Today I continue with Congressman Doug Lamborn, Republican, representative of Colorado's 5th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Lamborn,
I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. As a state legislator in Colorado you fought for a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, and have carried that agenda forward onto the national stage with your election to Congress. In the past you have spoken of the threat posed by those who would "force homosexual values on Colorado" and "completely redefine the meaning of marriage." These are fallacious principles on which to structure your actions as a legislator.
The demand that one's family enjoy the same basic legal protections extended to others is not a "homosexual value," it is a question of basic fairness. As Jews my wife and I were married by a rabbi. Did this make our desire to hold property in common, share health benefits, file joint tax returns, or enjoy any of the other 1,138 federally guaranteed benefits and protections of marriage a "Jewish" value? Of course not. We simply expected that the "equal protection of the law" that is promised by the 14th amendment would accord our union the same legal force of that performed by a priest or a minister. That is no more a "Jewish value" than Mildred and Richard Loving's expectation of marriage equality was an "interracial value." Marriage equality is, in fact, an American value, one which is profaned by those like you who would arbitrarily deny rights of marriage equality to millions of Americans.
Nor does recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry "redefine" the meaning of marriage. To insist so is to confuse the separate institutions of civil and religious marriage. As a legislator your concern is only for marriage as a legal, not a spiritual entity. Your faith might dictate that my rabbinically sanctioned union is not a "true" marriage, but would refusing my wife and I married status on that basis be anything short of un-American? The definition of "true marriage" will always remain disputed between the diverse confessional communities that inhabit our Republic. As a civil society our only obligation is to decide what legal definition of marriage will extend protection to all citizens fairly and equitably.
Unfortunately, your discriminatory attitudes are widespread in this country, resulting in profound and chronic injustice. For that reason I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would correct the state of marital apartheid that prevails through most of the country. 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."
I hope that eventually you will see the error of your ways and cease your campaign against the rights of fellow Americans. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Monday, March 30, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Colorado (VI) Congresswoman Betsy Markey
Today I continue with Congresswoman Betsy Markey, Democrat, representative of Colorado's 4th Congressional District:
Dear Congresswoman Markey,
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. Conscientious citizens across the nation celebrated your election last year, in which you unseated the stridently homophobic Marilyn Musgrave, one of the chief sponsors of the execrably misnamed "Marriage Protection Amendment." Her claims that so-called "gay marriage" was the single greatest "problem" facing the nation were a stain upon the Congress and a gratuitous assault upon the dignity and well-being of millions of Americans.
You rightly condemned Ms. Musgrave's rhetoric as extremist, and noted that, "People in my district don't want to regulate marriage, they want to improve their economic conditions and provide for national security." Such reasonable views are obviously a vast improvement on the hatred and bigotry that Musgrave represented, but rationality alone does not suffice to redress the problem that Musgrave embodies. Tragically, Musgrave is symptomatic of a broad movement for discrimination and intolerance that is on the march throughout the U.S. The passage of Proposition 8 in California in the midst of progressive victories like yours and that of President Obama demonstrate how well-funded and well-disciplined these illiberal forces are.
Marriage to the partner of one's choice is an inalienable right, one that can not be deprived to any citizen even by a vote of the majority. In the face of discriminatory forces like those represented by Marilyn Musgrave, rights of marriage equality require robust protection. The surest and most durable guarantee of these rights would be to amend the United States constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."
Critics might claim that this position is as extreme as that propounded by Marilyn Musgrave. Such an assertion is false. There is no such thing as "gay marriage" or "straight marriage," only marriage, a civil institution that affords those who enter into it 1,138 legal benefits and protections under federal law. Removing the barriers that prevent millions of Americans from enjoying those benefits and protections is not extremism, it is simple justice and right.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking sponsorship of the above Marriage Equality Amendment. As a newly elected representative you no doubt feel a sense of caution in choosing those causes to which you will commit your public advocacy. I hope, however, that you may be persuaded of the urgency and justness of this campaign and lend it your evident energy and intellectual force. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my congratulations on your election.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congresswoman Markey,
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. Conscientious citizens across the nation celebrated your election last year, in which you unseated the stridently homophobic Marilyn Musgrave, one of the chief sponsors of the execrably misnamed "Marriage Protection Amendment." Her claims that so-called "gay marriage" was the single greatest "problem" facing the nation were a stain upon the Congress and a gratuitous assault upon the dignity and well-being of millions of Americans.
You rightly condemned Ms. Musgrave's rhetoric as extremist, and noted that, "People in my district don't want to regulate marriage, they want to improve their economic conditions and provide for national security." Such reasonable views are obviously a vast improvement on the hatred and bigotry that Musgrave represented, but rationality alone does not suffice to redress the problem that Musgrave embodies. Tragically, Musgrave is symptomatic of a broad movement for discrimination and intolerance that is on the march throughout the U.S. The passage of Proposition 8 in California in the midst of progressive victories like yours and that of President Obama demonstrate how well-funded and well-disciplined these illiberal forces are.
Marriage to the partner of one's choice is an inalienable right, one that can not be deprived to any citizen even by a vote of the majority. In the face of discriminatory forces like those represented by Marilyn Musgrave, rights of marriage equality require robust protection. The surest and most durable guarantee of these rights would be to amend the United States constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."
Critics might claim that this position is as extreme as that propounded by Marilyn Musgrave. Such an assertion is false. There is no such thing as "gay marriage" or "straight marriage," only marriage, a civil institution that affords those who enter into it 1,138 legal benefits and protections under federal law. Removing the barriers that prevent millions of Americans from enjoying those benefits and protections is not extremism, it is simple justice and right.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking sponsorship of the above Marriage Equality Amendment. As a newly elected representative you no doubt feel a sense of caution in choosing those causes to which you will commit your public advocacy. I hope, however, that you may be persuaded of the urgency and justness of this campaign and lend it your evident energy and intellectual force. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my congratulations on your election.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Colorado (V) Congressman John T. Salazar
Today I continue with Congressman John T. Salazar, Democrat, representative of Colorado's 3rd Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Salazar,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. As you may be aware, married status conveys 1,138 discrete benefits and protections to citizens under federal law. Additional safeguards devolve upon children thanks to the legal recognition of their parents' union. Marriage to the partner of one's choice is thus a basic and inalienable right, one that should be (and is, for heterosexual couples) federally protected. Exclusion of tens of thousands of same-sex couples and their children from the protections of marriage is arbitrary and discriminatory. The surest and most durable 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."
You have had a relatively strong voting record in support of LGBT rights, earning ratings of 80% and 63%, respectively, for the last two Congresses from the Human Rights Campaign. More importantly, you have shown yourself in sympathy with the cause of marriage equality by voting against the execrably misnamed "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have comprehensively banned same-sex marriage. Marriage equality is the civil rights struggle of our generation. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a change to our basic law to combat discriminatory measures like the amendment against which you voted and the regrettably passed Proposition 8 in California.
