Today I continue with Congressman Gary Miller, Republican, representative of California's 42nd Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Miller,
I write to urge you to change your stance on marriage equality. You have twice voted in favor of a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage throughout the U.S. Moreover, you have shown yourself hostile to the rights of LGBT citizens generally, receiving a rating of 0% from the Human Rights Campaign for each of the last three Congresses.
Exclusion of same-sex couples from the marital bond is fundamentally unjust. The Government Accountability Office lists 1, 138 benefits and protections that accrue to citizens from married status under federal law. Denying these to two adults who commit to love, honor, and protect one-another merely because they are of the same gender is arbitrary and discriminatory. As Loving v. Virginia and other Supreme Court cases have established, marriage to the partner of one's choice is an inalienable right, one that cannot be denied to any citizen even by a vote of the majority. Most outrageous is the harm done by our current state of marital apartheid to the thousands of children in the care of same-sex couples, who are cruelly denied the security that other children take for granted because the state will not sanction their guardians' union. To punish the child on account of the parents is sheer barbarism.
Although the 14th amendment already guarantees citizens "equal protection of the law," travesties such as Proposition 8 demonstrate that social prejudice profoundly impedes the recognition of marriage equality rights. The surest means by which to bring our laws and institutions into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens is thus 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 seeking support for this change to our basic law. Please know that millions of Americans consider the rights of marriage equality to be sacred and universal, and will fight on until they are realized for all citizens of our great Republic. I hope that on reflection you will have a change of heart and lend your support to this just cause. In any case I thank you for your attention and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
California (XLII) Congressman Jerry Lewis
Today I continue with Congressman Jerry Lewis, Republican, representative of California's 41st Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Lewis,
I write as a concerned citizen to urge you to change your stance on marriage equality. You have twice voted in favor of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and consistently receive low marks from the Human Rights Campaign (15, 0, and 11% respectively for the last three Congresses) for your record on LGBT rights. Such antipathy toward the rights of millions of your fellow citizens violates the fundamental spirit of our Republic.
As one of the longest-serving members of the GOP caucus, I would hope that you would spare some thought for your legacy, Congressman. Marriage equality is the civil rights issue of our generation. In years to come civic leaders will be judged by whether they took the side of right or wrong in this struggle, as is so today when we look back upon past leaders' conduct with respect to similar battles for freedom and equality. Those who today work to deny the 1, 138 legal benefits and protections of marriage to millions of Americans on arbitrary and discriminatory grounds will be severely condemned by posterity.
With the passage of Proposition 8 in your home state, moreover, battle lines are hardening. When discrimination and bigotry become so powerful that rights already won by citizens may actually be taken away, there remains no room for forbearance or compromise. In that spirit I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for the following amendment to our federal 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." Such a clear and unequivocal break with the discriminatory past is the surest way to bring our laws and institutions into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens.
In this decisive moment every American must step forward and be counted. Will you resolve to be part of the solution, Congressman, or remain a part of the problem? I hope that on reflection you will experience a change of heart, and undo some of the damage to your future reputation that past actions entail. In any case you can be sure that generations to come will take note of your choices.
I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Lewis,
I write as a concerned citizen to urge you to change your stance on marriage equality. You have twice voted in favor of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and consistently receive low marks from the Human Rights Campaign (15, 0, and 11% respectively for the last three Congresses) for your record on LGBT rights. Such antipathy toward the rights of millions of your fellow citizens violates the fundamental spirit of our Republic.
As one of the longest-serving members of the GOP caucus, I would hope that you would spare some thought for your legacy, Congressman. Marriage equality is the civil rights issue of our generation. In years to come civic leaders will be judged by whether they took the side of right or wrong in this struggle, as is so today when we look back upon past leaders' conduct with respect to similar battles for freedom and equality. Those who today work to deny the 1, 138 legal benefits and protections of marriage to millions of Americans on arbitrary and discriminatory grounds will be severely condemned by posterity.
With the passage of Proposition 8 in your home state, moreover, battle lines are hardening. When discrimination and bigotry become so powerful that rights already won by citizens may actually be taken away, there remains no room for forbearance or compromise. In that spirit I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for the following amendment to our federal 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." Such a clear and unequivocal break with the discriminatory past is the surest way to bring our laws and institutions into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens.
In this decisive moment every American must step forward and be counted. Will you resolve to be part of the solution, Congressman, or remain a part of the problem? I hope that on reflection you will experience a change of heart, and undo some of the damage to your future reputation that past actions entail. In any case you can be sure that generations to come will take note of your choices.
I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
California (XLI) Congressman Ed Royce
Today I continue with Congressman Ed Royce, Republican, representative of California's 40th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Royce,
I write as a concerned citizen to urge you to change your stance on marriage equality. You have twice voted in favor of a federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Indeed, you have a consistent record of opposing any recognition of the rights of LGBT citizens. The Human Rights Campaign has given you a rating of 0% for each of the last three Congresses.
This record is bizarrely out of step with political principles that you have expressed and embodied in other realms, Congressman. Your activism in support of human rights abroad, especially in China and Vietnam, is well known. It is quite strange that you would be so empathetic to the rights of people overseas yet so unfeeling with regard to the rights of your compatriots.
What right is more human than that of marriage to the partner of one's choice? The Government Accountability Office lists 1,138 benefits and protections that accrue to a couple from married status under federal law. It is grossly arbitrary an unfair to withhold those protections from two citizens merely because they are the same gender.
Marriage equality is an inalienable right, one that is already guaranteed by the 14th Amendment's promise of "equal protection of the law." Unfortunately, events like the passage of Proposition 8 in your own state make clear that the forces mobilized to obstruct the practical achievement of marriage equality are well-organized, well-funded and implacable. It will thus be necessary to establish more explicit safeguards before the rights of all Americans are secure. To this end, I have set out to write every member of Congress, promoting that the U.S. constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a reform is the surest means to guarantee that our laws and institutions are brought into alignment with the natural rights of our citizens.
I hope that on reflection you will have a change of heart and see the justice of this cause. In any case I thank you for your attention on his matter, and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Royce,
I write as a concerned citizen to urge you to change your stance on marriage equality. You have twice voted in favor of a federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Indeed, you have a consistent record of opposing any recognition of the rights of LGBT citizens. The Human Rights Campaign has given you a rating of 0% for each of the last three Congresses.
This record is bizarrely out of step with political principles that you have expressed and embodied in other realms, Congressman. Your activism in support of human rights abroad, especially in China and Vietnam, is well known. It is quite strange that you would be so empathetic to the rights of people overseas yet so unfeeling with regard to the rights of your compatriots.
What right is more human than that of marriage to the partner of one's choice? The Government Accountability Office lists 1,138 benefits and protections that accrue to a couple from married status under federal law. It is grossly arbitrary an unfair to withhold those protections from two citizens merely because they are the same gender.
Marriage equality is an inalienable right, one that is already guaranteed by the 14th Amendment's promise of "equal protection of the law." Unfortunately, events like the passage of Proposition 8 in your own state make clear that the forces mobilized to obstruct the practical achievement of marriage equality are well-organized, well-funded and implacable. It will thus be necessary to establish more explicit safeguards before the rights of all Americans are secure. To this end, I have set out to write every member of Congress, promoting that the U.S. constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a reform is the surest means to guarantee that our laws and institutions are brought into alignment with the natural rights of our citizens.
I hope that on reflection you will have a change of heart and see the justice of this cause. In any case I thank you for your attention on his matter, and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Monday, February 23, 2009
California (XL) Congresswoman Linda Sanchez
Today I continue with Congresswoman Linda Sanchez, , representative of California's 39th Congressional District:
Dear Congresswoman Sanchez,
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 co-founder of the LGBT Equality Caucus you are one of the most outspoken advocates for the rights of gay, lesbian, and transgender citizens in the Congress. On the announcement of the founding of the caucus, you signaled your support for the California Supreme Court's ruling in favor of marriage equality, declaring:
“If we truly believe in the nation’s founding documents then lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered individuals deserve equal rights. Every American knows, deep down, that to deny another citizen the rights promised by our constitution is wrong.”
