolutely correct. Marriage to the partner of one's choice is a fundamental right, and as such any governmental impediment to enjoying that right is discriminatory and unjust. If travesties like Proposition 8 delimited the extent of such discrimination the situation would be bad enough, but in fact the right to marry is denied (with the passage of Proposition 8) to same-sex couples in all but two states, and even same-sex couples who obtain marriages in Massachusetts and Connecticut must fear that their rights and privileges will not be respected when they travel out of state. This is an intolerable situation that is bad not only for our citizens (including both same-sex couples and their children) but for the institution of marriage itself, which has before now been treated as a bond so powerful as to be perfectly portable from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
The surest redress to this unjust and harmful situation is to amend the United States Constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." I appeal to your proven sense of commitment and integrity, Congresswoman, to take up the cause of this reform in the House and Senate. It is no more or less than what is right and fair.
I trust you to give this issue due consideration and to act conscientiously, and in any case thank you for your attention on this matter. I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
California (XVII) Congressman Mike Honda
Today I continue with Congressman Mike Honda, Democrat, representative of California's 15th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Honda,
I write you as a concerned citizen to solicit your support of a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. Since your election to the House in 2000 you have been an outspoken champion of civil rights in the Congress, fighting to protect the voting rights of soldiers, immigrants, and language minorities. You have also been an outspoken advocate for families, most recently sponsoring House Resolution 6938, the Reuniting Families Act, that would ease the task of immigrants seeking to reunite with family members still overseas. Few members of Congress have displayed such candor, independence of mind, and dedication to even-handedness as you. Your efforts to both hold the U.S. government accountable for the internment of Japanese-Americans (including your own family) and the Japanese government accountable for atrocities committed by its military during World War II are exemplary of the unflinching integrity and dedication to principle that have guided your conduct in office.
On the issue of same-sex marriage, true to form, you have been admirably unequivocal, declaring: “Only full marriage rights will guarantee same-sex couples equal protection under the law and provide them access to the same rights and benefits enjoyed by all other families.” The fact that this is a statement of the simple truth does not detract from the political courage it took to say it. The recent passage of Proposition 8 in California well demonstrated the power of the forces arrayed to oppose any recognition of the rights of same-sex couples. It also testified to the need for robust action if the principles for which you bore witness will ever be realized as a matter of law and policy in our nation.
The surest way to guarantee all Americans the equal protection under the law of which you spoke is to amend the U.S. Constitution 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." Will you, in keeping with your record of forthright advocacy, take up the cause of this amendment among your colleagues in the House and Senate? Although the obstacles to such a reform are obviously many and profound, the support of a public servant with your reputation for integrity would give it purchase in our political process.
I have set out to write every member of Congress, at the rate of about one a day, pleading their support for this amendment. My messages to each (including this one) are displayed at a weblog: http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/. I hope that you will lend this cause your proven energy and dedication. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter, and extend you my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Honda,
I write you as a concerned citizen to solicit your support of a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. Since your election to the House in 2000 you have been an outspoken champion of civil rights in the Congress, fighting to protect the voting rights of soldiers, immigrants, and language minorities. You have also been an outspoken advocate for families, most recently sponsoring House Resolution 6938, the Reuniting Families Act, that would ease the task of immigrants seeking to reunite with family members still overseas. Few members of Congress have displayed such candor, independence of mind, and dedication to even-handedness as you. Your efforts to both hold the U.S. government accountable for the internment of Japanese-Americans (including your own family) and the Japanese government accountable for atrocities committed by its military during World War II are exemplary of the unflinching integrity and dedication to principle that have guided your conduct in office.
On the issue of same-sex marriage, true to form, you have been admirably unequivocal, declaring: “Only full marriage rights will guarantee same-sex couples equal protection under the law and provide them access to the same rights and benefits enjoyed by all other families.” The fact that this is a statement of the simple truth does not detract from the political courage it took to say it. The recent passage of Proposition 8 in California well demonstrated the power of the forces arrayed to oppose any recognition of the rights of same-sex couples. It also testified to the need for robust action if the principles for which you bore witness will ever be realized as a matter of law and policy in our nation.
The surest way to guarantee all Americans the equal protection under the law of which you spoke is to amend the U.S. Constitution 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." Will you, in keeping with your record of forthright advocacy, take up the cause of this amendment among your colleagues in the House and Senate? Although the obstacles to such a reform are obviously many and profound, the support of a public servant with your reputation for integrity would give it purchase in our political process.
I have set out to write every member of Congress, at the rate of about one a day, pleading their support for this amendment. My messages to each (including this one) are displayed at a weblog: http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/. I hope that you will lend this cause your proven energy and dedication. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter, and extend you my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Monday, January 19, 2009
California (XVI) Congresswoman Anna Eshoo
Today I continue with Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, Democrat, representative of California's 14th Congressional District:
Dear Congresswoman Eshoo,
I write you as a concerned citizen to solicit your support for a Marriage Protection Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. As a member of Congress since 1993 you have been a strong advocate for civil rights, garnering well-earned kudos for your work on behalf of women and veterans. On the issue of marriage equality you have taken a moderate pro-rights stand. Your website posts the following statement:
"Rep. Eshoo believes that issues related to marriage should be handled by the individual states as they have been throughout our nation's history. In the 108th Congress she opposed H. J. Res. 106, the Marriage Protection Amendment, which would have amended the Constitution by taking this decision out of the hands of states and effectively banning same-sex marriage.
Dear Congresswoman Eshoo,
I write you as a concerned citizen to solicit your support for a Marriage Protection Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. As a member of Congress since 1993 you have been a strong advocate for civil rights, garnering well-earned kudos for your work on behalf of women and veterans. On the issue of marriage equality you have taken a moderate pro-rights stand. Your website posts the following statement:
"Rep. Eshoo believes that issues related to marriage should be handled by the individual states as they have been throughout our nation's history. In the 108th Congress she opposed H. J. Res. 106, the Marriage Protection Amendment, which would have amended the Constitution by taking this decision out of the hands of states and effectively banning same-sex marriage.
Rep. Eshoo also voted against H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act, which would have stripped federal courts (including the Supreme Court) of their jurisdiction to hear cases challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act or the Federal Marriage Statute. Rep. Eshoo believes this bill was discriminatory, singling out for the first time a minority to prevent their interests from being considered by the highest courts in the land. While the bill was passed by the House of Representatives, no further action was taken during the 108th Congress, effectively defeating the bill. No action has been taken in the 109th Congress."
I applaud your work in defense of marriage equality to the extent it has gone, Congresswoman. I hope I may persuade you, however, that the right to marry the partner of one's choice is a basic civil right, as basic as the right to vote or to worship as one's conscience dictates. As such it is not the proper purview of the individual states, but should be federally protected. This was the finding of the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws banning marriages between partners of different race. The same principle applies with respects to partners of like gender.