I hope you can be persuaded to lend your proven sense of civic duty to this cause, Congressman. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Salazar,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. As you may be aware, married status conveys 1,138 discrete benefits and protections to citizens under federal law. Additional safeguards devolve upon children thanks to the legal recognition of their parents' union. Marriage to the partner of one's choice is thus a basic and inalienable right, one that should be (and is, for heterosexual couples) federally protected. Exclusion of tens of thousands of same-sex couples and their children from the protections of marriage is arbitrary and discriminatory. The surest and most durable 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."
You have had a relatively strong voting record in support of LGBT rights, earning ratings of 80% and 63%, respectively, for the last two Congresses from the Human Rights Campaign. More importantly, you have shown yourself in sympathy with the cause of marriage equality by voting against the execrably misnamed "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have comprehensively banned same-sex marriage. Marriage equality is the civil rights struggle of our generation. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a change to our basic law to combat discriminatory measures like the amendment against which you voted and the regrettably passed Proposition 8 in California.
I hope you can be persuaded to lend your proven sense of civic duty to this cause, Congressman. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Colorado (IV) Congressman Jared Polis
Today I continue with Congressman Jared Polis, Democrat, representative of Colorado's 2nd Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Polis,
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. The text of such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a reform would be the most certain and durable means to aligning our laws with the basic and inalienable rights of our citizens.
As the first openly gay candidate for Congress from the state of Colorado you made history upon winning election last November. You made support for LGBT rights and a pledge to fight for marriage equality a cornerstone of your campaign. Support for a Marriage Equality Amendment would thoroughly and unequivocally fulfill those campaign promises.
As a newly elected Representative you are no doubt cautious about choosing the issues to which you will commit your public advocacy. Some might advise you that an amendment to the federal constitution is an overly aggressive and politically untimely remedy, but I would urge you to think otherwise. On the one hand, the expansion of marriage equality rights in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and elsewhere demonstrates that a sea change in social attitudes is underway across our nation, especially among young voters that came out in such large numbers last November. On the other hand, the passage of travesties like Proposition 8 in California demonstrate that the forces of bigotry and discrimination are well-funded and highly motivated, and must be met with equivalently unwavering determination. Now is assuredly the time to take an unambiguous and principled stand in support of what is right and just.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment. My letters are being collected on a weblog at: http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/. The fight for a Marriage Equality Amendment would no doubt be long, difficult, and politically perilous. I hope, however, that you can be persuaded to lend your proven energy and ingenuity to this cause. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my congratulations on your election.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Polis,
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. The text of such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a reform would be the most certain and durable means to aligning our laws with the basic and inalienable rights of our citizens.
As the first openly gay candidate for Congress from the state of Colorado you made history upon winning election last November. You made support for LGBT rights and a pledge to fight for marriage equality a cornerstone of your campaign. Support for a Marriage Equality Amendment would thoroughly and unequivocally fulfill those campaign promises.
As a newly elected Representative you are no doubt cautious about choosing the issues to which you will commit your public advocacy. Some might advise you that an amendment to the federal constitution is an overly aggressive and politically untimely remedy, but I would urge you to think otherwise. On the one hand, the expansion of marriage equality rights in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and elsewhere demonstrates that a sea change in social attitudes is underway across our nation, especially among young voters that came out in such large numbers last November. On the other hand, the passage of travesties like Proposition 8 in California demonstrate that the forces of bigotry and discrimination are well-funded and highly motivated, and must be met with equivalently unwavering determination. Now is assuredly the time to take an unambiguous and principled stand in support of what is right and just.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment. My letters are being collected on a weblog at: http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/. The fight for a Marriage Equality Amendment would no doubt be long, difficult, and politically perilous. I hope, however, that you can be persuaded to lend your proven energy and ingenuity to this cause. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my congratulations on your election.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Monday, March 23, 2009
Colorado (III) Congresswoman Diana Degette
Today I continue with Congresswoman Diana Degette, representative of Colorado's 1st Congressional District:
Dear Congresswoman Degette:
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. You have been admirably outspoken about your support for marriage equality. At a rally in Denver in 2004 opposing the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" you delivered the following prepared remarks:
"This is fundamentally a question of whether two people in a committed relationship should have the same rights as every other American couple. It is unconscionable that any politicians should seek to prevent other Americans from the ability to see their loved ones in the hospital, from sharing health insurance or health decisions, from sharing survivor and inheritance benefits. But that is exactly what supporters of the amendment seek to do.
Travesties like Proposition 8 in California demonstrate that progress will not be made on this issue without aggressive and sustained action. That is why I propose that the U.S. constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a change to our basic law is the surest and most durable way to bring our institutions into alignment with the fundamental rights of our citizens.
The fight for a Marriage Equality Amendment would no doubt be long, difficult, and fraught with uncertainty. With the support of a conscientious public servant like yourself, however, it could change the discourse in our country, demonstrating to both opponents and supporters of marriage equality the seriousness and urgency of this issue.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this amendment. My letters are collected on a weblog at: http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/. I hope that you will lend your proven energy and integrity to this cause. 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 Degette:
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. You have been admirably outspoken about your support for marriage equality. At a rally in Denver in 2004 opposing the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" you delivered the following prepared remarks:
"This is fundamentally a question of whether two people in a committed relationship should have the same rights as every other American couple. It is unconscionable that any politicians should seek to prevent other Americans from the ability to see their loved ones in the hospital, from sharing health insurance or health decisions, from sharing survivor and inheritance benefits. But that is exactly what supporters of the amendment seek to do.
Our opponents will claim that this not about discrimination, but about protecting the sanctity of marriage. Well, I have been married for more than fifteen years. Allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry will not impact the sanctity of my marriage one bit. Any married couple that thinks legalizing gay marriage will hurt their relationship needs a marriage counselor, not a Constitutional amendment.
In fact, we are seeing the power and sanctity of marriage in the hundreds of gay and lesbian couples who have lined up at City Hall in San Francisco this weekend to get married. Their weddings have only strengthened the institution of marriage.
All of us stand with them today and with the hundreds of thousands of Colorado families who oppose enshrining intolerance and discrimination of the right in our Constitution. Together, we will make sure that our founding document continues to protect the rights of all Americans, gay or straight, married or not. "
Like you I feel that marriage equality "is fundamentally a question of whether two people in a committed relationship should have the same rights as every other American couple." As you suggest, everything about our nation's history and traditional values dictate that the answer to this question is a resounding "yes." Marriage to the partner of one's choice is an inalienable right, one that is systematically denied to millions of citizens and should be federally protected.Travesties like Proposition 8 in California demonstrate that progress will not be made on this issue without aggressive and sustained action. That is why I propose that the U.S. constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a change to our basic law is the surest and most durable way to bring our institutions into alignment with the fundamental rights of our citizens.