Like I and millions of others you were no doubt deeply disappointed and distressed by the passage of Proposition 8 last November. That assault upon civil rights should be met with an aggressive and unequivocal response. The surest and most durable way to protect American citizens' rights from travesties like Proposition 8 would be 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."
Advocacy of this reform would no doubt draw a firestorm of criticism. You, however, Congresswoman, have never been daunted by the prospects of such political heat. Would you take up the cause of this change to our basic law in the House? Someone with your acuity and energy could give this idea profound force, perhaps enough to reshape the way the country thinks and talks about the issue of marriage equality.
Please consider promoting this amendment to your colleagues in the LGBT Equality Caucus and the House more generally. In any case, I thank you for your service and your attention on this matter, and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congresswoman Sanchez,
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 co-founder of the LGBT Equality Caucus you are one of the most outspoken advocates for the rights of gay, lesbian, and transgender citizens in the Congress. On the announcement of the founding of the caucus, you signaled your support for the California Supreme Court's ruling in favor of marriage equality, declaring:
“If we truly believe in the nation’s founding documents then lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered individuals deserve equal rights. Every American knows, deep down, that to deny another citizen the rights promised by our constitution is wrong.”
Like I and millions of others you were no doubt deeply disappointed and distressed by the passage of Proposition 8 last November. That assault upon civil rights should be met with an aggressive and unequivocal response. The surest and most durable way to protect American citizens' rights from travesties like Proposition 8 would be 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."
Advocacy of this reform would no doubt draw a firestorm of criticism. You, however, Congresswoman, have never been daunted by the prospects of such political heat. Would you take up the cause of this change to our basic law in the House? Someone with your acuity and energy could give this idea profound force, perhaps enough to reshape the way the country thinks and talks about the issue of marriage equality.
Please consider promoting this amendment to your colleagues in the LGBT Equality Caucus and the House more generally. In any case, I thank you for your service and your attention on this matter, and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Sunday, February 22, 2009
California (XXXIX) Congresswoman Grace Napolitano
Today I continue with Congresswoman Grace Napolitano, Democrat, representative of California's 38th Congressional District:
Dear Congresswoman Napolitano,
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 co-chair of the Congressional Mental Health Caucus you have built an outstanding record of advocacy for the rights of mental health patients. This concern for civil liberties extends into all aspects of your work as an elected leader: you earned positive ratings of 100% from both the ACLU and the Human Rights Campaign for the 110th Congress.
Given your record I am sure you would agree that marriage equality is among the most pressing civil rights issues of our generation. The Government Accountability Office lists 1, 138 benefits, privileges, and protections that accrue to citizens as a result of married status. These are systematically denied to same-sex couples in forty-eight states of the Union. Most dispiriting to contemplate is the situation in California, in which same-sex couples were granted recognition of their natural rights by the wise ruling of the state Supreme Court, only to be oppressed anew by the discriminatory and unjust machinations of Proposition 8.
The current state of marital apartheid in this country is both impractical and immoral, it cannot abide. The surest way to bring our institutions into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens would be 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 seeking support for this change to our basic law.
The campaign for marriage equality will no doubt be long and hard and fraught with political risks. It cannot succeed without leaders like you who have shown the courage to stand up for the rights of people that society habitually ignores or abuses. Would you lend your voice to the call for a Marriage Equality Amendment, Congresswoman? I appeal to your proven sense of fairness and civic duty. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter, and hope that this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congresswoman Napolitano,
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 co-chair of the Congressional Mental Health Caucus you have built an outstanding record of advocacy for the rights of mental health patients. This concern for civil liberties extends into all aspects of your work as an elected leader: you earned positive ratings of 100% from both the ACLU and the Human Rights Campaign for the 110th Congress.
Given your record I am sure you would agree that marriage equality is among the most pressing civil rights issues of our generation. The Government Accountability Office lists 1, 138 benefits, privileges, and protections that accrue to citizens as a result of married status. These are systematically denied to same-sex couples in forty-eight states of the Union. Most dispiriting to contemplate is the situation in California, in which same-sex couples were granted recognition of their natural rights by the wise ruling of the state Supreme Court, only to be oppressed anew by the discriminatory and unjust machinations of Proposition 8.
The current state of marital apartheid in this country is both impractical and immoral, it cannot abide. The surest way to bring our institutions into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens would be 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 seeking support for this change to our basic law.
The campaign for marriage equality will no doubt be long and hard and fraught with political risks. It cannot succeed without leaders like you who have shown the courage to stand up for the rights of people that society habitually ignores or abuses. Would you lend your voice to the call for a Marriage Equality Amendment, Congresswoman? I appeal to your proven sense of fairness and civic duty. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter, and hope that this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Saturday, February 21, 2009
California (XXXVIII) Congresswoman Laura Richardson
Today I continue with Congresswoman Laura Richardson, Democrat, representative of California's 37th Congressional District:
Dear Congresswoman Richardson,
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. Such an amendment to the 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." Given the current state of discrimination that prevails in most of the nation, such a change to our basic law would the be surest and most durable way to safeguard the rights of all citizens.
Marriage equality became an issue during your initial run for the Congress in 2007, when it was widely broadcast that you had expressed opposition to same-sex marriage in past electoral contests. Since entering the House, however, you have established a record of consistent support for the rights of LGBT citizens, earning a 100% positive rating from the Human Rights Campaign for the 11Oth Congress. In campaign speeches and on your website you note your family's experience of the Civil Rights struggle of the 1960's, and you have compared the struggle for marriage equality with earlier campaigns for basic civil rights.
If these are truly your views, Congresswoman, then advocacy of a Marriage Equality Amendment would be a natural choice. The passage of Proposition 8 in California has caused retrograde motion in the national movement for marriage equality. Few times in our history have we seen rights won through hard struggle taken away from an entire class of people. Though caution is always warranted at the prospect of amending our basic law, this situation is so dire as to justify robust action.
Campaign staffers in 2007 asserted that you had "atoned" for past support of discriminatory policies, Congresswoman. True atonement is expressed in deed, not word, however. Though support for a Marriage Equality Amendment would entail political risk, precisely for that reason it would demonstrate your full resolve to redeem past mistakes. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this reform. I hope that you will consider lending it your voice in the House. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congresswoman Richardson,
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. Such an amendment to the 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." Given the current state of discrimination that prevails in most of the nation, such a change to our basic law would the be surest and most durable way to safeguard the rights of all citizens.
Marriage equality became an issue during your initial run for the Congress in 2007, when it was widely broadcast that you had expressed opposition to same-sex marriage in past electoral contests. Since entering the House, however, you have established a record of consistent support for the rights of LGBT citizens, earning a 100% positive rating from the Human Rights Campaign for the 11Oth Congress. In campaign speeches and on your website you note your family's experience of the Civil Rights struggle of the 1960's, and you have compared the struggle for marriage equality with earlier campaigns for basic civil rights.
If these are truly your views, Congresswoman, then advocacy of a Marriage Equality Amendment would be a natural choice. The passage of Proposition 8 in California has caused retrograde motion in the national movement for marriage equality. Few times in our history have we seen rights won through hard struggle taken away from an entire class of people. Though caution is always warranted at the prospect of amending our basic law, this situation is so dire as to justify robust action.
Campaign staffers in 2007 asserted that you had "atoned" for past support of discriminatory policies, Congresswoman. True atonement is expressed in deed, not word, however. Though support for a Marriage Equality Amendment would entail political risk, precisely for that reason it would demonstrate your full resolve to redeem past mistakes. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this reform. I hope that you will consider lending it your voice in the House. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Friday, February 20, 2009
California (XXXVII) Congresswoman Jane Harman
Today I continue with Congresswoman Jane Harman, Democrat, representative of California's 36th Congressional District:
Dear Congresswoman Harman,
I write you to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. You have been an opponent of efforts to use the power of the federal government to block marriage equality since the days of the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)." In 2006, during then President Bush's second campaign to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, you wrote a letter to Joe Solmonese, President of the Human Rights Campaign, in which you said, in part:
As you so wisely observe, Congresswoman, the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" rebelled against the very founding spirit of our Republic, and was thus intrinsically un-American. Though in this and other statements you have expressed a concern for state's rights, I hope that you may be persuaded that any "dispassionate" assessment of "our rights and liberties" as Americans compels the conclusion that the U.S. constitution should be amended in precisely the opposite manner than President Bush proposed. The same principle that made the federal ban on same-sex marriage so heinously discriminatory and un-American makes a Marriage Equality Amendment the next logical step in our nation's ongoing search for a "more perfect Union."