With statutes like DOMA on the books we live in a topsy-turvy world, one in which the federal government has been mobilized to attack what it should protect and states like Massachusetts and Connecticut have risen to defend what should be guaranteed by the federal government. Most recently, with the passage of Proposition 8, we have been dealt an object lesson in the need for robust federal action in defense of marriage equality. When recognition of individual rights can first be granted and then voted away, the founding spirit of our democracy has been violated. Leaving the welfare of American families vulnerable to the whims of the voting public state by state is neither just nor humane nor conducive of the public good.
The Government Accountability Office lists 1,138 legal benefits and protections that flow to citizens as a result of marital status under federal law. That millions of Americans should arbitrarily be excluded from this institution because of the gender of their chosen partners is absurd and unjust. Especially condemnable is the plight of the thousands of children in the care of same-sex couples who are kept from the stable protections and securities that other children enjoy because their parents' marriages are denied legal recognition. To discriminate against the child on account of the parent is sheer barbarism of a kind that the 21st century should have long left behind.
The manifest injustice of our current system will only be reliably redressed when the U.S. Constitution is amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." I have set out to write every member of Congress pleading their support for this change to our basic law. I hope on reflection you will see the wisdom and justice of such a reform and lend it your voice and your energy in the Congress. Such endeavors would be a fitting continuation of the good work you have done on behalf of those in need since first taking up your office.
I thank you for your attention on this matter. Please accept my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Sunday, January 18, 2009
A Comment on Comments
Like any blogger I appreciate comments, even critical ones. Though I believe in free speech, however, I feel conscience-bound to refuse this site as a platform to those who would spread hatred and bigotry. I have had a few comments and communications expressing contempt for/hatred of same-sex marriage or LGBT citizens. I have deleted those comments and I will continue to do so. I could not in good conscience leave such comments unanswered, and engaging such individuals in reasoned dialogue is an absurd task for which I have no patience. Someone who says s/he hates gays and lesbians for religious reasons is no different than someone who says s/he hates those who do not eat kosher food for religious reasons. Such an egregious lack of empathy and critical perspective can not be dealt with logically.
California (XV) Congressman Pete Stark
Today I continue with Congressman Fortney "Pete" Stark, Democrat, representative of California's 13th Congressional District
Dear Congressman Stark,
I write you as a fellow American to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the rights of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Republic. A senior member of the House's progressive caucus, you have long been an outspoken defender of the rights of marriage equality. On September 30, 2004 you rose on the floor of the House to deliver a statement in opposition to the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment," saying:
"The right-wing political machine is churning out divisive legislation at a record pace as we get close to the election, but this is a new low. They would, for the first time ever, target a specific group of Americans in our most sacred document, and permanently ban them from having equal rights under the law.
Dear Congressman Stark,
I write you as a fellow American to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the rights of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Republic. A senior member of the House's progressive caucus, you have long been an outspoken defender of the rights of marriage equality. On September 30, 2004 you rose on the floor of the House to deliver a statement in opposition to the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment," saying:
"The right-wing political machine is churning out divisive legislation at a record pace as we get close to the election, but this is a new low. They would, for the first time ever, target a specific group of Americans in our most sacred document, and permanently ban them from having equal rights under the law.
This proposed amendment not only bans marriage, but any of the "legal incidents thereof," meaning that the supporters of this amendment think our founding document should keep gay and lesbian couples from filing a joint tax return, inheriting property, or visiting their partner in the hospital....Apparently, there are a lot of things the supporters of this amendment don't understand about our government:
The Constitution has always defined the limitations of government and liberties of people, not the other way around.
Citizens of the United States are guaranteed equal treatment under the law, even if they aren't popular."
Your words not only encapsulate many of the most cogent arguments in support of marriage equality, Congressman, but identify the urgent necessity to rise in defense of those rights at this moment in our history. As you rightly point out, the campaign to block or roll back the recognition of marital rights for same-sex couples represents a "new low" in the annals of illiberal political movements in our country. It is not enough merely to vote down regressive legislation like the bill you stood to oppose. Travesties like California's Proposition 8 demonstrate that the forces of intolerance and oppression are implacably determined to carry on their campaign against the rights of their fellow citizens, no matter how many setbacks they encounter.
It is time for the forces of right and justice to go on the offensive. Positive steps must be taken to secure and maintain the equal rights of every citizen to marry the partner of his or her choice. To that end, the U.S. Constitution must be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Will you take up the cause of this amendment, or one like it, with your colleagues in the House and Senate, Congressman?
I hope you shall lend this cause your energy and your efforts. In any case, I thank you for your long service to our nation and your attention on this matter. Please accept my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Friday, January 16, 2009
California (XIV) Congresswoman Jackie Speier
Today I continue with Congresswoman Jackie Speier, Democrat, representative of California's 12th Congressional District:
Dear Congresswoman Speier,
I write you as a concerned citizen to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry. Newly elected to the House in April of 2008, you are already one of the most outspoken advocates for the rights of LGBT citizens. You are to be particularly commended for your forthright and unequivocal stand on the issue of marriage equality. Like you, I agree that, "Marriage equality is perhaps the most profound civil rights issue of our generation."
You are no doubt as disheartened as I by the passage of Proposition 8 in the most recent election, threatening to undo the wise and just ruling of California's Supreme Court. If marriage equality is indeed the civil rights issue of our era, this must be counted one of its darkest hours. Robust and uncompromising action is required to stem the tide of discrimination and injustice. To this end, I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking there support for the following amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." My letters are being gathered at a weblog online:
http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/
Hard experience teaches us that the civil rights of Americans will continue to be violated until such safeguards are written into our basic law. Your story of survival and courage at the Jonestown massacre in Guyana, where you had accompanied the late Congressman Ryan as his aide, is an inspiring one, made more so by the fact that you have continued to choose a life of civic engagement and personal sacrifice. Moreover, you continue to show courage in your outspoken and principled advocacy of equality and justice. Taking up the cause of this amendment would no doubt attract criticism and even rancor, but it would be a continuation of the good work you did with Mark Leno during your tenure in California's state legislature. The road to the eventual achievement of marriage equality throughout the Republic will no doubt be long and hard, but the only chance of success lies with those of us who see the justice of this cause right now. Will you lead us in this next step toward a more perfect Union?
I thank you for your attention on this matter. Please accept my congratulations on your election to the House and my best wishes for success in your new office.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congresswoman Speier,
I write you as a concerned citizen to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry. Newly elected to the House in April of 2008, you are already one of the most outspoken advocates for the rights of LGBT citizens. You are to be particularly commended for your forthright and unequivocal stand on the issue of marriage equality. Like you, I agree that, "Marriage equality is perhaps the most profound civil rights issue of our generation."