The fight for a Marriage Equality Amendment would no doubt be long, difficult, and fraught with uncertainty. With the support of a conscientious public servant like yourself, however, it could change the discourse in our country, demonstrating to both opponents and supporters of marriage equality the seriousness and urgency of this issue.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this amendment. My letters are collected on a weblog at: http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/. I hope that you will lend your proven energy and integrity to this cause. 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
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Colorado (II) Senator Michael Bennet
Today I continue with Senator Michael Bennet, junior senator for Colorado:
Dear Senator Bennet,
I write as a concerned citizen to enlist your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment. 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." Marriage equality is the civil rights issue of our generation. The recognition of full marriage equality rights in Massachusetts and Connecticut and the unfortunate passage of Proposition 8 in California demonstrate that our nation is at a crossroads. All Americans must take a side and be counted, either among the proponents of discrimination and injustice or among the supporters of human dignity and liberty.
As someone newly arrived upon the national stage you are no doubt cautious about choosing the issues to which you will commit your public advocacy. I appeal, however, to your personal conscience in urging you to declare for marriage equality. Your website describes your good fortune in marrying your wife, Susan, and your pride in raising your three children. As a married man myself I understand your sense of happiness and fulfillment. I cannot help but feel some responsibility, however, for entering into an institution from which millions of my fellow citizens are arbitrarily excluded. What if my wife and daughter could not be enrolled on my health benefits at work because our union was not legally recognized? What if my daughter could not count on clear determination of her inheritance and next of kin in the event of her parents' deaths? These conditions and other hardships are ones with which thousands of Americans must cope because of the state of marital apartheid that prevails in this nation.
The Government Accountability Office lists 1,138 protections and benefits that you and I derive from being legally married. Denial of these guarantees to same-sex couples is arbitrary and discriminatory, and must not stand in a Republic committed to the preservation of individual liberties. Though the fight for a Marriage Equality Amendment would obviously be difficult, long, and fraught with political peril, it is the surest and most durable means to bringing our institutions into alignment with the inalienable rights of our citizens.
I hope that you will be persuaded by the justness and urgency of this cause. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my congratulations for your elevation to your new office.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Senator Bennet,
I write as a concerned citizen to enlist your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment. 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." Marriage equality is the civil rights issue of our generation. The recognition of full marriage equality rights in Massachusetts and Connecticut and the unfortunate passage of Proposition 8 in California demonstrate that our nation is at a crossroads. All Americans must take a side and be counted, either among the proponents of discrimination and injustice or among the supporters of human dignity and liberty.
As someone newly arrived upon the national stage you are no doubt cautious about choosing the issues to which you will commit your public advocacy. I appeal, however, to your personal conscience in urging you to declare for marriage equality. Your website describes your good fortune in marrying your wife, Susan, and your pride in raising your three children. As a married man myself I understand your sense of happiness and fulfillment. I cannot help but feel some responsibility, however, for entering into an institution from which millions of my fellow citizens are arbitrarily excluded. What if my wife and daughter could not be enrolled on my health benefits at work because our union was not legally recognized? What if my daughter could not count on clear determination of her inheritance and next of kin in the event of her parents' deaths? These conditions and other hardships are ones with which thousands of Americans must cope because of the state of marital apartheid that prevails in this nation.
The Government Accountability Office lists 1,138 protections and benefits that you and I derive from being legally married. Denial of these guarantees to same-sex couples is arbitrary and discriminatory, and must not stand in a Republic committed to the preservation of individual liberties. Though the fight for a Marriage Equality Amendment would obviously be difficult, long, and fraught with political peril, it is the surest and most durable means to bringing our institutions into alignment with the inalienable rights of our citizens.
I hope that you will be persuaded by the justness and urgency of this cause. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my congratulations for your elevation to your new office.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Friday, March 20, 2009
Colorado (I) Senator Mark Udall
Today I begin my correspondence with Colorado's Congressional delegation with Senator Mark Udall, senior senator of that state:
Dear Senator Udall,
I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the United States constitution that would legalize same-sex marriage throughout the Union. As a member of the House of Representatives you established a long record of support for the rights of LGBT citizens, and spoke candidly of this stance during the campaign for your current Senate seat last year. Your campaign web site included the following position statement:
"At Colorado Outward Bound, I insisted on outreach to include the GLBT community. I have always opposed discrimination based on sexual orientation, and I have been proud that key members of my staff have included GLBT Americans. I support the establishmen of civil unions and domestic partnership legislation to ensure that the rights of all couples - including inheritance decisions and hospital visitation rights - are protected, regardless of sexual orientation. I have consistently opposed efforts to amend the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Our Constitution is a solemn compact that is the foundation for the freedoms that we enjoy as Americans, and historically has been amended to expand rights, not restrict them. I do not think our Constitution should be used to discriminate against any American, including gay and lesbian Americans. The issue of marriage has always been left to the authority of the states, rather than the federal government, and it should stay that way. "
Your open opposition to discrimination is progressive and commendable, Senator, but you stop short of advocacy of full marriage equality. Though compromise solutions like civil unions and domestic partnerships may be well intentioned, long experience shows that separate is never equal. Such unions do not afford couples all of the 1,138 benefits and protections that flow from marriage under federal law, nor are they universally portable and legally recognized in the manner of marriage, effectively relegating same-sex couples to second-class citizenship. Moreover the institution of marriage itself is ill served through being diluted by the confused patchwork of conflicting and incoherent legal arrangements created by the states operating individually.
The issue of marriage has not always been left entirely to the states, nor should it be. In 1967 the Supreme Court ruled, in Loving v. Virginia, that marriage to the partner of one's choice was such a basic human right that two people could not be denied recognition of such a bond due to race, thus striking down so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws in 17 states. The same principle of marriage equality that underpinned the rights of the Lovings remains true in the case of same-sex couples today. The issue does not stop at concern for the couples themselves, moreover, but extends to the thousands of children in the care of same-sex guardians. Those children are denied the basic security that the children of heterosexual guardians may take for granted, effectively punishing the child for the lifestyle choices of the parents.