A constitutional amendment is not the only way that marriage equality might be achieved for same-sex couples seeking their basic rights. But the recent debacle in your own state, with the passage of Proposition 8, demonstrates the cruel vulnerability to which same-sex couples are exposed if their welfare is left to the tender mercies of the states. As Loving v. Virginia demonstrated, the rights of the states reach clear limits when their powers begin to impinge upon the basic freedoms of their citizens.
Though the 14th Amendment guarantees all Americans "equal protection of the laws," same-sex couples throughout the nation (and the children in their care) are clearly not enjoying the security promised by this basic tenet. This injustice would be best rectified by amending 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." Such a change to our basic law would most dependably and durably bring the operation of our institutions into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens.
I hope that on reflection you will lend this reform your voice and your efforts, Congresswoman. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend to you my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congresswoman Harman,
I write you to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. You have been an opponent of efforts to use the power of the federal government to block marriage equality since the days of the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)." In 2006, during then President Bush's second campaign to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, you wrote a letter to Joe Solmonese, President of the Human Rights Campaign, in which you said, in part:
"Congress has traditionally amended the Constitution to grant a broader range of rights to Americans, not narrow them. I believe the Constitution should be amended rarely, dispassionately, and only in the interest of expanding and codifying our rights and liberties.
Efforts to make gay marriage a federal issue and in so doing limit the rights of one group of Americans constitute nothing less than government-sanctioned discrimination. It is demeaning to gay Americans, tramples on the rights of states to define community values, and is wholly unworthy of our consideration."
As you so wisely observe, Congresswoman, the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" rebelled against the very founding spirit of our Republic, and was thus intrinsically un-American. Though in this and other statements you have expressed a concern for state's rights, I hope that you may be persuaded that any "dispassionate" assessment of "our rights and liberties" as Americans compels the conclusion that the U.S. constitution should be amended in precisely the opposite manner than President Bush proposed. The same principle that made the federal ban on same-sex marriage so heinously discriminatory and un-American makes a Marriage Equality Amendment the next logical step in our nation's ongoing search for a "more perfect Union."
A constitutional amendment is not the only way that marriage equality might be achieved for same-sex couples seeking their basic rights. But the recent debacle in your own state, with the passage of Proposition 8, demonstrates the cruel vulnerability to which same-sex couples are exposed if their welfare is left to the tender mercies of the states. As Loving v. Virginia demonstrated, the rights of the states reach clear limits when their powers begin to impinge upon the basic freedoms of their citizens.
Though the 14th Amendment guarantees all Americans "equal protection of the laws," same-sex couples throughout the nation (and the children in their care) are clearly not enjoying the security promised by this basic tenet. This injustice would be best rectified by amending 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." Such a change to our basic law would most dependably and durably bring the operation of our institutions into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens.
I hope that on reflection you will lend this reform your voice and your efforts, Congresswoman. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend to you my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
California (XXXVI) Congresswoman Maxine Waters
Today I continue with Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Democrat, representative of California's 35th Congressional District:
Dear Congresswoman Waters,
I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the U.S. constitution, one that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. You have been a staunch champion of civil rights in the House and have a solid record of advocacy for the rights of LGBT citizens (the Human Rights Campaign gave you a positive rating of 90% for the most recent Congress). You were ambivalent, however, in your stance toward California's recently passed Proposition 8, telling a film crew from southern California's station KCET that you were not focused on Proposition 8, but were devoting your energies to the economic crisis.
This was most unfortunate, Congresswoman. The passage of Proposition 8 was a civil rights disaster- one of the rare instances in our nation's history in which recognition of a right that had already been won was withdrawn from citizens already enjoying it. The fact that this perfidy was achieved through the ballot box makes it no less reprehensible.
The promotion and protection of citizens' rights can wait for no other issues to "take priority," as I am sure you would agree on reflection, Congresswoman. What would Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. have said if told that the struggle for enfranchisement would have to wait for the passing of an economic downturn? Moreover, economic difficulties only add urgency to the struggle for rights, as few rights transcend the economic realities of people's lives. Among the 1,138 protections and benefits of marriage that are denied to same-sex couples are many that would materially improve their economic circumstances, such as the right to file joint tax returns or to extend work benefits to one-another (or their partner's children). In times such as these, when any economic advantage can mean the difference between subsistence and deprivation, such discrimination becomes doubly cruel.
Marriage to the partner of one's choice is an inalienable right, one that can not be taken away from any citizen, even by a vote of the majority. Such was the finding of the Supreme Court when it struck down so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws in Loving v. Virginia, and such is the case now despite all the money and rhetoric behind obscenities like Proposition 8. The best and surest way to safeguard rights of marriage equality for all Americans would be 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."
Please consider lending your authority to the promotion of this reform in the House, Congresswoman. Such a change would obviously take long struggle and great effort to achieve, but this is only an argument for why the work can not be deferred until the moment is optimal. There will always be other problems that need dealing with, but none of those contingencies will make the state of marital apartheid that prevails in this country any less unjust, or the need for change any less urgent. I hope that you will join the ranks of those of us fighting for marriage equality, Congresswoman. 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 Congresswoman Waters,
I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the U.S. constitution, one that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. You have been a staunch champion of civil rights in the House and have a solid record of advocacy for the rights of LGBT citizens (the Human Rights Campaign gave you a positive rating of 90% for the most recent Congress). You were ambivalent, however, in your stance toward California's recently passed Proposition 8, telling a film crew from southern California's station KCET that you were not focused on Proposition 8, but were devoting your energies to the economic crisis.
This was most unfortunate, Congresswoman. The passage of Proposition 8 was a civil rights disaster- one of the rare instances in our nation's history in which recognition of a right that had already been won was withdrawn from citizens already enjoying it. The fact that this perfidy was achieved through the ballot box makes it no less reprehensible.
The promotion and protection of citizens' rights can wait for no other issues to "take priority," as I am sure you would agree on reflection, Congresswoman. What would Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. have said if told that the struggle for enfranchisement would have to wait for the passing of an economic downturn? Moreover, economic difficulties only add urgency to the struggle for rights, as few rights transcend the economic realities of people's lives. Among the 1,138 protections and benefits of marriage that are denied to same-sex couples are many that would materially improve their economic circumstances, such as the right to file joint tax returns or to extend work benefits to one-another (or their partner's children). In times such as these, when any economic advantage can mean the difference between subsistence and deprivation, such discrimination becomes doubly cruel.
Marriage to the partner of one's choice is an inalienable right, one that can not be taken away from any citizen, even by a vote of the majority. Such was the finding of the Supreme Court when it struck down so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws in Loving v. Virginia, and such is the case now despite all the money and rhetoric behind obscenities like Proposition 8. The best and surest way to safeguard rights of marriage equality for all Americans would be 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."
Please consider lending your authority to the promotion of this reform in the House, Congresswoman. Such a change would obviously take long struggle and great effort to achieve, but this is only an argument for why the work can not be deferred until the moment is optimal. There will always be other problems that need dealing with, but none of those contingencies will make the state of marital apartheid that prevails in this country any less unjust, or the need for change any less urgent. I hope that you will join the ranks of those of us fighting for marriage equality, Congresswoman. 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, February 16, 2009
California (XXXV) Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard
Today I continue with Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard, Democrat, representative of California's 34th Congressional District:
Dear Congresswoman Roybal-Allard,
I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. Since 1992 you have been an outspoken champion of civil rights in the House, carrying on the family tradition started by your father, 30-year Congressman Edward Roybal. You have been a consistent supporter of the rights of LGBT citizens, earning a 100% positive rating from the Human Rights Campaign. Before last year's election you were among a handful of Californian Congressional reprepresentatives to come out publicly against Proposition 8.