You are no doubt as disheartened as I by the passage of Proposition 8 in the most recent election, threatening to undo the wise and just ruling of California's Supreme Court. If marriage equality is indeed the civil rights issue of our era, this must be counted one of its darkest hours. Robust and uncompromising action is required to stem the tide of discrimination and injustice. To this end, I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking there support for the following amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." My letters are being gathered at a weblog online:
http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/
Hard experience teaches us that the civil rights of Americans will continue to be violated until such safeguards are written into our basic law. Your story of survival and courage at the Jonestown massacre in Guyana, where you had accompanied the late Congressman Ryan as his aide, is an inspiring one, made more so by the fact that you have continued to choose a life of civic engagement and personal sacrifice. Moreover, you continue to show courage in your outspoken and principled advocacy of equality and justice. Taking up the cause of this amendment would no doubt attract criticism and even rancor, but it would be a continuation of the good work you did with Mark Leno during your tenure in California's state legislature. The road to the eventual achievement of marriage equality throughout the Republic will no doubt be long and hard, but the only chance of success lies with those of us who see the justice of this cause right now. Will you lead us in this next step toward a more perfect Union?
I thank you for your attention on this matter. Please accept my congratulations on your election to the House and my best wishes for success in your new office.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
California (XIII) Congressman Jerry McNerney
Today I continue with Congressman Jerry McNerney, Democrat, representative of California's 11th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman McNerney,
I write you as a concerned citizen to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would secure the rights of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. As a relatively new member of Congress, you have nonetheless distinguished yourself as a strong advocate for civil rights. During your most recent election campaign you spoke out unequivocally against California's Proposition 8, declaring, “I’m against Proposition 8 because I’m against limiting the civil rights of Americans in this country, period.”
Such a forthright stand entailed political risk and deserves praise. The unfortunate passage of Proposition 8 demonstrates that standing up to be counted will not be enough, however. The civil rights of America's citizens will never be fully guaranteed against the forces of discrimination and intolerance until the U.S. Constitution is amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." You have demonstrated both an outstanding independence of mind and a political durability that has outstripped the expectations of even members of your own party. Would you take up the cause of this amendment among your colleagues in the House and Senate?
I hope that you will lend this reform your energy and efforts. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter, and extend my best wishes for success in the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman McNerney,
I write you as a concerned citizen to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would secure the rights of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. As a relatively new member of Congress, you have nonetheless distinguished yourself as a strong advocate for civil rights. During your most recent election campaign you spoke out unequivocally against California's Proposition 8, declaring, “I’m against Proposition 8 because I’m against limiting the civil rights of Americans in this country, period.”
Such a forthright stand entailed political risk and deserves praise. The unfortunate passage of Proposition 8 demonstrates that standing up to be counted will not be enough, however. The civil rights of America's citizens will never be fully guaranteed against the forces of discrimination and intolerance until the U.S. Constitution is amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." You have demonstrated both an outstanding independence of mind and a political durability that has outstripped the expectations of even members of your own party. Would you take up the cause of this amendment among your colleagues in the House and Senate?
I hope that you will lend this reform your energy and efforts. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter, and extend my best wishes for success in the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
California (XII) Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher
I continue today with Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, Democrat, representative of California's 10th Congressional District:
Dear Congresswoman Tauscher,
I write you as a concerned citizen to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry. You have been a vocal and forthright defender of civil rights in the Congress, fighting to end the absurd "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the U.S. military and to enact legislation protecting citizens from employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. With respect to this last issue, you issued the following statement:
“Freedom from discrimination in the workplace is a civil right that should be afforded to all Americans. The exclusion of gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans from this basic protection amounts to pure bigotry. I am proud that the Congress has acted on this long overdue legislation, and I will continue to support efforts to eradicate discrimination of any kind, including that based on gender identity.”
If exclusion of LGBT citizens from protections in the workplace is bigotry, surely same-sex couples' exclusion from the basic protections of marriage is even more so. The natural desire to form families is an even more common and fundamental aspect of human life, yet same-sex couples face legal handicaps in this regard that the majority of citizens never encounter. Like freedom from discrimination in the workplace, marriage to the partner of one's choice is a civil right. Not only is this right being denied to same-sex couples in most states, but an active campaign is afoot to roll back recognition of these rights in the few places where it has been won through hard struggle and sacrifice.
The basic rights of our citizens will never be reliably safeguarded until the U.S. Constitution is amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." If you were to take up the cause of this amendment, Congresswoman, it would be a fitting continuation of all the good work you have done thus far in defense and promotion of Americans' civil rights. I know that our nation faces grave threats to our domestic economy and our foreign policy security, but I hope that we will not be distracted from the search for "a more perfect Union" that is our common legacy as Americans. Please consider advocating for this amendment among your colleagues in the House and Senate.
I thank you for your service to our nation and your attention on this matter, I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congresswoman Tauscher,
I write you as a concerned citizen to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry. You have been a vocal and forthright defender of civil rights in the Congress, fighting to end the absurd "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the U.S. military and to enact legislation protecting citizens from employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. With respect to this last issue, you issued the following statement:
“Freedom from discrimination in the workplace is a civil right that should be afforded to all Americans. The exclusion of gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans from this basic protection amounts to pure bigotry. I am proud that the Congress has acted on this long overdue legislation, and I will continue to support efforts to eradicate discrimination of any kind, including that based on gender identity.”
If exclusion of LGBT citizens from protections in the workplace is bigotry, surely same-sex couples' exclusion from the basic protections of marriage is even more so. The natural desire to form families is an even more common and fundamental aspect of human life, yet same-sex couples face legal handicaps in this regard that the majority of citizens never encounter. Like freedom from discrimination in the workplace, marriage to the partner of one's choice is a civil right. Not only is this right being denied to same-sex couples in most states, but an active campaign is afoot to roll back recognition of these rights in the few places where it has been won through hard struggle and sacrifice.
The basic rights of our citizens will never be reliably safeguarded until the U.S. Constitution is amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." If you were to take up the cause of this amendment, Congresswoman, it would be a fitting continuation of all the good work you have done thus far in defense and promotion of Americans' civil rights. I know that our nation faces grave threats to our domestic economy and our foreign policy security, but I hope that we will not be distracted from the search for "a more perfect Union" that is our common legacy as Americans. Please consider advocating for this amendment among your colleagues in the House and Senate.
I thank you for your service to our nation and your attention on this matter, I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Monday, January 12, 2009
California (XI) Congresswoman Barbara Lee
Today I continue my correspondence with California's Congressional delegation with Congresswoman Barbara Lee, representative of California's 9th Congressional District:
Dear Congresswoman Lee,
I write you as a concerned citizen to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry. You have long been a staunch defendant of civil rights, both home and abroad. On July 18, 2006, you spoke out on the floor of the House against the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment," which would have obstructed marriage rights throughout the Union, saying:
"Of course I stand in strong opposition to H. J. Res 88. This amendment seeks to enshrine and it does enshrine discrimination into our Constitution.