You are right that the Constitution has historically been amended to expand rights, and the time has come for another such expansion. A Marriage Equality Amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a reform is the surest and most durable way to end the injustices that daily arise from our current system of marital apartheid.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this amendment. I hope that you will see the justness and urgency of this cause and lend it your proven integrity and sense of civic duty. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for success in your new office.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Senator Udall,
I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the United States constitution that would legalize same-sex marriage throughout the Union. As a member of the House of Representatives you established a long record of support for the rights of LGBT citizens, and spoke candidly of this stance during the campaign for your current Senate seat last year. Your campaign web site included the following position statement:
"At Colorado Outward Bound, I insisted on outreach to include the GLBT community. I have always opposed discrimination based on sexual orientation, and I have been proud that key members of my staff have included GLBT Americans. I support the establishmen of civil unions and domestic partnership legislation to ensure that the rights of all couples - including inheritance decisions and hospital visitation rights - are protected, regardless of sexual orientation. I have consistently opposed efforts to amend the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Our Constitution is a solemn compact that is the foundation for the freedoms that we enjoy as Americans, and historically has been amended to expand rights, not restrict them. I do not think our Constitution should be used to discriminate against any American, including gay and lesbian Americans. The issue of marriage has always been left to the authority of the states, rather than the federal government, and it should stay that way. "
Your open opposition to discrimination is progressive and commendable, Senator, but you stop short of advocacy of full marriage equality. Though compromise solutions like civil unions and domestic partnerships may be well intentioned, long experience shows that separate is never equal. Such unions do not afford couples all of the 1,138 benefits and protections that flow from marriage under federal law, nor are they universally portable and legally recognized in the manner of marriage, effectively relegating same-sex couples to second-class citizenship. Moreover the institution of marriage itself is ill served through being diluted by the confused patchwork of conflicting and incoherent legal arrangements created by the states operating individually.
The issue of marriage has not always been left entirely to the states, nor should it be. In 1967 the Supreme Court ruled, in Loving v. Virginia, that marriage to the partner of one's choice was such a basic human right that two people could not be denied recognition of such a bond due to race, thus striking down so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws in 17 states. The same principle of marriage equality that underpinned the rights of the Lovings remains true in the case of same-sex couples today. The issue does not stop at concern for the couples themselves, moreover, but extends to the thousands of children in the care of same-sex guardians. Those children are denied the basic security that the children of heterosexual guardians may take for granted, effectively punishing the child for the lifestyle choices of the parents.
You are right that the Constitution has historically been amended to expand rights, and the time has come for another such expansion. A Marriage Equality Amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a reform is the surest and most durable way to end the injustices that daily arise from our current system of marital apartheid.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this amendment. I hope that you will see the justness and urgency of this cause and lend it your proven integrity and sense of civic duty. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for success in your new office.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Thursday, March 19, 2009
California (LIV) Congresswoman Susan Davis
Today I conclude my correspondence with California's Congressional delegation (until the vacancy created by the departure of Congresswoman Hilda Solis from the seat representing the 32nd District is filled) with Congresswoman Susan Davis, Democrat, representative of California's 53rd Congressional District:
Dear Congresswoman Davis,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would guarantee the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. The text of 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 great strides have been made in the fight for marriage equality in recent years, tragic setbacks like the recent passage of Proposition 8 are a reminder of how well-funded and determined are the forces of discrimination and injustice. The time has come to make an unequivocal and principled stand, and to seek a permanent and universal redress for the injuries that those deprived rights of marriage equality have been made to suffer.
As a founding member of the LGBT Equality Caucus you have been a staunch champion for the rights of LGBT citizens. Support of a Marriage Equality Amendment would be a fitting extension of your already admirable record. Though the fight for a constitutional amendment would obviously be long, difficult, and fraught with political peril, with the backing of a well-respected public servant such as yourself it could change the public discourse in this country long before its goal was practically achieved.
I have set out to write every member of Congress enlisting support for this campaign. The letters are all being gathered at a weblog online: http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/. I hope that you will lend this amendment your proven energy and integrity. In any case I thank you for your service to our nation and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congresswoman Davis,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would guarantee the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. The text of 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 great strides have been made in the fight for marriage equality in recent years, tragic setbacks like the recent passage of Proposition 8 are a reminder of how well-funded and determined are the forces of discrimination and injustice. The time has come to make an unequivocal and principled stand, and to seek a permanent and universal redress for the injuries that those deprived rights of marriage equality have been made to suffer.
As a founding member of the LGBT Equality Caucus you have been a staunch champion for the rights of LGBT citizens. Support of a Marriage Equality Amendment would be a fitting extension of your already admirable record. Though the fight for a constitutional amendment would obviously be long, difficult, and fraught with political peril, with the backing of a well-respected public servant such as yourself it could change the public discourse in this country long before its goal was practically achieved.
I have set out to write every member of Congress enlisting support for this campaign. The letters are all being gathered at a weblog online: http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/. I hope that you will lend this amendment your proven energy and integrity. In any case I thank you for your service to our nation and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
California (LIII) Congressman Duncan D. Hunter
Today I continue with Congressman Duncan D. Hunter, Republican, representative of California's 52nd Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Hunter,
I write as a concerned citizen to urge you to change your position on marriage equality. As a newly elected congressman you have yet to establish your voting record with regard to this issue. You succeed your father, Congressman Duncan L. Hunter, however, who twice voted for the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage throughout the United States. On your website you also declare your commitment to "protecting traditional marriage."
If the amendment for which your father twice voted is your notion of how best to "protect" marriage then the people of your district and this nation will be poorly served. Religious and civil marriage are two separate institutions that share a common name. As a legislator it is not your place to "protect" the religious sacrament of marriage, that is an issue of conscience for Americans to decide within the precincts of their communal faiths. Your duty is to attend to the civil institution of marriage, and to see that it is constructed and adjudicated in a way that is fair and just to all citizens.
Any objective view of American civil marriage today can determine that it is not instituted fairly and equitably. Couples that have lived with and cared for one-another for decades, many of which have raised or are raising children, are denied the basic safeguards and protections that the majority of their fellow citizens may take entirely for granted. The Government Accountability Office lists 1,138 rights and benefits that flow to a couple from marital status. As a government official, do you really feel justified in denying same-sex couples those rights simply because you give no credence to their mutual love and commitment? Are you that complacently certain of your own opinion, Congressman?
As a soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan you fought to defend the freedoms that are guaranteed to all Americans in our Constitution, among which is the 14th Amendment's assurance of "equal protection of the laws." When the law arbitrarily excludes millions of citizens from the enjoyment of 1,138 discrete protections, that promise of equal treatment is breached. The current state of marital apartheid in this nation is thus an abrogation of the principles for which you yourself risked your life.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking 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 reform is the surest and most durable means to protecting both the rights of our citizens and the institution of marriage itself, which is threatened not by the legalization of same-sex marriage but by the confusing patchwork of differing legalities created by the individual states. Marriage to the partner of one's choice is a civil right and thus should be federally protected. Such was the ruling of the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down the so-called "anti-miscegenation laws" barring interracial marriage in many states, and such is the case with respect to the rights of same-sex couples today.