As someone who has stood up in support of marriage equality you must recognize the dire aspect of this moment. The passage of Proposition 8 demonstrates that even small victories on the state level may be rolled back given enough ruthlessness and skillful exploitation of social prejudice. Not since Reconstruction have we seen a more intense and focused campaign to deprive American citizens of their rights than we witness now with the movement against marriage equality. Under such conditions, the surest way to safeguard the rights of all Americans 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."
Such a reform would obviously require long struggle and much sacrifice. But if leaders like you would lend it your support we might see marriage equality secured for all Americans in this generation. Please consider giving your voice and your efforts to this campaign. In any case, I thank you for your attentin on this matter and I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congresswoman Roybal-Allard,
I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. Since 1992 you have been an outspoken champion of civil rights in the House, carrying on the family tradition started by your father, 30-year Congressman Edward Roybal. You have been a consistent supporter of the rights of LGBT citizens, earning a 100% positive rating from the Human Rights Campaign. Before last year's election you were among a handful of Californian Congressional reprepresentatives to come out publicly against Proposition 8.
As someone who has stood up in support of marriage equality you must recognize the dire aspect of this moment. The passage of Proposition 8 demonstrates that even small victories on the state level may be rolled back given enough ruthlessness and skillful exploitation of social prejudice. Not since Reconstruction have we seen a more intense and focused campaign to deprive American citizens of their rights than we witness now with the movement against marriage equality. Under such conditions, the surest way to safeguard the rights of all Americans 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."
Such a reform would obviously require long struggle and much sacrifice. But if leaders like you would lend it your support we might see marriage equality secured for all Americans in this generation. Please consider giving your voice and your efforts to this campaign. In any case, I thank you for your attentin on this matter and I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Sunday, February 15, 2009
California (XXXIV) Congresswoman Diane Watson
Because the representative of California's 32nd district, Congresswoman Hilda Solis, Democrat, is departing the House to join President Obama's cabinet as his Labor Secretary, today I continue with Congresswoman Diane E. Watson, Democrat, representative of California's 33rd Congressional District:
Dear Congresswoman Watson,
I write to you as a concerned citizen to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the U.S. constitution, one that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. As a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, you have been a strong advocate for civil rights in the House. For that reason it was vey distressing for me to hear these remarks you made at a CBC Panel Forum held at Williams College on November 17 of last year:
Question: The panelists have been discussing about how they believe in the humanity of the American people, how then do we accept the crushing blow that was dealt to the gay rights movement [on November 4, 2008]?
Congresswoman Watson: I come from California. Proposition 8 was on the ballot, and Proposition 8 would be a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. As you know, it was a highly contentious battle, and put on the ballot by a group of people who felt that their moral and religious beliefs were offended by the decisions of the [California] Supreme Court some time ago. I believe in civil rights, but I don't think you can equate the battle of the sixties, the battles for civil rights, with the battle for the rights of homosexuals to marry. That's one of the things that I think get confused in this election. But I believe that people who believe certain ways ought to keep trying to convince others that what they are proposing is fair and just. The battle goes on.
I am very disappointed by the attitude you express here, Congresswoman. The battle for marriage equality is indubitably a civil rights struggle. Your sensitivity to the "moral and religious beliefs" of the proponents of Proposition 8 is all well and good, but with respect to the legal dimensions of marriage we must keep in mind that we are discussing a civil, not a religious institution. Surely if someone attempted to amend the constitution to prevent Jews or Muslims from marrying you would not deny that this was an assault on those citizens' civil rights, despite the fact that one's identity as a Jew or Muslim is more a matter of personal choice than one's race. Conversely, interracial marriage was once banned in many states on the basis of certain "moral and religious beliefs," albeit ones that you and I would no doubt find reprehensible. In Loving v. Virginia the Supreme Court wisely found that such "moral and religious beliefs," no matter how widely or passionately held, were not a fair basis upon which to exclude two consenting adults from the institution of marriage. The same principle holds true today with regard to the rights of same-sex couples to marry. The struggle of the Lovings in 1967 and that of same-sex couples today are all part of the same battle for marriage equality, as Mildred Loving herself declared before her passing in 2007:
"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights."
Exclusion from the civil marriage bond has real and dire consequences for those against whom such discrimination is targeted. The Government Accountability Office lists 1, 138 benefits, privileges and protections that flow to a couple under federal law from married status. Lacking those protections couples are vulnerable to many forms of economic and social harm. Even more unfortunate and unjust is the plight of the thousands of children in the care of same-sex couples, who are unfairly deprived of the protections and security that most children enjoy from the legal sanction of their guardians' union.
To those of us who understand the urgency of the fight for marriage equality, Proposition 8 was a tragedy of monumental proportions, a low point in the proud history of our Republic. The amendment of a basic law to strip citizens of rights that have been legally recognized rebelled against the founding spirit of our democracy. The surest way to safeguard the rights of marriage equality for all Americans would be 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." Until such a reform is enacted, all Americans will be vulnerable to illiberal assaults like that of Proposition 8. Today the "moral and religious beliefs" of a particular group deprived same-sex couples of their rights. Whose rights will next be denied due to such views?
I hope that I have helped persuade you that the change I and others propose is "fair and just," Congresswoman. You speak with a moral authority earned by principled service to our nation, please consider lending it to this endeavor. I thank you for your service and for your attention on this matter. Please accept my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congresswoman Watson,
I write to you as a concerned citizen to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the U.S. constitution, one that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. As a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, you have been a strong advocate for civil rights in the House. For that reason it was vey distressing for me to hear these remarks you made at a CBC Panel Forum held at Williams College on November 17 of last year:
Question: The panelists have been discussing about how they believe in the humanity of the American people, how then do we accept the crushing blow that was dealt to the gay rights movement [on November 4, 2008]?
Congresswoman Watson: I come from California. Proposition 8 was on the ballot, and Proposition 8 would be a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. As you know, it was a highly contentious battle, and put on the ballot by a group of people who felt that their moral and religious beliefs were offended by the decisions of the [California] Supreme Court some time ago. I believe in civil rights, but I don't think you can equate the battle of the sixties, the battles for civil rights, with the battle for the rights of homosexuals to marry. That's one of the things that I think get confused in this election. But I believe that people who believe certain ways ought to keep trying to convince others that what they are proposing is fair and just. The battle goes on.
I am very disappointed by the attitude you express here, Congresswoman. The battle for marriage equality is indubitably a civil rights struggle. Your sensitivity to the "moral and religious beliefs" of the proponents of Proposition 8 is all well and good, but with respect to the legal dimensions of marriage we must keep in mind that we are discussing a civil, not a religious institution. Surely if someone attempted to amend the constitution to prevent Jews or Muslims from marrying you would not deny that this was an assault on those citizens' civil rights, despite the fact that one's identity as a Jew or Muslim is more a matter of personal choice than one's race. Conversely, interracial marriage was once banned in many states on the basis of certain "moral and religious beliefs," albeit ones that you and I would no doubt find reprehensible. In Loving v. Virginia the Supreme Court wisely found that such "moral and religious beliefs," no matter how widely or passionately held, were not a fair basis upon which to exclude two consenting adults from the institution of marriage. The same principle holds true today with regard to the rights of same-sex couples to marry. The struggle of the Lovings in 1967 and that of same-sex couples today are all part of the same battle for marriage equality, as Mildred Loving herself declared before her passing in 2007:
"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights."
Exclusion from the civil marriage bond has real and dire consequences for those against whom such discrimination is targeted. The Government Accountability Office lists 1, 138 benefits, privileges and protections that flow to a couple under federal law from married status. Lacking those protections couples are vulnerable to many forms of economic and social harm. Even more unfortunate and unjust is the plight of the thousands of children in the care of same-sex couples, who are unfairly deprived of the protections and security that most children enjoy from the legal sanction of their guardians' union.