The campaign for marriage equality is the civil rights struggle of our time. Its goals will never be thoroughly and securely realized, however, until the U.S. Constitution is amended in precisely the opposite manner to that proposed by President Bush, 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." Will you take the lead in this fight as you have in so many others Congresswoman? I have determined to write every member of Congress pleading support for this reform, I hope you will express approval of it in discussion with your colleagues in the House and Senate.
Thank you for your attention on this matter, I hope this message finds you well.
Cheers,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congresswoman Lee,
I write you as a concerned citizen to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry. You have long been a staunch defendant of civil rights, both home and abroad. On July 18, 2006, you spoke out on the floor of the House against the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment," which would have obstructed marriage rights throughout the Union, saying:
"Of course I stand in strong opposition to H. J. Res 88. This amendment seeks to enshrine and it does enshrine discrimination into our Constitution.
“And as an African-American woman, and as a person of faith, there is no way that I can support discriminating against anybody. The history of our nation has been a long process of bringing people of different backgrounds together. This amendment would take everything that this nation stands for as, a beacon of hope, a land of opportunity, and a tolerant democratic society, and turn it all on its head."
Even as I applaud your unequivocal and principled stand, I sense a new urgency for action on this issue. Without passage of the discriminatory amendment you so rightly derided, the status quo operation of our laws and institutions still daily deprives same-sex couples of rights and protections that the majority may take for granted. Despite long struggle by civil-rights activists, moreover, setbacks and disappointments abound. The recent passage of Proposition 8 in California, for example, has stripped thousands of same-sex couples of recognition of rights they briefly enjoyed thanks to the wise and just ruling of your state's Supreme Court.The campaign for marriage equality is the civil rights struggle of our time. Its goals will never be thoroughly and securely realized, however, until the U.S. Constitution is amended in precisely the opposite manner to that proposed by President Bush, 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." Will you take the lead in this fight as you have in so many others Congresswoman? I have determined to write every member of Congress pleading support for this reform, I hope you will express approval of it in discussion with your colleagues in the House and Senate.
Thank you for your attention on this matter, I hope this message finds you well.
Cheers,
Andrew Meyer
Sunday, January 11, 2009
California (X) Congressman Tom McClintock
Today I both close out my correspondence with newly elected legislators whose districts I skipped in the lame duck weeks of the 110th Congress and resume my correspondence with California's Congressional delegation, with a letter to Congressman Tom McClintock, Republican, newly elected representative of California's 4th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman McClintock,
I write you as a concerned citizen to protest your stand on same-sex marriage. Like millions of Americans, I was deeply distressed by the passage of Proposition 8, which threatens to undo the wise and just ruling of California's Supreme Court recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry. You however, offered up these comments regarding the issue during your campaign for election to the House:
"Lincoln asked, 'If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? The answer is four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one. And calling a homosexual partnership a marriage doesn’t make it one."
The bigotry and insensitivity exemplified by these words is frankly shocking, Congressman, and beneath the dignity of your office. You profane the name of one of our greatest presidents, who always stood against intolerance and discrimination, by harnessing his words to such defamatory ends. I would counter your quote with one from Shakespeare: "That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." A marriage is not realized in the gender of the two people so joined, but in their mutual love, commitment, care, and shared sacrifice. Millions of same-sex couples are thus married whether you call their union a "homosexual partnership" or anything else.
Unlike Shakespeare's "rose," the name "marriage" does have real consequences, however. Refusing to give a rose its true name does not harm the rose, but refusing to give a marriage its true name leaves the people within it vulnerable to abuses and injuries against which most citizens are legally protected. This is the reality that you must confront as a legislator, Congressman. You are honor-bound to assess this issue, not according to what fits your tastes and predispositions, but to what is fair and just under law. The Government Accountability Office lists 1, 138 legal benefits and protections that flow to citizens from the marital bond under federal law. To deny millions of Americans those safeguards on the basis of a homily purloined from Lincoln is worse than absurd, it is immoral.
In closing I offer you another quote from Lincoln, Congressman, this one regarding the Founders' famous dictum regarding life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness:
They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere.
What Lincoln declared about the Founders' vision and its implications for race applies equally to matters of gender and sexual orientation. We are living now through another "spreading and deepening" of the founding mandate of our Republic, one which will ultimately lead to a universal recognition of the right to marry the partner of one's choice. I have been writing every member of Congress, soliciting support for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." You may disagree with the principles underlying such a reform, Congressman, but please know that millions of Americans hold the rights of marriage equality to be sacred and inalienable, and will not stop struggling until they are recognized for all citizens throughout our Republic.
I wish I could offer my congratulations to you on your election to Congress, but I would have to see some sign of a change of heart before I could do so in good conscience. I hope that you shall reflect on this issue and come to a new understanding in time. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend you my best wishes for effective service of your constituents in California's 4th District.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman McClintock,
I write you as a concerned citizen to protest your stand on same-sex marriage. Like millions of Americans, I was deeply distressed by the passage of Proposition 8, which threatens to undo the wise and just ruling of California's Supreme Court recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry. You however, offered up these comments regarding the issue during your campaign for election to the House:
"Lincoln asked, 'If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? The answer is four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one. And calling a homosexual partnership a marriage doesn’t make it one."
The bigotry and insensitivity exemplified by these words is frankly shocking, Congressman, and beneath the dignity of your office. You profane the name of one of our greatest presidents, who always stood against intolerance and discrimination, by harnessing his words to such defamatory ends. I would counter your quote with one from Shakespeare: "That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." A marriage is not realized in the gender of the two people so joined, but in their mutual love, commitment, care, and shared sacrifice. Millions of same-sex couples are thus married whether you call their union a "homosexual partnership" or anything else.
Unlike Shakespeare's "rose," the name "marriage" does have real consequences, however. Refusing to give a rose its true name does not harm the rose, but refusing to give a marriage its true name leaves the people within it vulnerable to abuses and injuries against which most citizens are legally protected. This is the reality that you must confront as a legislator, Congressman. You are honor-bound to assess this issue, not according to what fits your tastes and predispositions, but to what is fair and just under law. The Government Accountability Office lists 1, 138 legal benefits and protections that flow to citizens from the marital bond under federal law. To deny millions of Americans those safeguards on the basis of a homily purloined from Lincoln is worse than absurd, it is immoral.
In closing I offer you another quote from Lincoln, Congressman, this one regarding the Founders' famous dictum regarding life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness:
They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere.
What Lincoln declared about the Founders' vision and its implications for race applies equally to matters of gender and sexual orientation. We are living now through another "spreading and deepening" of the founding mandate of our Republic, one which will ultimately lead to a universal recognition of the right to marry the partner of one's choice. I have been writing every member of Congress, soliciting support for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." You may disagree with the principles underlying such a reform, Congressman, but please know that millions of Americans hold the rights of marriage equality to be sacred and inalienable, and will not stop struggling until they are recognized for all citizens throughout our Republic.