I hope that on reflection you will see the justness of this cause and lend your support to the struggle for marriage equality. In any case I thank you for your attention to this matter and for your service to our country, and wish you success in your new office.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Hunter,
I write as a concerned citizen to urge you to change your position on marriage equality. As a newly elected congressman you have yet to establish your voting record with regard to this issue. You succeed your father, Congressman Duncan L. Hunter, however, who twice voted for the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage throughout the United States. On your website you also declare your commitment to "protecting traditional marriage."
If the amendment for which your father twice voted is your notion of how best to "protect" marriage then the people of your district and this nation will be poorly served. Religious and civil marriage are two separate institutions that share a common name. As a legislator it is not your place to "protect" the religious sacrament of marriage, that is an issue of conscience for Americans to decide within the precincts of their communal faiths. Your duty is to attend to the civil institution of marriage, and to see that it is constructed and adjudicated in a way that is fair and just to all citizens.
Any objective view of American civil marriage today can determine that it is not instituted fairly and equitably. Couples that have lived with and cared for one-another for decades, many of which have raised or are raising children, are denied the basic safeguards and protections that the majority of their fellow citizens may take entirely for granted. The Government Accountability Office lists 1,138 rights and benefits that flow to a couple from marital status. As a government official, do you really feel justified in denying same-sex couples those rights simply because you give no credence to their mutual love and commitment? Are you that complacently certain of your own opinion, Congressman?
As a soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan you fought to defend the freedoms that are guaranteed to all Americans in our Constitution, among which is the 14th Amendment's assurance of "equal protection of the laws." When the law arbitrarily excludes millions of citizens from the enjoyment of 1,138 discrete protections, that promise of equal treatment is breached. The current state of marital apartheid in this nation is thus an abrogation of the principles for which you yourself risked your life.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking 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 reform is the surest and most durable means to protecting both the rights of our citizens and the institution of marriage itself, which is threatened not by the legalization of same-sex marriage but by the confusing patchwork of differing legalities created by the individual states. Marriage to the partner of one's choice is a civil right and thus should be federally protected. Such was the ruling of the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down the so-called "anti-miscegenation laws" barring interracial marriage in many states, and such is the case with respect to the rights of same-sex couples today.
I hope that on reflection you will see the justness of this cause and lend your support to the struggle for marriage equality. In any case I thank you for your attention to this matter and for your service to our country, and wish you success in your new office.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
California (LII) Congressman Bob Filner
Today I continue with Congressman Bob Filner, Democrat, representative of California's 51st Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Filner,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment 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." Would you take up the cause of this reform among your colleagues in Congress?
Your deeds as a Freedom Rider during the civil rights struggle of the 1960's are well known and rightly celebrated, Congressman. Your inspirational history makes me surprised that you have not been more vocal on the issue of marriage equality, especially given recent distressing developments in your own state. Marriage equality is the civil rights struggle of this generation. At stake are the lives, loves, and families of millions of American citizens. Mildred Loving recognized this when she declared her support for marriage equality in 2007.
Your record in support of the rights of LGBT citizens has been exemplary. You twice voted against the execrable so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" and consistently receive perfect scores from the Human Rights Campaign. Now is a critical juncture in our nation's history, however. All who support civil rights and oppose discrimination must go to extraordinary lengths to stand up and be counted. If you lent your integrity and moral authority to the cause of a Marriage Equality Amendment you could tangibly shift the discourse within our country, placing those who posture about "protecting" marriage on the defensive.
I appeal to your proven sense of civic duty and public service, Congressman. I hope that you will see the wisdom of this campaign and lend it your support. 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 Filner,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment 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." Would you take up the cause of this reform among your colleagues in Congress?
Your deeds as a Freedom Rider during the civil rights struggle of the 1960's are well known and rightly celebrated, Congressman. Your inspirational history makes me surprised that you have not been more vocal on the issue of marriage equality, especially given recent distressing developments in your own state. Marriage equality is the civil rights struggle of this generation. At stake are the lives, loves, and families of millions of American citizens. Mildred Loving recognized this when she declared her support for marriage equality in 2007.
Your record in support of the rights of LGBT citizens has been exemplary. You twice voted against the execrable so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" and consistently receive perfect scores from the Human Rights Campaign. Now is a critical juncture in our nation's history, however. All who support civil rights and oppose discrimination must go to extraordinary lengths to stand up and be counted. If you lent your integrity and moral authority to the cause of a Marriage Equality Amendment you could tangibly shift the discourse within our country, placing those who posture about "protecting" marriage on the defensive.
I appeal to your proven sense of civic duty and public service, Congressman. I hope that you will see the wisdom of this campaign and lend it your support. 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
Saturday, March 14, 2009
California (LI) Congressman Brian Bilbray
Today I continue with Congressman Brian Bilbray, Republican, representative of California's 50th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Bilbray,
I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. You were a co-sponsor of the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage throughout the United States, even in those few states where it is now legal. Moreover, your proposed change to our basic law would have closed off the potential for even inadequate "separate but equal" compromises such as domestic partnerships and civil unions.
You thus have the distinction of co-authoring one of the most egregious monstrosities in the constitutional history of our nation. Rarely have lawmakers attempted to use our founding charter as an instrument for depriving citizens of rights they have already won. The basic genius of our Republic has been that rights tend to deepen and broaden over time; our Founders established a historical mandate for liberty that they understood would continue to expand as human understanding unfolded. You and your colleagues bear the shame of trying to stem that progressive tide.
Marriage to the partner of one's choice is undoubtedly among what our Founders identified as humanity's "inalienable rights," a fact that the Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged in Loving v. Virginia and numerous other decisions. Any group which is systematically denied the 1,138 legal benefits and protections that flow from the marital bond cannot be said to enjoy what the 14th Amendment terms "equal protection of the law." Our current state of marital apartheid is thus an injustice that cannot stand within a democracy dedicated to the preservation of individual rights, as ours is.
Because the kind of prejudice and discrimination exemplified by your amendment and other measures like it is obviously rife, the normal safeguards that protect individual liberties are clearly inadequate to securing full rights of marriage equality for all American citizens. For that reason I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking 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." You may disagree with the principles underlying such a Marriage Equality Amendment, but please understand that millions of Americans hold these rights to be sacred and inviolable and will fight ceaselessly until they are realized for all people.
I hope that in time you will see the error of your current stance, Congressman. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Bilbray,
I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. You were a co-sponsor of the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage throughout the United States, even in those few states where it is now legal. Moreover, your proposed change to our basic law would have closed off the potential for even inadequate "separate but equal" compromises such as domestic partnerships and civil unions.