To those of us who understand the urgency of the fight for marriage equality, Proposition 8 was a tragedy of monumental proportions, a low point in the proud history of our Republic. The amendment of a basic law to strip citizens of rights that have been legally recognized rebelled against the founding spirit of our democracy. The surest way to safeguard the rights of marriage equality for all Americans would be 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." Until such a reform is enacted, all Americans will be vulnerable to illiberal assaults like that of Proposition 8. Today the "moral and religious beliefs" of a particular group deprived same-sex couples of their rights. Whose rights will next be denied due to such views?
I hope that I have helped persuade you that the change I and others propose is "fair and just," Congresswoman. You speak with a moral authority earned by principled service to our nation, please consider lending it to this endeavor. I thank you for your service and for your attention on this matter. Please accept my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Friday, February 13, 2009
California (XXXIII) Congressman Xavier Becerra
Today I continue with Congressman Xavier Becerra, Vice-Chair of the Democratic Caucus, representative of California's 31st Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Becerra,
I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the rights of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. In 2004 you took an outspoken stance against the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment," declaring:
"The President is proposing that we use the Constitution to limit the rights of a specific group of Americans in pursuit of a political agenda that abandons moral common sense, is counterproductive, and shuns both state's rights and the very liberties that this document grants all Americans as well. This policy may be conservative, but it most certainly is not compassionate (PR Newswire 5/12/04."
You articulate the principles underlying the movement for marriage equality most eloquently, Congressman. I would only add that then President Bush had not only assaulted both state's and individual rights, but had inverted the role that the federal government should play in the safeguarding of basic liberties. Washington should not be pressing states to grant individual citizens fewer rights, but should be standing watchdog to assure that the states are not denying recognition of rights that citizens should properly enjoy.
It is to this latter end that a Marriage Equality Amendment is necessary. Though the determination of marital law has traditionally been the purview of the states, that power stops at the point that the states engage in unjust discrimination. Such was the case in Loving v. Virginia, where the Supreme Court found that the states had exceeded their authority in denying marriage equality to interracial couples. And such is the case now, in which 48 states effectively exclude same-sex couples from the marital bond.
The surest way to redress this injustice would be 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." Such a change in our basic law would restore our nation back to a condition, to borrow your words, of "moral common sense." I have set out to write every member of Congress asking support for this reform.
As vice-chair of the Democratic caucus your endorsement would carry much weight in promoting this amendment, Congressman. Would you take up its case among your colleagues? I appeal to your proven sense of fairness, decency, and patriotism. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Becerra,
I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the rights of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. In 2004 you took an outspoken stance against the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment," declaring:
"The President is proposing that we use the Constitution to limit the rights of a specific group of Americans in pursuit of a political agenda that abandons moral common sense, is counterproductive, and shuns both state's rights and the very liberties that this document grants all Americans as well. This policy may be conservative, but it most certainly is not compassionate (PR Newswire 5/12/04."
You articulate the principles underlying the movement for marriage equality most eloquently, Congressman. I would only add that then President Bush had not only assaulted both state's and individual rights, but had inverted the role that the federal government should play in the safeguarding of basic liberties. Washington should not be pressing states to grant individual citizens fewer rights, but should be standing watchdog to assure that the states are not denying recognition of rights that citizens should properly enjoy.
It is to this latter end that a Marriage Equality Amendment is necessary. Though the determination of marital law has traditionally been the purview of the states, that power stops at the point that the states engage in unjust discrimination. Such was the case in Loving v. Virginia, where the Supreme Court found that the states had exceeded their authority in denying marriage equality to interracial couples. And such is the case now, in which 48 states effectively exclude same-sex couples from the marital bond.
The surest way to redress this injustice would be 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." Such a change in our basic law would restore our nation back to a condition, to borrow your words, of "moral common sense." I have set out to write every member of Congress asking support for this reform.
As vice-chair of the Democratic caucus your endorsement would carry much weight in promoting this amendment, Congressman. Would you take up its case among your colleagues? I appeal to your proven sense of fairness, decency, and patriotism. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Thursday, February 12, 2009
California (XXXII) Congressman Henry Waxman
Today I continue with Congressman Henry Waxman, Democrat, representative of California's 30th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Waxman,
I write soliciting 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 Union. You have been a consistent proponent of civil rights in the House, and have been especially forthright and eloquent in your championship of marriage equality. In defiance of the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" you made a statement on the House floor which included the following:
"Our Constitution has guided our nation for 200 years. During that time, it has been amended to guarantee religious liberty, equal protection, and the right to vote. Not once has it been amended to take away rights from a specific group of people. Yet that is what this legislation would do...
Mr. Speaker, our fellow citizens deserve better. Same-sex couples are trying to raise families, pay the bills, get health care for their partners, and put their kids through college. Instead of working to help them, we are debating whether to permanently deny them over 1,000 rights and benefits given to married heterosexual couples. We should be striving for fairness and equality, not singling them out for discrimination...."
Your words were unquestionably true then and remain so now, Congressman. Your statement of fact underscores an urgent imperative, however. If we acknowledge that same-sex couples already have the right to marry, we must also acknowledge that they are systematically denied the enjoyment of that right throughout most of the United States. This is the very epitome of the kind of problem that our federal system was designed to redress: the protection of minority rights against discrimination, even discrimination sanctioned by the majority. On this principle the Supreme Court upheld the principle of marriage equality against racial discrimination in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, and analogous action must be taken now to end discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation. Though state initiatives have made some progress in advancing marriage equality, they will obviously not be enough. Discriminatory forces are well organized, well funded, and determined to use all methods at both the state and federal levels to not only preserve but expand and deepen the current condition of marital apartheid.
The surest and most durable way to secure the rights of all Americans would be 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." As your floor statement implies, such a reform would be consistent with the great tradition that has guided the evolution of our Constitution throughout the nation's history. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law.
Will you take up the cause of this amendment among your colleagues in the House and Senate, Congressman? Such advocacy would be a fitting continuation of your long work in defense of civil rights and the welfare of Americans more generally. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter, and I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Waxman,
I write soliciting 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 Union. You have been a consistent proponent of civil rights in the House, and have been especially forthright and eloquent in your championship of marriage equality. In defiance of the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" you made a statement on the House floor which included the following:
"Our Constitution has guided our nation for 200 years. During that time, it has been amended to guarantee religious liberty, equal protection, and the right to vote. Not once has it been amended to take away rights from a specific group of people. Yet that is what this legislation would do...
Mr. Speaker, our fellow citizens deserve better. Same-sex couples are trying to raise families, pay the bills, get health care for their partners, and put their kids through college. Instead of working to help them, we are debating whether to permanently deny them over 1,000 rights and benefits given to married heterosexual couples. We should be striving for fairness and equality, not singling them out for discrimination...."
Your words were unquestionably true then and remain so now, Congressman. Your statement of fact underscores an urgent imperative, however. If we acknowledge that same-sex couples already have the right to marry, we must also acknowledge that they are systematically denied the enjoyment of that right throughout most of the United States. This is the very epitome of the kind of problem that our federal system was designed to redress: the protection of minority rights against discrimination, even discrimination sanctioned by the majority. On this principle the Supreme Court upheld the principle of marriage equality against racial discrimination in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, and analogous action must be taken now to end discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation. Though state initiatives have made some progress in advancing marriage equality, they will obviously not be enough. Discriminatory forces are well organized, well funded, and determined to use all methods at both the state and federal levels to not only preserve but expand and deepen the current condition of marital apartheid.
The surest and most durable way to secure the rights of all Americans would be 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." As your floor statement implies, such a reform would be consistent with the great tradition that has guided the evolution of our Constitution throughout the nation's history. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law.