I wish I could offer my congratulations to you on your election to Congress, but I would have to see some sign of a change of heart before I could do so in good conscience. I hope that you shall reflect on this issue and come to a new understanding in time. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend you my best wishes for effective service of your constituents in California's 4th District.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Arizona (X) Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick
Today I continue my correspondence with newly elected members of the 111th Congress with Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick, Democrat, representative of Arizona's 1st Congressional District:
Dear Congresswoman Kirkpatrick,
I write as a concerned citizen to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. As a state legislator, you earned a reputation as a stalwart defender of civil rights, winning the endorsement of Arizona's Apache and Navajo nations and a rating of 100% from Equality Arizona, a statewide advocacy group for LGBT rights. With the disheartening passage in Arizona of a statewide ban on same-sex marriage in the same election that brought you to Congress, I hope you will be persuaded that the time has come for robust action to secure marriage equality.
The current state of our institutions is already egregiously unfair, and the proliferation of discriminatory measures like that just passed in Arizona continues to exacerbate an already intolerable situation. These mounting injustices will only be thoroughly and reliably redressed when the U.S. Constitution is amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Will you take up the cause of this reform among your colleagues in the House, Congresswoman, if only informally? To do so would continue upon the fine record of service you built in your days as a state legislator in Arizona.
I thank you for your attention on this matter. Please accept my congratulations on your election and my best wishes for success in your new office.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congresswoman Kirkpatrick,
I write as a concerned citizen to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. As a state legislator, you earned a reputation as a stalwart defender of civil rights, winning the endorsement of Arizona's Apache and Navajo nations and a rating of 100% from Equality Arizona, a statewide advocacy group for LGBT rights. With the disheartening passage in Arizona of a statewide ban on same-sex marriage in the same election that brought you to Congress, I hope you will be persuaded that the time has come for robust action to secure marriage equality.
The current state of our institutions is already egregiously unfair, and the proliferation of discriminatory measures like that just passed in Arizona continues to exacerbate an already intolerable situation. These mounting injustices will only be thoroughly and reliably redressed when the U.S. Constitution is amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Will you take up the cause of this reform among your colleagues in the House, Congresswoman, if only informally? To do so would continue upon the fine record of service you built in your days as a state legislator in Arizona.
I thank you for your attention on this matter. Please accept my congratulations on your election and my best wishes for success in your new office.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Friday, January 9, 2009
Alaska (III) Senator Mark Begich
Today I continue my correspondence with newly elected members of the 111th Congress with Senator Mark Begich, Democrat, the junior senator for Alaska. An email account is not set up for Senator Begich yet, so he must be contacted by post or emailed at his campaign web site:
Dear Senator Begich,
I write as a fellow Democrat to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry. As mayor of Anchorage, you built a consistent record of respect and support for LGBT rights, supporting such progressive measures as the granting of benefits to same-sex partners. You thus earned the endorsement of advocacy groups such as the Human Rights Campaign, and your election is being celebrated as a step forward for the cause of LGBT rights in Alaska and the nation as a whole.
Building upon that estimable record, I hope that you will be a voice in the Senate in favor of marriage equality. The past eight years has seen a frighteningly regressive trend gain momentum in our national politics. President Bush harnessed all of the prestige and power of his office to an effort to encode the denial of rights into our Constitution, and the past election saw, with the passage of Proposition 8, the heartbreaking withdrawal of recognition that had finally been granted to the rights of millions of Californians after long struggle.
Please allow no one to mislead you on this score, Senator. Marriage to the partner of one's choice is a right, one that millions of same-sex couples already possess even though the vast majority of them do not enjoy its legal benefits. The Government Accountability Office lists 1,138 benefits and protections that flow from marriage under federal law. Denial of those guarantees to citizens because they marry someone of the same gender is as arbitrary as denying them because they marry someone of a different race (a legal prohibition that was quite common until it was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the case of Loving v. Virginia). The current state of our laws and institutions is thus fundamentally unfair, unjust, and discriminatory.
Our laws will only faithfully reflect the basic rights of our citizenry when the Constitution is amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Would you take up the cause of this reform among your colleagues in the Congress, Senator? Doing so, you would be carrying forward the good work you began as mayor of Anchorage.
Thank you for your attention in this matter. Please accept my congratulations upon your election and my best wishes for success in your new office.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Senator Begich,
I write as a fellow Democrat to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry. As mayor of Anchorage, you built a consistent record of respect and support for LGBT rights, supporting such progressive measures as the granting of benefits to same-sex partners. You thus earned the endorsement of advocacy groups such as the Human Rights Campaign, and your election is being celebrated as a step forward for the cause of LGBT rights in Alaska and the nation as a whole.
Building upon that estimable record, I hope that you will be a voice in the Senate in favor of marriage equality. The past eight years has seen a frighteningly regressive trend gain momentum in our national politics. President Bush harnessed all of the prestige and power of his office to an effort to encode the denial of rights into our Constitution, and the past election saw, with the passage of Proposition 8, the heartbreaking withdrawal of recognition that had finally been granted to the rights of millions of Californians after long struggle.
Please allow no one to mislead you on this score, Senator. Marriage to the partner of one's choice is a right, one that millions of same-sex couples already possess even though the vast majority of them do not enjoy its legal benefits. The Government Accountability Office lists 1,138 benefits and protections that flow from marriage under federal law. Denial of those guarantees to citizens because they marry someone of the same gender is as arbitrary as denying them because they marry someone of a different race (a legal prohibition that was quite common until it was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the case of Loving v. Virginia). The current state of our laws and institutions is thus fundamentally unfair, unjust, and discriminatory.
Our laws will only faithfully reflect the basic rights of our citizenry when the Constitution is amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Would you take up the cause of this reform among your colleagues in the Congress, Senator? Doing so, you would be carrying forward the good work you began as mayor of Anchorage.
Thank you for your attention in this matter. Please accept my congratulations upon your election and my best wishes for success in your new office.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Alabama (IX) Congressman Parker Griffith
Today I continue my correspondence with newly seated legislators of the 111th Congress with Congressman Parker Griffith, Democrat, representative of Alabama's 5th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Griffith,
I write you as a fellow American to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. As a newly elected Democrat in a district that has typically leaned GOP, you are subject to pressure to demonstrate your independence from the leadership of your own party. Indeed, GOP partisans have wasted no time in criticizing something as innocuous as your vote to extend Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi's tenure as Speaker of the House.
Marriage equality is an issue that transcends such petty partisan bickering. Indeed, it is not (or should not be) a partisan issue at all, but a question of basic civil rights. Millions of same-sex couples are living in relationships that entail all of the mutual commitment, shared responsibility, and collective sacrifice as marriage, while enjoying none of the legal protections (1, 138 of them, according to the Government Accountability Office) that flow from the marital bond. Many of these couples are caring for children, who enjoy none of the guarantees of stable custody, assurance of benefits, or inheritance and property that marriage affords. It is bad enough that adults are unfairly excluded from an institution that the majority may enjoy because of social prejudice, far worse that children should arbitrarily suffer on that account.