You thus have the distinction of co-authoring one of the most egregious monstrosities in the constitutional history of our nation. Rarely have lawmakers attempted to use our founding charter as an instrument for depriving citizens of rights they have already won. The basic genius of our Republic has been that rights tend to deepen and broaden over time; our Founders established a historical mandate for liberty that they understood would continue to expand as human understanding unfolded. You and your colleagues bear the shame of trying to stem that progressive tide.
Marriage to the partner of one's choice is undoubtedly among what our Founders identified as humanity's "inalienable rights," a fact that the Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged in Loving v. Virginia and numerous other decisions. Any group which is systematically denied the 1,138 legal benefits and protections that flow from the marital bond cannot be said to enjoy what the 14th Amendment terms "equal protection of the law." Our current state of marital apartheid is thus an injustice that cannot stand within a democracy dedicated to the preservation of individual rights, as ours is.
Because the kind of prejudice and discrimination exemplified by your amendment and other measures like it is obviously rife, the normal safeguards that protect individual liberties are clearly inadequate to securing full rights of marriage equality for all American citizens. For that reason I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking 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." You may disagree with the principles underlying such a Marriage Equality Amendment, but please understand that millions of Americans hold these rights to be sacred and inviolable and will fight ceaselessly until they are realized for all people.
I hope that in time you will see the error of your current stance, Congressman. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
California (L) Congressman Darrell Issa
Today I continue with Congressman Darrell Issa, Republican, representative of California's 49th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Issa,
I write to protest your opposition to marriage equality. You have shown yourself consistently hostile to the rights of LGBT citizens, typically earning a rating of "zero" from the Human Rights Campaign for your voting record. You voted twice for the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage throughout the nation. In 2004 you issued this statement:
"Congressman Darrell Issa has voted to protect the sanctity of marriage and to uphold the right of states to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The House of Representatives voted 233-194 to pass H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act of 2004, which denies federal activist judges jurisdiction to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of the right of states to define marriage as a union between and man and a woman or the Federal statute defining marriage."
Such rhetoric betrays prejudice and insensitivity unworthy of the office you hold in trust, Congressman. Admitting same-sex couples into the marital bond poses no threat to the "sanctity of marriage." Marriage is made sacred by a couple's mutual love, respect, and care for one-another, none of which depend upon their respective genders. Moreover, as a United States legislator the "sanctity" of marriage is not genuinely your concern.
The sanctity of a marriage is a private matter, the legal status of a marriage is a civil concern. As in all legal affairs, the first responsibility of the government and its officials is to see that the law is applied fairly, to ensure that all citizens enjoy what the 14th amendment calls "the equal protection of the law." When two adults make a lifelong commitment to love, honor and protect one-another but are denied the 1,138 legal benefits and protections that the state ordinarily grants to such a union, they can not be said to enjoy the equal protection of the law by any stretch of the imagination.
This is what the Supreme Court found in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, when it struck down the so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws that banned interracial marriage in much of the U.S. Would you call that an act of "judicial activism," Congressman? The same principle of marriage equality that held true in the case of the Lovings holds true for same-sex couples today.
I have set out to write every member of Congress promoting an amendment to the U.S. constitution diametrically opposed to the one for which you twice voted. Such a Marriage Equality Amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." This change to or basic law would be the surest and most durable assurance of the "sanctity of marriage," as it would replace the state of unjust marital apartheid we have today with an institution grounded in basic fairness and equity.
I hope that you will have a change of heart and cease supporting discriminatory and oppressive laws. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Issa,
I write to protest your opposition to marriage equality. You have shown yourself consistently hostile to the rights of LGBT citizens, typically earning a rating of "zero" from the Human Rights Campaign for your voting record. You voted twice for the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage throughout the nation. In 2004 you issued this statement:
"Congressman Darrell Issa has voted to protect the sanctity of marriage and to uphold the right of states to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The House of Representatives voted 233-194 to pass H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act of 2004, which denies federal activist judges jurisdiction to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of the right of states to define marriage as a union between and man and a woman or the Federal statute defining marriage."
Such rhetoric betrays prejudice and insensitivity unworthy of the office you hold in trust, Congressman. Admitting same-sex couples into the marital bond poses no threat to the "sanctity of marriage." Marriage is made sacred by a couple's mutual love, respect, and care for one-another, none of which depend upon their respective genders. Moreover, as a United States legislator the "sanctity" of marriage is not genuinely your concern.
The sanctity of a marriage is a private matter, the legal status of a marriage is a civil concern. As in all legal affairs, the first responsibility of the government and its officials is to see that the law is applied fairly, to ensure that all citizens enjoy what the 14th amendment calls "the equal protection of the law." When two adults make a lifelong commitment to love, honor and protect one-another but are denied the 1,138 legal benefits and protections that the state ordinarily grants to such a union, they can not be said to enjoy the equal protection of the law by any stretch of the imagination.
This is what the Supreme Court found in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, when it struck down the so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws that banned interracial marriage in much of the U.S. Would you call that an act of "judicial activism," Congressman? The same principle of marriage equality that held true in the case of the Lovings holds true for same-sex couples today.
I have set out to write every member of Congress promoting an amendment to the U.S. constitution diametrically opposed to the one for which you twice voted. Such a Marriage Equality Amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." This change to or basic law would be the surest and most durable assurance of the "sanctity of marriage," as it would replace the state of unjust marital apartheid we have today with an institution grounded in basic fairness and equity.
I hope that you will have a change of heart and cease supporting discriminatory and oppressive laws. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Monday, March 9, 2009
California (XLIX) Congressman John Campbell
Today I continue with Congressman John Campbell, Republican, representative of California's 48th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Campbell,
I write to protest your consistent opposition to marriage equality. You voted twice for the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage throughout the United States. Last year you endorsed the passage of Proposition 8, placing this statement of support on your campaign website:
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for an amendment to our federal constitution diametrically opposed to the one for which you twice voted. Such a Marriage Equality Amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." This change to our basic law is the surest and most durable means to bringing our nation's institutions into alignment with the fundamental rights of its citizens.
Marriage equality is the civil rights struggle of our time, Congressman. Future generations will look back and judge the leaders of today with respect to the stance each chooses in this moment. I hope, for the sake of your future reputation and the welfare of today's Americans, that you experience a change of heart and lend your support to this just cause. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend you my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Campbell,
I write to protest your consistent opposition to marriage equality. You voted twice for the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage throughout the United States. Last year you endorsed the passage of Proposition 8, placing this statement of support on your campaign website:
"In 2000, over 61% of Californians (including this Congressman) voted to reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman (Proposition 22). However, because this language wasn’t put into the California Constitution, four activist judges from San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote in a closely divided 4-3 decision. Proposition 8 reverses the court’s decision by restoring the definition of marriage as a man and a woman in the state Constitution.