Will you take up the cause of this amendment among your colleagues in the House and Senate, Congressman? Such advocacy would be a fitting continuation of your long work in defense of civil rights and the welfare of Americans more generally. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter, and I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
California (XXXI) Congressman Adam Schiff
Today I continue with Congressman Adam Schiff, Democrat, representative of California's 29th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Schiff,
I write as a concerned citizen to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the U.S Constitution. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." This change to our basic law is the surest way to end the unjust and discriminatory state of family law that prevails in most of our Republic today.
Your record shows you extremely supportive of the rights of LGBT citizens (you have consistently earned perfect or high positive ratings from the Human Rights Campaign) and civil rights more generally. As a Californian you must be aware of the extremely aggressive and effective efforts being made by those who oppose marriage equality, of which Proposition 8 is only the most recent and shocking example. Our last President had the temerity to propose profaning our Constitution by using it to permanently sanction discrimination. It is long past time for those of us who see justice to stand up and declare what we know to be true: that marriage equality is an inalienable right, one that must be recognized for every American.
I have set out to contact every member of Congress asking their support for this reform. In turn I appeal to your proven sense of fairness and commitment to the public good, Congressman. Would you lend this cause your voice among your colleagues in the House and Senate? To do so would be a fitting continuation of the good work you have done in promoting and defending civil rights. In any case I trust you to act conscientiously and thank you for your attention on this matter. I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Schiff,
I write as a concerned citizen to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the U.S Constitution. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." This change to our basic law is the surest way to end the unjust and discriminatory state of family law that prevails in most of our Republic today.
Your record shows you extremely supportive of the rights of LGBT citizens (you have consistently earned perfect or high positive ratings from the Human Rights Campaign) and civil rights more generally. As a Californian you must be aware of the extremely aggressive and effective efforts being made by those who oppose marriage equality, of which Proposition 8 is only the most recent and shocking example. Our last President had the temerity to propose profaning our Constitution by using it to permanently sanction discrimination. It is long past time for those of us who see justice to stand up and declare what we know to be true: that marriage equality is an inalienable right, one that must be recognized for every American.
I have set out to contact every member of Congress asking their support for this reform. In turn I appeal to your proven sense of fairness and commitment to the public good, Congressman. Would you lend this cause your voice among your colleagues in the House and Senate? To do so would be a fitting continuation of the good work you have done in promoting and defending civil rights. In any case I trust you to act conscientiously and thank you for your attention on this matter. I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Monday, February 9, 2009
California (XXX) Congressman Howard Berman
Today I continue with Congressman Howard Berman, Democrat, representative of California's 28th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Berman,
To that end, I have set out to write every member of Congress, seeking 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." This is the surest way to secure and defend the rights of all Americans against discriminatory measures such as Proposition 8.
Will you take up the cause of this amendment in the House, Congressman? Such efforts would be a worthy continuation of your long work in support of civil liberties and individual rights. I hope that you will lend this issue your voice. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Berman,
I write 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. Your record shows you supportive of the cause of marriage equality. In 2006, after the second attempt to initiate ratification of the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment," you made the following statement:
"As much as extreme, anti-gay individuals would like to convince us that this is a pressing national issue, the facts say otherwise. Wasting time debating a constitutional amendment to permanently deny the protections of marriage to same-sex couples isn't a priority -- it isn't in our country's interest at all. The Federal Marriage Amendment would have written discrimination into our founding document. The fact that there are even more votes against the amendment this time around goes to show that more and more people have come to understand this (State News Service, 7/19/06)."
As you so rightly declared, denial of the protections of marriage to same-sex couples is discrimination, of a kind that millions of Americans live with on a daily basis. Preventing the inscription of such obscenity into our basic law was an important victory. The recent passage of Proposition 8 in California, however, demonstrates that the forces of bigotry and intolerance are determined to maintain and expand the unjust state of marital apartheid that prevails in most of the U.S. today. If civil rights are ever to prevail in our nation an aggressive counter-campaign in support of marriage equality must be undertaken.To that end, I have set out to write every member of Congress, seeking 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." This is the surest way to secure and defend the rights of all Americans against discriminatory measures such as Proposition 8.
Will you take up the cause of this amendment in the House, Congressman? Such efforts would be a worthy continuation of your long work in support of civil liberties and individual rights. I hope that you will lend this issue your voice. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Sunday, February 8, 2009
California (XXIX) Congressman Brad Sherman
Today I continue with Congressman Brad Sherman, Democrat, representative of California's 27th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Sherman,
I write soliciting your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. You have long been a steady supporter of LGBT rights in the Congress, earning a positive rating of 100% from the Human Rights Campaign. Moreover, you have demonstrated your willingness to support constitutional reform in defense of civil rights, joining your colleagues in the House and Senate in an effort to re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment for ratification in the last Congress.
Given your history, Congressman, I hope you may be persuaded that urgent action is needed on the issue of marriage equality. Though some progress has been made on the state level, California's Proposition 8 demonstrates that the forces of intolerance and discrimination are energized and well-coordinated. If an aggressive campaign is not mounted in opposition, coming years will not only see recent progress erased, but a worsening of the already intolerable state of marital apartheid that now generally prevails throughout the Union.
The best assurance of the rights of all Americans would be an amendment to the U.S. Constitution which reads: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law. I hope that you will lend your energy and efforts to this cause.
I appeal to your proven sense of fairness and patriotism, Congressman. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Sherman,
I write soliciting your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. You have long been a steady supporter of LGBT rights in the Congress, earning a positive rating of 100% from the Human Rights Campaign. Moreover, you have demonstrated your willingness to support constitutional reform in defense of civil rights, joining your colleagues in the House and Senate in an effort to re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment for ratification in the last Congress.
Given your history, Congressman, I hope you may be persuaded that urgent action is needed on the issue of marriage equality. Though some progress has been made on the state level, California's Proposition 8 demonstrates that the forces of intolerance and discrimination are energized and well-coordinated. If an aggressive campaign is not mounted in opposition, coming years will not only see recent progress erased, but a worsening of the already intolerable state of marital apartheid that now generally prevails throughout the Union.
The best assurance of the rights of all Americans would be an amendment to the U.S. Constitution which reads: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law. I hope that you will lend your energy and efforts to this cause.
I appeal to your proven sense of fairness and patriotism, Congressman. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Saturday, February 7, 2009
California (XXVIII) Congressman David Dreier
Today I continue with Congressman David Dreier, Republican, representative of California's 26th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Dreier,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. You took an independent stand with regard to President George W. Bush's campaign to inscribe the denial of marriage equality into the U.S. Constitution, saying: "I'm not supportive of amending the Constitution on this issue. I believe that this should go through the courts, and I think that we're at a point where it's not necessary (USA Today, February 25, 2004, p. 6A)."
That last qualifier, and your fluctuating record with regard to general issues of LGBT rights (the Human Rights Campaign gave you a rating of 22, 38, and 10, respectively, for the last three Congresses) do not augur well for your support of a Marriage Equality Amendment. The fact that you broke with the majority of your party gives me hope that you might be persuadable, however. Indeed, I hope to convince you that not only was the profanity proposed by President Bush "not necessary," but its polar opposite is in fact urgently required.
Marriage is undeniably one of the most important civil institutions in our nation. It is for good reason that we grant 1, 138 distinct benefits, privileges, and protections to married couples under federal law. Denying these to same-sex couples is grossly unfair, a clear breach of our constitutional obligation to grant all citizens "equal protection of the law." Leaving these millions of citizens to the arbitrary whims of the individual states is not only cruel to them, it injures the thousands of children who are in the care of same-sex couples and who enjoy none of the stable safeguards that would flow from state sanction of their guardians' marriages.
The surest remedy of this unjust situation would be 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 appealing their support for this change to our basic law. My letters are collected on a weblog online (http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/). As a long time leader of the Republican caucus you could give this cause much impetus if you lent it your endorsement.
On reflection I hope that you will support this needed reform. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and I extend you my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Dreier,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. You took an independent stand with regard to President George W. Bush's campaign to inscribe the denial of marriage equality into the U.S. Constitution, saying: "I'm not supportive of amending the Constitution on this issue. I believe that this should go through the courts, and I think that we're at a point where it's not necessary (USA Today, February 25, 2004, p. 6A)."