This injustice shall not be thoroughly and reliably redressed until the federal constitution is amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." I know that support of such a reform would attract further political criticism from partisan opponents, but I appeal to your proven sense of fairness and civic responsibility, asking you to search your conscience and give this issue due reflection.
Thank you for your attention on this matter. Please accept my congratulations on your election and my best wishes for your sucess in your new office.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Griffith,
I write you as a fellow American to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. As a newly elected Democrat in a district that has typically leaned GOP, you are subject to pressure to demonstrate your independence from the leadership of your own party. Indeed, GOP partisans have wasted no time in criticizing something as innocuous as your vote to extend Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi's tenure as Speaker of the House.
Marriage equality is an issue that transcends such petty partisan bickering. Indeed, it is not (or should not be) a partisan issue at all, but a question of basic civil rights. Millions of same-sex couples are living in relationships that entail all of the mutual commitment, shared responsibility, and collective sacrifice as marriage, while enjoying none of the legal protections (1, 138 of them, according to the Government Accountability Office) that flow from the marital bond. Many of these couples are caring for children, who enjoy none of the guarantees of stable custody, assurance of benefits, or inheritance and property that marriage affords. It is bad enough that adults are unfairly excluded from an institution that the majority may enjoy because of social prejudice, far worse that children should arbitrarily suffer on that account.
This injustice shall not be thoroughly and reliably redressed until the federal constitution is amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." I know that support of such a reform would attract further political criticism from partisan opponents, but I appeal to your proven sense of fairness and civic responsibility, asking you to search your conscience and give this issue due reflection.
Thank you for your attention on this matter. Please accept my congratulations on your election and my best wishes for your sucess in your new office.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Alabama (VIII) Congressman Bobby Bright
The 111th Congress convenes today, so I shall pause my correspondence with California's Congressional delegation to go back and contact legislators that I skipped in the closing "lame duck" weeks of the 110th Congress. Today I begin with Congressman Bobby Bright, Democrat, newly elected representative of Alabama's 2nd Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Bright,
I write to you as a fellow American and concerned citizen to plead your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. A newly elected member of Congress, you ran as an aspiring "Blue Dog Democrat," promising to represent the people of Alabama's 2nd District as a fiscal and social conservative. You are thus committed to opposing the legalization of same-sex marriage.
Though this position may be popular in Alabama, I urge you to give it further reflection. The only social tradition that is "conserved" by the status quo is the systematic violation of citizens' rights throughout the Union. The 2000 census counted 600,000 same-sex couples living in committed relationships across America, and most experts agree that this number is vastly underestimated. Thousands of these couples are caring for children; none of them enjoy the legal benefits and protections of marriage (1, 138 of them, according to the Government Accountability Office) that are indispensable to the maintenance of secure and stable family life. Refusal to recognize rights of marriage equality is thus not a conservative defense of tradition, but an unjust and illiberal assault on American citizens and American families.
The quiltwork pattern of varying legal definitions and procedures that has evolved state-by-state in recent years has contributed to a climate of confusion, and deepened the unfair and discriminatory condition of marital apartheid that subjects so many citizens to arbitrary abuse. This situation will only be remedied when the U.S. Constitution is amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Only when such a reform of our basic law is effected will our institutions be brought into alignment with the fundamental and inalienable rights of our citizens.
Your record of dedicated service to the people of Montgomery demonstrates that you are a man of principle, perspicacity, and fairness. I trust you to give this issue further thought, and to act in any case as your conscience dictates. Please accept my congratulations on your election and my best wishes for success in your new office. I thank you for your attention on this matter, I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Bright,
I write to you as a fellow American and concerned citizen to plead your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. A newly elected member of Congress, you ran as an aspiring "Blue Dog Democrat," promising to represent the people of Alabama's 2nd District as a fiscal and social conservative. You are thus committed to opposing the legalization of same-sex marriage.
Though this position may be popular in Alabama, I urge you to give it further reflection. The only social tradition that is "conserved" by the status quo is the systematic violation of citizens' rights throughout the Union. The 2000 census counted 600,000 same-sex couples living in committed relationships across America, and most experts agree that this number is vastly underestimated. Thousands of these couples are caring for children; none of them enjoy the legal benefits and protections of marriage (1, 138 of them, according to the Government Accountability Office) that are indispensable to the maintenance of secure and stable family life. Refusal to recognize rights of marriage equality is thus not a conservative defense of tradition, but an unjust and illiberal assault on American citizens and American families.
The quiltwork pattern of varying legal definitions and procedures that has evolved state-by-state in recent years has contributed to a climate of confusion, and deepened the unfair and discriminatory condition of marital apartheid that subjects so many citizens to arbitrary abuse. This situation will only be remedied when the U.S. Constitution is amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Only when such a reform of our basic law is effected will our institutions be brought into alignment with the fundamental and inalienable rights of our citizens.
Your record of dedicated service to the people of Montgomery demonstrates that you are a man of principle, perspicacity, and fairness. I trust you to give this issue further thought, and to act in any case as your conscience dictates. Please accept my congratulations on your election and my best wishes for success in your new office. I thank you for your attention on this matter, I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Monday, January 5, 2009
California (IX) Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi
Today I continue with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, representative of California's 8th Congressional District:
Dear Speaker Pelosi:
I write you as a fellow American to plead your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. Like many others of like mind, I was elated by your election to the Speaker's chair in 2007. Not only was it a landmark moment in the history of our Republic, but it saw that office come under the stewardship of a humane, erudite, dedicated, and dynamic leader of a kind that our nation rarely has the good fortune to produce. I appeal to you now to marshal those proven powers of leadership for the cause of marriage equality.
On July 18, 2006, prior to your election as Speaker, you rose on the floor of the House and spoke eloquently and movingly against the proposed so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment," saying:
Indeed, the situation is even worse than that. With the passage of Proposition 8 in California, Phyllis and Del have seen rights stripped from them that were briefly recognized by the wise ruling of California's Supreme Court last year. Thus not only do we have a system of marital apartheid in this country, but forces are mobilized to see that it persists and even (with campaigns like that for the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment") intensifies.
Urgent action is needed. The rights of American citizens will never be fully recognized or protected until the Federal Constitution is amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Would you lend your considerable authority to the struggle for such an amendment, Madame Speaker? I have set out to write an email to every member of Congress (at the rate of about one a day) seeking support for this change to our basic law. My messages are being collected at a weblog, "Marriage Equality Amendment":
http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com
I know that the campaign for such a change would be long, difficult, and fraught with political risk. Some might argue that our nation faces more pressing issues at the current moment. I would venture to guess that most of those who would make such arguments are not prevented by law from marrying the persons they love. Moreover, a moment of crisis is also a moment of opportunity for bold change. As your ascent to the Speaker's chair and the most recent presidential election have demonstrated, no one can be sure what change the nation is ready for until someone tries to lead it there.