The entire text of Proposition 8 is as follows: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California." It’s not an attack on the gay lifestyle. Proposition 8 doesn’t take away any rights or benefits from gays or lesbians in domestic partnerships. Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits” as married spouses. (Family Code §297.5.) There are no exceptions. Proposition 8 will not change this."
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for an amendment to our federal constitution diametrically opposed to the one for which you twice voted. Such a Marriage Equality Amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." This change to our basic law is the surest and most durable means to bringing our nation's institutions into alignment with the fundamental rights of its citizens.
Marriage equality is the civil rights struggle of our time, Congressman. Future generations will look back and judge the leaders of today with respect to the stance each chooses in this moment. I hope, for the sake of your future reputation and the welfare of today's Americans, that you experience a change of heart and lend your support to this just cause. 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
Sunday, March 8, 2009
California (XLVIII) Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez
Today I continue with Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, Democrat, representative of California's 47th Congressional District:
Dear Congresswoman Sanchez,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." As a long-serving legislator with a robust record of defending civil and human rights, I hope that you will lend this reform your voice and your authority.
You have long shown yourself sympathetic to the cause of marriage equality, having voted twice against the execrable so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" and having received consistently high positive ratings from the Human Rights Campaign. In the last election your Republican challenger, Rosie Avila, tried to make your past support for marriage equality an issue, linking her campaign to a call for passage of Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage in California. Though Ms. Avila's tactics did not ultimately succeed, the passage of Proposition 8 showed how well-financed the forces of discrimination are and how much traction this appeal to social prejudice may afford unscrupulous politicians within our political process.
A Marriage Equality Amendment would be the surest and most durable means to secure the rights of millions of Americans now unjustly excluded from the marriage bond. It would also deprive opportunists of the chance to exploit this issue for momentary political gain. Please contemplate advocating for this change to our basic laws among your colleagues and constituents. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope that this letter find you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congresswoman Sanchez,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." As a long-serving legislator with a robust record of defending civil and human rights, I hope that you will lend this reform your voice and your authority.
You have long shown yourself sympathetic to the cause of marriage equality, having voted twice against the execrable so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" and having received consistently high positive ratings from the Human Rights Campaign. In the last election your Republican challenger, Rosie Avila, tried to make your past support for marriage equality an issue, linking her campaign to a call for passage of Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage in California. Though Ms. Avila's tactics did not ultimately succeed, the passage of Proposition 8 showed how well-financed the forces of discrimination are and how much traction this appeal to social prejudice may afford unscrupulous politicians within our political process.
A Marriage Equality Amendment would be the surest and most durable means to secure the rights of millions of Americans now unjustly excluded from the marriage bond. It would also deprive opportunists of the chance to exploit this issue for momentary political gain. Please contemplate advocating for this change to our basic laws among your colleagues and constituents. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope that this letter find you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Saturday, March 7, 2009
California (XLVII) Dana Rohrabacher
Today I continue with Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, representative of California's 46th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Rohrabacher,
I write to protest your stance on marriage equality. You have been consistent in your refusal to recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry. You twice voted to amend our federal constitution to ban same-sex marriage throughout the United States, and were outspokenly opposed to the wise and just ruling of California's Supreme Court granting full marriage equality in your home state. At a campaign debate during the last election, you said:
“It’s a wonderful thing when you find the person you love, but that does not mean that you change the legal structure in this country. I don’t think we should change the definition of marriage in our country to make a small number of people in our country feel comfortable.”
These comments betray an insensitivity and obtuseness unworthy of the office you hold in trust, Congressman. The "small number" of people to whom you refer ranges up into the millions. Moreover, marriage equality is not merely a subjective or sentimental issue. In being excluded from the marital bond, same-sex couples are denied 1,138 benefits and protections that flow to couples under federal law. Children under the care of same-sex couples live without the safeguards and securities that would shield them if the state sanctioned their guardians' union. The current state of marital apartheid in our country is thus not a mere sleight to the feelings of a small minority, it is a full-fledged assault upon the rights and families of millions of Americans.
Think, Congressman, that words just like the ones you spoke were no doubt uttered in defense of the so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws that once outlawed marriages between citizens of different race in many states: "We can't change the law to suit the feelings of a few radicals." But just as in 1967, in its ruling in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court recognized that marriage to the partner of one's choice is an inalienable right that cannot bow to the prejudices of the majority, today the same principle of marriage equality applies with regard to same-sex couples. People's capacity to love, honor, and support one-another does not exist for the sake of "the legal structure" of this nation. Quite the reverse is true.
For this reason, I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking an amendment to our federal constitution diametrically opposed to the one for which you twice voted, Congressman. Such a Marriage Equality Amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." This change to our basic law is the surest and most enduring way to bring our institutions into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens.
I hope that you will have a change of heart and cease your opposition to marriage equality. 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 Rohrabacher,
I write to protest your stance on marriage equality. You have been consistent in your refusal to recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry. You twice voted to amend our federal constitution to ban same-sex marriage throughout the United States, and were outspokenly opposed to the wise and just ruling of California's Supreme Court granting full marriage equality in your home state. At a campaign debate during the last election, you said:
“It’s a wonderful thing when you find the person you love, but that does not mean that you change the legal structure in this country. I don’t think we should change the definition of marriage in our country to make a small number of people in our country feel comfortable.”
These comments betray an insensitivity and obtuseness unworthy of the office you hold in trust, Congressman. The "small number" of people to whom you refer ranges up into the millions. Moreover, marriage equality is not merely a subjective or sentimental issue. In being excluded from the marital bond, same-sex couples are denied 1,138 benefits and protections that flow to couples under federal law. Children under the care of same-sex couples live without the safeguards and securities that would shield them if the state sanctioned their guardians' union. The current state of marital apartheid in our country is thus not a mere sleight to the feelings of a small minority, it is a full-fledged assault upon the rights and families of millions of Americans.
Think, Congressman, that words just like the ones you spoke were no doubt uttered in defense of the so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws that once outlawed marriages between citizens of different race in many states: "We can't change the law to suit the feelings of a few radicals." But just as in 1967, in its ruling in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court recognized that marriage to the partner of one's choice is an inalienable right that cannot bow to the prejudices of the majority, today the same principle of marriage equality applies with regard to same-sex couples. People's capacity to love, honor, and support one-another does not exist for the sake of "the legal structure" of this nation. Quite the reverse is true.
For this reason, I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking an amendment to our federal constitution diametrically opposed to the one for which you twice voted, Congressman. Such a Marriage Equality Amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." This change to our basic law is the surest and most enduring way to bring our institutions into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens.