That last qualifier, and your fluctuating record with regard to general issues of LGBT rights (the Human Rights Campaign gave you a rating of 22, 38, and 10, respectively, for the last three Congresses) do not augur well for your support of a Marriage Equality Amendment. The fact that you broke with the majority of your party gives me hope that you might be persuadable, however. Indeed, I hope to convince you that not only was the profanity proposed by President Bush "not necessary," but its polar opposite is in fact urgently required.
Marriage is undeniably one of the most important civil institutions in our nation. It is for good reason that we grant 1, 138 distinct benefits, privileges, and protections to married couples under federal law. Denying these to same-sex couples is grossly unfair, a clear breach of our constitutional obligation to grant all citizens "equal protection of the law." Leaving these millions of citizens to the arbitrary whims of the individual states is not only cruel to them, it injures the thousands of children who are in the care of same-sex couples and who enjoy none of the stable safeguards that would flow from state sanction of their guardians' marriages.
The surest remedy of this unjust situation would be 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 appealing their support for this change to our basic law. My letters are collected on a weblog online (http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/). As a long time leader of the Republican caucus you could give this cause much impetus if you lent it your endorsement.
On reflection I hope that you will support this needed reform. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and I extend you my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Friday, February 6, 2009
California (XXVII) Congessman Buck McKeon
Today I continue with Congressman Buck McKeon, Republican, representative of California's 25th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman McKeon,
I write as a concerned citizen to protest your stance against marriage equality. You have been consistent in your opposition to the recognition of the rights of same-sex couples to marry. In the wake of the wise and just ruling of California's Supreme Court affirming the principle of marriage equality, you declared:
If you accept the justness of the U.S. Supreme Court's actions in the case of Loving v. Virginia but deny that of the California Supreme Court last May, then you can not hide behind "judicial activism" as the pretext for your opposition to marriage equality. You must explain to your constituents why interracial couples are entitled to equal treatment under the law but same-sex couples are not. You may have some explanation for why your refusal to recognize the rights of two unrelated adults who love, honor, respect, and cherish one-another is not discriminatory, Congressman, but I can not see it.
Unfortunately, though the 14th Amendment guarantees all Americans "the equal protection of the laws," many people evidently share your implicit views. I have thus set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would secure recognition of marital rights for all Americans. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Though you obviously disagree with the principles underlying this reform, I and millions of others are confident that they represent the downhill slope of history.
Perhaps in time and upon reflection you will modify your views. Next Sunday, February 8, begins "Freedom to Marry Week," in which those of us who believe in marriage equality have pledged to engage in seven discussions on this issue. I include my contact information with this communication, please do not hesitate to contact me if you would care to converse. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope that this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman McKeon,
I write as a concerned citizen to protest your stance against marriage equality. You have been consistent in your opposition to the recognition of the rights of same-sex couples to marry. In the wake of the wise and just ruling of California's Supreme Court affirming the principle of marriage equality, you declared:
"I am extremely disappointed in today's decision by the California Supreme Court to step outside the bounds of its duty to overturn what a majority of Californians voted to approve eight years ago. I realize the issue of marriage is a deeply emotional and personal one for Californians and Americans, but under no circumstance should the courts be allowed to show utter disregard for the democratic process. The people spoke when they democratically voted in support of Proposition 22."
This reasoning betrays a flawed understanding of our legal system and how it is designed to operate, Congressman. The California Supreme Court did not "step outside of the boundaries of its duty" in affirming the rights of marriage equality any more than the U.S. Supreme Court had done so in the case of Loving v. Virginia in 1967. The "anti-miscegenation" laws that were struck down in the latter case were created by the same "democratic process" that produced California's Proposition 22 and Proposition 8. Our Republic, however, is founded on the principle that all citizens are endowed with "certain inalienable rights," and that those rights can not be denied to any individual, even by a vote of the majority. Laws are made; rights are discovered. The sole purpose of the law is to safeguard and promote the common enjoyment of our rights, thus there has always been a need for the courts to police the boundary between individual rights and the democratic will of the majority.If you accept the justness of the U.S. Supreme Court's actions in the case of Loving v. Virginia but deny that of the California Supreme Court last May, then you can not hide behind "judicial activism" as the pretext for your opposition to marriage equality. You must explain to your constituents why interracial couples are entitled to equal treatment under the law but same-sex couples are not. You may have some explanation for why your refusal to recognize the rights of two unrelated adults who love, honor, respect, and cherish one-another is not discriminatory, Congressman, but I can not see it.
Unfortunately, though the 14th Amendment guarantees all Americans "the equal protection of the laws," many people evidently share your implicit views. I have thus set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would secure recognition of marital rights for all Americans. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Though you obviously disagree with the principles underlying this reform, I and millions of others are confident that they represent the downhill slope of history.
Perhaps in time and upon reflection you will modify your views. Next Sunday, February 8, begins "Freedom to Marry Week," in which those of us who believe in marriage equality have pledged to engage in seven discussions on this issue. I include my contact information with this communication, please do not hesitate to contact me if you would care to converse. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope that this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Thursday, February 5, 2009
California (XXVI) Congressman Elton Gallegly
Today I continue with Congressman Elton Gallegly, Republican, representative of California's 24th District:
Dear Congressman Gallegly,
I write as a concerned citizen to protest your stance on marriage equality. You voted with the majority of your party for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would have banned same-sex marriages throughout the Union. That so many long-serving elected officials should exert so much effort in an assault upon the rights of their fellow citizens was truly shocking. You should not be proud of your part in that episode, Congressman.
Marriage to the partner of one's choice is indeed an inalienable right, as the Supreme Court has affirmed in Loving v. Virginia and other decisions. Tragically, that right goes unrecognized for millions of Americans, and forces are mobilized to see that the already unjust and discriminatory state of marital apartheid that prevails in this country deepens and spreads. Those forces enjoyed a regrettable victory in the passage of your state's Proposition 8 in the most recent election.
In response, I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking redress for the injustices of both the status quo and recent depredations like Proposition 8. The surest way to safeguard the rights of all Americans 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." On reflection perhaps you will see the folly of your past actions and rally to the cause of equal treatment under the law, which is your first duty as a legislator.
From Sunday February 8 until Saturday February 14 is "Freedom to Marry Week." Those of us who understand the urgent need for marriage equality are committed to having seven conversatins in seven days with those who are interested in discussing this issue. I forward you my contact information with this communication, please feel free to contact me if you would like to converse. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter, and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Gallegly,
I write as a concerned citizen to protest your stance on marriage equality. You voted with the majority of your party for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would have banned same-sex marriages throughout the Union. That so many long-serving elected officials should exert so much effort in an assault upon the rights of their fellow citizens was truly shocking. You should not be proud of your part in that episode, Congressman.
Marriage to the partner of one's choice is indeed an inalienable right, as the Supreme Court has affirmed in Loving v. Virginia and other decisions. Tragically, that right goes unrecognized for millions of Americans, and forces are mobilized to see that the already unjust and discriminatory state of marital apartheid that prevails in this country deepens and spreads. Those forces enjoyed a regrettable victory in the passage of your state's Proposition 8 in the most recent election.
In response, I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking redress for the injustices of both the status quo and recent depredations like Proposition 8. The surest way to safeguard the rights of all Americans 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." On reflection perhaps you will see the folly of your past actions and rally to the cause of equal treatment under the law, which is your first duty as a legislator.
From Sunday February 8 until Saturday February 14 is "Freedom to Marry Week." Those of us who understand the urgent need for marriage equality are committed to having seven conversatins in seven days with those who are interested in discussing this issue. I forward you my contact information with this communication, please feel free to contact me if you would like to converse. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter, and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
California (XXV) Congresswoman Lois Capps
Today I continue with Congresswoman Lois Capps, Democrat, representative of California's 22nd Congressional District:
Dear Congresswoman Capps,
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. You have been a vocal champion of marriage equality in the Congress. In the wake of the California's Supreme Court Ruling affirming the principle of marriage equality you issued this press release:
“This is a momentous day for the State of California and for those who value family rights and civil rights for all. Once again, California has stepped up and been a leader in protecting equal rights for all of its citizens. This decision will strengthen families across the state and ensure that gays and lesbians in committed relationships will be able to enjoy the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples. Providing rights to gay and lesbian couples through a separate system of domestic partnerships, while a step forward, is not enough. Today’s decision affirms the fundamental American principal of equality for all.”