I trust you to give this issue due consideration, and to act in any case with the same conscientious integrity you have displayed throughout your career. Thank you for your long service to our nation and for your attention on this matter. I hope this message finds you well. Please accept my best wishes for the new year and for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Speaker Pelosi:
I write you as a fellow American to plead your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. Like many others of like mind, I was elated by your election to the Speaker's chair in 2007. Not only was it a landmark moment in the history of our Republic, but it saw that office come under the stewardship of a humane, erudite, dedicated, and dynamic leader of a kind that our nation rarely has the good fortune to produce. I appeal to you now to marshal those proven powers of leadership for the cause of marriage equality.
On July 18, 2006, prior to your election as Speaker, you rose on the floor of the House and spoke eloquently and movingly against the proposed so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment," saying:
“As we consider this amendment, we must understand we are talking about our fellow citizens—people under the law—who are lesbian and gay, and what it means to them. They are members of our communities with dreams and aspirations, including their right to find comfort, love, and support on equal terms. They have every right—and every expectation as any American—that they are entitled to the very purpose for which this nation was founded: that we are all created equal by our Creator and endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
“Let me tell you about two extraordinary constituents of mine. I have talked about them on the floor before—Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin—both in their 80s, who have lived together for more than 50 years. They’re grandparents by the way—they’re grandmothers. Their commitment, their love, and their happiness are a source of strength to all who know them. They are leaders in our community and are held in high esteem by all who know them. Why should they not have the full protection of the law? To be able to share each other's health and bereavement benefits? To be able to share all the protections and rights accruing to financial relationships, inheritance, and immigration? Why should Phyllis and Del and millions of gay and lesbian citizens not be treated equally and not be afforded the legal protections conferred by marriage?"
The cause of marriage equality could not find a more articulate champion than the one exemplified by these words, Madame Speaker. If we think of all Americans, as you exhort us to do, as "people under law," then we must acknowledge that, even absent the misnamed "Marriage Protection Amendment," the current state of our laws is unjust and cruelly discriminatory. You are undeniably right that citizens like Phyllis and Del should (nay, must) be afforded the legal protections conferred by marriage. In fact, there is no argument that can be made to deny that such equitable treatment under the law is theirs by, to borrow the phrase you invoked, "inalienable right." Yet our current institutions perpetuate an arbitrary and malignant double standard, excluding citizens like Phyllis and Del from basic safeguards to welfare and happiness that the majority may take entirely for granted, creating an entire populace of second-class citizens.Indeed, the situation is even worse than that. With the passage of Proposition 8 in California, Phyllis and Del have seen rights stripped from them that were briefly recognized by the wise ruling of California's Supreme Court last year. Thus not only do we have a system of marital apartheid in this country, but forces are mobilized to see that it persists and even (with campaigns like that for the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment") intensifies.
Urgent action is needed. The rights of American citizens will never be fully recognized or protected until the Federal Constitution is amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Would you lend your considerable authority to the struggle for such an amendment, Madame Speaker? I have set out to write an email to every member of Congress (at the rate of about one a day) seeking support for this change to our basic law. My messages are being collected at a weblog, "Marriage Equality Amendment":
http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com
I know that the campaign for such a change would be long, difficult, and fraught with political risk. Some might argue that our nation faces more pressing issues at the current moment. I would venture to guess that most of those who would make such arguments are not prevented by law from marrying the persons they love. Moreover, a moment of crisis is also a moment of opportunity for bold change. As your ascent to the Speaker's chair and the most recent presidential election have demonstrated, no one can be sure what change the nation is ready for until someone tries to lead it there.
I trust you to give this issue due consideration, and to act in any case with the same conscientious integrity you have displayed throughout your career. Thank you for your long service to our nation and for your attention on this matter. I hope this message finds you well. Please accept my best wishes for the new year and for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Sunday, January 4, 2009
California (VIII) Congressman George Miller
Today I continue with Congressman George Miller, Democrat, representative of California's 7th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Miller,
I write as a concerned citizen seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would secure the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. As one of the most senior and active members of the Democratic caucus you have been an outstanding leader on many issues, including the cause of civil rights. The Human Rights Campaign consistently gives you a perfect score with regard to your actions on issues of LGBT equality, and you have taken the forefront in promoting the defense of civil rights against gender discrimination, joining your colleagues in House Joint Resolution 40 of the 107th Congress to reintroduce the Equal Rights Amendment for ratification by the states.
Given this record of service, you are surely aware that we have reached a pivotal crisis moment in the struggle for marriage equality. The passage of Proposition 8 in California, which would nullify the hard-won recognition of the rights of millions of citizens, stands as a dark passage in the history of our Republic. The status quo state of our laws and institutions already systematically discriminates against hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples and their families, and forces are mobilized to intensify and solidify the unjust and oppressive mechanisms that divide so many citizens from the simple enjoyment of their inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The rights of same-sex couples and the thousands of children in their care will never be reliably protected until the U.S. Constitution is amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Would you take up the cause of this amendment in the House, Congressman? You speak with the authority won by long service and experience, and could help win back much ground lost in what is undoubtedly the civil rights struggle of this generation.
I trust you to give this matter due consideration, and to act conscientiously in any case. Thank you for your long service to our Nation and for your attention on this issue. I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Miller,
I write as a concerned citizen seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would secure the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. As one of the most senior and active members of the Democratic caucus you have been an outstanding leader on many issues, including the cause of civil rights. The Human Rights Campaign consistently gives you a perfect score with regard to your actions on issues of LGBT equality, and you have taken the forefront in promoting the defense of civil rights against gender discrimination, joining your colleagues in House Joint Resolution 40 of the 107th Congress to reintroduce the Equal Rights Amendment for ratification by the states.
Given this record of service, you are surely aware that we have reached a pivotal crisis moment in the struggle for marriage equality. The passage of Proposition 8 in California, which would nullify the hard-won recognition of the rights of millions of citizens, stands as a dark passage in the history of our Republic. The status quo state of our laws and institutions already systematically discriminates against hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples and their families, and forces are mobilized to intensify and solidify the unjust and oppressive mechanisms that divide so many citizens from the simple enjoyment of their inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The rights of same-sex couples and the thousands of children in their care will never be reliably protected until the U.S. Constitution is amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Would you take up the cause of this amendment in the House, Congressman? You speak with the authority won by long service and experience, and could help win back much ground lost in what is undoubtedly the civil rights struggle of this generation.
I trust you to give this matter due consideration, and to act conscientiously in any case. Thank you for your long service to our Nation and for your attention on this issue. I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Saturday, January 3, 2009
California (VII) Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey
Today I continue with Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, Democrat, representative of California's 6th Congressional District:
Dear Congresswoman Woolsey,
I write to you as a concerned citizen seeking your support for a Constitutional amendment recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry. Such a Marriage Equality Amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."
As a founding member of the LGBT Equality Caucus, you have been a leading advocate for the rights of same-sex couples in the House. On your website you include this clear and exemplary issue statement:
"Like many Californians, I was thrilled that on May 15, 2008, the California State Supreme Court issued its decision overturning the ban on same sex marriage and affirming that gay and lesbian couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples. Although this ruling is a landmark achievement, we still face challenges ahead and must do everything we can to uphold this decision.
You can be sure that I will continue to protect the rights of all American citizens, no matter what their sexual orientation."
You are no doubt shocked and grieved as I and millions of others at the passage of "Proposition 8." This setback is a clarion call to action. If the opponents of marriage equality can be so unfeeling as to advocate and execute the removal of rights and protections already won by their fellow citizens, the time for sensitivity, compromise, and half measures on the part of defenders of civil rights has passed. We must stand up as a group and declare to the nation what we know to be true: marriage equality is fair and just in principle as it is prudent in practice. Marriage to the partner of one's choice is an inalienable right, and as such it must be Constitutionally protected for all citizens from the prejudices and discriminatory inclinations of those who would seek to selectively curtail it.
Would you take up the cause of this amendment among your colleagues in House and Senate, Congresswoman? If so you would no doubt come under intense political attack, but braving such risks would be quite in step with the legacy of progressive activism you have already built in your career as a legislator. I trust you to give the issue due consideration, and in any case to act with the same conscientious integrity you have always displayed.
Thank you for your attention in this matter. I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congresswoman Woolsey,
I write to you as a concerned citizen seeking your support for a Constitutional amendment recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry. Such a Marriage Equality Amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."
As a founding member of the LGBT Equality Caucus, you have been a leading advocate for the rights of same-sex couples in the House. On your website you include this clear and exemplary issue statement:
"Like many Californians, I was thrilled that on May 15, 2008, the California State Supreme Court issued its decision overturning the ban on same sex marriage and affirming that gay and lesbian couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples. Although this ruling is a landmark achievement, we still face challenges ahead and must do everything we can to uphold this decision.
You can be sure that I will continue to protect the rights of all American citizens, no matter what their sexual orientation."
You are no doubt shocked and grieved as I and millions of others at the passage of "Proposition 8." This setback is a clarion call to action. If the opponents of marriage equality can be so unfeeling as to advocate and execute the removal of rights and protections already won by their fellow citizens, the time for sensitivity, compromise, and half measures on the part of defenders of civil rights has passed. We must stand up as a group and declare to the nation what we know to be true: marriage equality is fair and just in principle as it is prudent in practice. Marriage to the partner of one's choice is an inalienable right, and as such it must be Constitutionally protected for all citizens from the prejudices and discriminatory inclinations of those who would seek to selectively curtail it.
Would you take up the cause of this amendment among your colleagues in House and Senate, Congresswoman? If so you would no doubt come under intense political attack, but braving such risks would be quite in step with the legacy of progressive activism you have already built in your career as a legislator. I trust you to give the issue due consideration, and in any case to act with the same conscientious integrity you have always displayed.
Thank you for your attention in this matter. I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Friday, January 2, 2009
California (VI) Congresswoman Doris Matsui
The Congressman representing California's 4th Congressional District, John Doolittle, is retiring at the end of this term. Thus today I continue with Congresswoman Doris Matsui, Democrat, representative of California's 5th Congressional District:
Dear Congresswoman Matsui,
I write to you as a concerned citizen to plead your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry. You have taken a brave and outspoken stand against attempts to deny citizens their right to marry, declaring in 2006, in opposition to the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment":
“It is clear throughout this nation’s history that our greatest days came when we expanded rights and equality and our darkest came when we restricted them. That history teaches us we should not single out any class of Americans for unequal treatment...This legislation ignores the lessons we have learned and, for the first time, amend the Constitution to take away the rights of American citizens. It would use sexual orientation to deny the rights afforded every other American.”
Your acknowledgment of the universality of marriage rights expresses the finest founding principles of our Republic, and embodies a kind of moral leadership that has become very rare in recent American politics. Would you not carry the mantle of that leadership even further? With the passage of Proposition 8 depriving so many Californians of the rights you recognize, we have come to another of our "darkest days." A defensive posture is not sufficient, robust and aggressive action must be taken to counter the tide of oppression that surges ever higher.
Your own personal history of being born in an internment camp gives you firsthand knowledge of how far short of our best ideals Americans may fall, and how much courage and defiance may be required to win recognition of basic civil rights in the face of deeply ingrained prejudice. Even without travesties such as the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment," the current state of our laws is unjust and discriminatory, systematically depriving hundreds of same-sex couples of the protections and guarantees that are theirs by right, exposing their families to risk and hardship from which other citizens are naturally safeguarded. This wrong will only be reliably redressed when our U.S. Constitution is amended to read, "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."
Would you take up the cause of this amendment among your colleagues in the House and Senate, Congresswoman? You speak with a unique authority that could not fail to be heard, both in the chambers of power and among the citizenry more broadly. I trust you to give this matter due consideration, and to act with the same conscientious integrity you have displayed throughout your career.
Thank you for your service to our Nation and your attention in this matter. I hope this message finds you well; please accept my best wishes for the New Year.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congresswoman Matsui,
I write to you as a concerned citizen to plead your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry. You have taken a brave and outspoken stand against attempts to deny citizens their right to marry, declaring in 2006, in opposition to the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment":
“It is clear throughout this nation’s history that our greatest days came when we expanded rights and equality and our darkest came when we restricted them. That history teaches us we should not single out any class of Americans for unequal treatment...This legislation ignores the lessons we have learned and, for the first time, amend the Constitution to take away the rights of American citizens. It would use sexual orientation to deny the rights afforded every other American.”
Your acknowledgment of the universality of marriage rights expresses the finest founding principles of our Republic, and embodies a kind of moral leadership that has become very rare in recent American politics. Would you not carry the mantle of that leadership even further? With the passage of Proposition 8 depriving so many Californians of the rights you recognize, we have come to another of our "darkest days." A defensive posture is not sufficient, robust and aggressive action must be taken to counter the tide of oppression that surges ever higher.
Your own personal history of being born in an internment camp gives you firsthand knowledge of how far short of our best ideals Americans may fall, and how much courage and defiance may be required to win recognition of basic civil rights in the face of deeply ingrained prejudice. Even without travesties such as the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment," the current state of our laws is unjust and discriminatory, systematically depriving hundreds of same-sex couples of the protections and guarantees that are theirs by right, exposing their families to risk and hardship from which other citizens are naturally safeguarded. This wrong will only be reliably redressed when our U.S. Constitution is amended to read, "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."
Would you take up the cause of this amendment among your colleagues in the House and Senate, Congresswoman? You speak with a unique authority that could not fail to be heard, both in the chambers of power and among the citizenry more broadly. I trust you to give this matter due consideration, and to act with the same conscientious integrity you have displayed throughout your career.
Thank you for your service to our Nation and your attention in this matter. I hope this message finds you well; please accept my best wishes for the New Year.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.png)