Few members of Congress have articulated the justness of this cause so clearly or so courageously. Like millions of others you were no doubt deeply saddened by the passage of California's Proposition 8, which has cast a shadow on the bright example that California had set for the rest of the nation. Instead of being disheartened, however, those of us who understand the urgent need for marriage equality must rally to more aggressive action. The forces of discrimination and bigotry are uncompromising in the promotion of their misguided values, and so must we be uncompromising and forthright in standing witness for the ultimate rightness of our own.
The surest and most enduring way to secure and protect the rights of all Americans 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 soliciting their support for this change to our basic law. Would you lend your efforts and good name to this enterprise, Congresswoman?
Obviously the struggle to enact such a reform would be very long, difficult, and fraught with political peril. If the most recent national election has taught us anything, though, it is that no one can be sure what change the nation is ready for until someone attempts to lead it there. I hope that on reflection you will join this campaign. In any case I thank you for your attention and for your service to our nation, and extend you my best wishes.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congresswoman Capps,
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. You have been a vocal champion of marriage equality in the Congress. In the wake of the California's Supreme Court Ruling affirming the principle of marriage equality you issued this press release:
“This is a momentous day for the State of California and for those who value family rights and civil rights for all. Once again, California has stepped up and been a leader in protecting equal rights for all of its citizens. This decision will strengthen families across the state and ensure that gays and lesbians in committed relationships will be able to enjoy the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples. Providing rights to gay and lesbian couples through a separate system of domestic partnerships, while a step forward, is not enough. Today’s decision affirms the fundamental American principal of equality for all.”
Few members of Congress have articulated the justness of this cause so clearly or so courageously. Like millions of others you were no doubt deeply saddened by the passage of California's Proposition 8, which has cast a shadow on the bright example that California had set for the rest of the nation. Instead of being disheartened, however, those of us who understand the urgent need for marriage equality must rally to more aggressive action. The forces of discrimination and bigotry are uncompromising in the promotion of their misguided values, and so must we be uncompromising and forthright in standing witness for the ultimate rightness of our own.
The surest and most enduring way to secure and protect the rights of all Americans 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 soliciting their support for this change to our basic law. Would you lend your efforts and good name to this enterprise, Congresswoman?
Obviously the struggle to enact such a reform would be very long, difficult, and fraught with political peril. If the most recent national election has taught us anything, though, it is that no one can be sure what change the nation is ready for until someone attempts to lead it there. I hope that on reflection you will join this campaign. In any case I thank you for your attention and for your service to our nation, and extend you my best wishes.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Monday, February 2, 2009
California (XXIV) Congressman Kevin McCarthy
Today I continue with Congressman Kevin McCarthy, Republican, representative of California's 22nd Congressional District:
Dear Congressman McCarthy,
I write as a concerned citizen to protest your stance on marriage equality. As Co-chair of the Republican Platform Committee at last year's national convention, you oversaw the codification of the GOP's general opposition to the rights of same-sex couples. The platform that you helped produce read, in part:
"Preserving Traditional Marriage
It is shocking to see one of two major parties in this nation commit itself so blatantly to an assault upon American citizens' rights. It is especially distressing to see that you have committed the GOP not only to preventing the recognition of marriage equality on the federal level, but to rolling back those advancements in marriage equality that have occurred in individual states. Moreover, there is a vindictiveness in your desire that "judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to" marriage. In other words, you have not only set the GOP in opposition to the recognition of same-sex couples' marriage rights, but stand against even inadequate half-measures such as "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions!" This from a party which elsewhere in its platform claims to support "equal treatment for all!" The degree of contempt for LGBT citizens expressed in these formulations is shameful- a relic of a former age.
That contempt explains the rankly disingenuous rhetoric you invoke regarding "activist judges" and "redefining marriage." Recognizing two people of the same gender as married does not "redefine marriage." If the respective genders of the two people entering into a marital bond were definitive of their relationship, marriage would hardly be as important an institution as it is. Mutual love, respect, trust, care, and devotion are the definitive characteristics of marriage. Refusal to recognize two people as married is to deny that together they are capable of these virtues. That was the point of so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws which once refused recognition to marriages between partners of different race in many states.
In Loving v. Virginia the Supreme Court finally recognized the malignantly malicious and discriminatory nature of such laws and declared them constitutionally void. Was that a case of "judicial activism," Congressman? Should that decision have been subject to a vote of the majority (at the time, it would likely have lost in many states)? If your answer is "no" yet you persist in advocating the principles expressed in your "platform," then you implicitly declare that it is acceptable to view same-sex couples with the same contempt that bigots once viewed interracial couples. If such are really your views, Congressman, they are beneath the dignity of the office you hold in trust.
Your "platform" places the GOP squarely on the wrong side of history, Congressman. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support of a "Marriage Equality Amendment" that would universally recognize the marital rights you set the GOP to attack. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." You obviously disagree with the principles underlying such a reform, but as an American and a patriot I am confident that they shall win through in the long run. Thus, for the sake of your party and our nation I hope that wiser leadership will take the helm of crafting GOP family policy in the near future.
In time and upon reflection perhaps you will modify your views. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman McCarthy,
I write as a concerned citizen to protest your stance on marriage equality. As Co-chair of the Republican Platform Committee at last year's national convention, you oversaw the codification of the GOP's general opposition to the rights of same-sex couples. The platform that you helped produce read, in part:
"Preserving Traditional Marriage
Because our children's future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives...
Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex "marriages" licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage."
It is shocking to see one of two major parties in this nation commit itself so blatantly to an assault upon American citizens' rights. It is especially distressing to see that you have committed the GOP not only to preventing the recognition of marriage equality on the federal level, but to rolling back those advancements in marriage equality that have occurred in individual states. Moreover, there is a vindictiveness in your desire that "judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to" marriage. In other words, you have not only set the GOP in opposition to the recognition of same-sex couples' marriage rights, but stand against even inadequate half-measures such as "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions!" This from a party which elsewhere in its platform claims to support "equal treatment for all!" The degree of contempt for LGBT citizens expressed in these formulations is shameful- a relic of a former age.
That contempt explains the rankly disingenuous rhetoric you invoke regarding "activist judges" and "redefining marriage." Recognizing two people of the same gender as married does not "redefine marriage." If the respective genders of the two people entering into a marital bond were definitive of their relationship, marriage would hardly be as important an institution as it is. Mutual love, respect, trust, care, and devotion are the definitive characteristics of marriage. Refusal to recognize two people as married is to deny that together they are capable of these virtues. That was the point of so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws which once refused recognition to marriages between partners of different race in many states.
In Loving v. Virginia the Supreme Court finally recognized the malignantly malicious and discriminatory nature of such laws and declared them constitutionally void. Was that a case of "judicial activism," Congressman? Should that decision have been subject to a vote of the majority (at the time, it would likely have lost in many states)? If your answer is "no" yet you persist in advocating the principles expressed in your "platform," then you implicitly declare that it is acceptable to view same-sex couples with the same contempt that bigots once viewed interracial couples. If such are really your views, Congressman, they are beneath the dignity of the office you hold in trust.
Your "platform" places the GOP squarely on the wrong side of history, Congressman. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support of a "Marriage Equality Amendment" that would universally recognize the marital rights you set the GOP to attack. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." You obviously disagree with the principles underlying such a reform, but as an American and a patriot I am confident that they shall win through in the long run. Thus, for the sake of your party and our nation I hope that wiser leadership will take the helm of crafting GOP family policy in the near future.
In time and upon reflection perhaps you will modify your views. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.png)