I hope that you will have a change of heart and cease your opposition to marriage equality. 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, March 4, 2009
California (XLVI) Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack
Today I continue with Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack, Republican, representative of California's 45th Congressional District:
Dear Congresswoman Bono Mack,
I write as a concerned citizen to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the rights of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. The text of such an amendment to our federal constitution would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a change to our basic law would be the surest and most durable way to end the discriminatory and unjust conditions that currently prevail throughout most of the nation.
You have admirably crossed party lines twice in past years to vote against the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage comprehensively throughout the United States. In general you have shown yourself responsive to the rights and concerns of LGBT citizens, earning ratings of higher than 50% for each of the last three Congresses from the Human Rights Campaign. These aspects of your record as a legislator make me hopeful that you will be responsive to a plea for total support of marriage equality.
You have in the past, however, registered your opposition to same-sex marriage, declaring that your objection is to the word "marriage" itself, but that you "[believe] in domestic partnerships, very strongly. I believe there ought to be two different terms." I hope I may persuade you that the principles that compel your support for domestic partnership ultimately demand an embrace of marriage equality.
Like so many people of conscience, you recognize that same-sex couples deserve all the rights of marriage. But the experience of the past two decades has shown that with marriage, as with other civil institutions, "separate but equal" does not work. "Domestic partnerships" and "civil unions," where they have been instituted, have failed to secure for their participants all of the 1,138 benefits and protections that derive from married status under federal law. Moreover, one of the enduring strengths of marriage as an institution has always been that if one is married in one state one remains married in the other 49 (indeed, one is recognized as married in virtually every country on earth). Because the various states that have instituted "unions" and "partnerships" have adopted diverse formulas and terminology, such unions are not and will never be perfectly and universally portable, thus consigning their participants to second-class citizenship. The only way to ensure American citizens all of the rights of marriage is to allow them full and legal entrance into the marital bond.
I have set out to write every member of Congress pleading support for this proposed change to our basic law. As a very visible member of the House and a leader whose conscience has drawn her across party lines, you could speak with great moral authority on this issue. Would you take up the cause of a Marriage Equality Amendment among your fellow legislators? I hope that on reflection you will lend this cause your proven energy and integrity. 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 Bono Mack,
I write as a concerned citizen to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the rights of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. The text of such an amendment to our federal constitution would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a change to our basic law would be the surest and most durable way to end the discriminatory and unjust conditions that currently prevail throughout most of the nation.
You have admirably crossed party lines twice in past years to vote against the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage comprehensively throughout the United States. In general you have shown yourself responsive to the rights and concerns of LGBT citizens, earning ratings of higher than 50% for each of the last three Congresses from the Human Rights Campaign. These aspects of your record as a legislator make me hopeful that you will be responsive to a plea for total support of marriage equality.
You have in the past, however, registered your opposition to same-sex marriage, declaring that your objection is to the word "marriage" itself, but that you "[believe] in domestic partnerships, very strongly. I believe there ought to be two different terms." I hope I may persuade you that the principles that compel your support for domestic partnership ultimately demand an embrace of marriage equality.
Like so many people of conscience, you recognize that same-sex couples deserve all the rights of marriage. But the experience of the past two decades has shown that with marriage, as with other civil institutions, "separate but equal" does not work. "Domestic partnerships" and "civil unions," where they have been instituted, have failed to secure for their participants all of the 1,138 benefits and protections that derive from married status under federal law. Moreover, one of the enduring strengths of marriage as an institution has always been that if one is married in one state one remains married in the other 49 (indeed, one is recognized as married in virtually every country on earth). Because the various states that have instituted "unions" and "partnerships" have adopted diverse formulas and terminology, such unions are not and will never be perfectly and universally portable, thus consigning their participants to second-class citizenship. The only way to ensure American citizens all of the rights of marriage is to allow them full and legal entrance into the marital bond.
I have set out to write every member of Congress pleading support for this proposed change to our basic law. As a very visible member of the House and a leader whose conscience has drawn her across party lines, you could speak with great moral authority on this issue. Would you take up the cause of a Marriage Equality Amendment among your fellow legislators? I hope that on reflection you will lend this cause your proven energy and integrity. 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
Monday, March 2, 2009
California (XLV) Congressman Ken Calvert
Today I continue with Congressman Ken Calvert, Republican, representative of California's 44th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Calvert,
I write to urge you to change your stance on the issue of marriage equality. On May 16th of last year you issued a press release opposing the wise and just ruling of California's Supreme Court that recognized the right of marriage equality for all Californians. That statement read, in part:
"I do not think that an issue as important as gay marriage should be made by nine unelected judges...I support the people’s right to define ‘marriage’ as only between a man and a woman through a constitutional amendment....I believe that we can practice tolerance while still holding true to cultural values that protect the institution of marriage as a union between only a man and a woman."
Your words betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the question at hand, Congressman. "Gay marriage" is not an issue, because same-sex couples do not want a special institution created for them. They seek entry into the same marital bond that all of their heterosexual compatriots take for granted, that affords 1, 138 benefits and protections to those who elect to undertake it. Because marriage is such a personally powerful social act, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that it is a fundamental right that cannot be denied by the state to any citizen, even to imprisoned felons. In the United States one cannot purport to "tolerate" the rights of other citizens. Rights demand recognition and respect, they are the foundation upon which the law is built and thus cannot be truly denied even by the will of the majority.
The passage of Proposition 8 was no doubt welcome news to you, Congressman, though it violates the basic spirit of our democracy. Because it is so antithetical to the founding principles of our Republic, I and others feel that radical measures must be taken to counter this concerted campaign of discrimination. The surest and most durable protection against such injustice would be to amend the U.S. Constitution in precisely the opposite manner to that of Proposition 8, so as to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law.
The lives, love, and families of your fellow citizens are at stake, Congressman. It is unseemly of you to use the office you hold under sacred trust to impede recognition of their rights. I hope on reflection you will see the justice of this cause and desist your opposition to marriage equality in California and elsewhere. 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 Calvert,
I write to urge you to change your stance on the issue of marriage equality. On May 16th of last year you issued a press release opposing the wise and just ruling of California's Supreme Court that recognized the right of marriage equality for all Californians. That statement read, in part:
"I do not think that an issue as important as gay marriage should be made by nine unelected judges...I support the people’s right to define ‘marriage’ as only between a man and a woman through a constitutional amendment....I believe that we can practice tolerance while still holding true to cultural values that protect the institution of marriage as a union between only a man and a woman."
Your words betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the question at hand, Congressman. "Gay marriage" is not an issue, because same-sex couples do not want a special institution created for them. They seek entry into the same marital bond that all of their heterosexual compatriots take for granted, that affords 1, 138 benefits and protections to those who elect to undertake it. Because marriage is such a personally powerful social act, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that it is a fundamental right that cannot be denied by the state to any citizen, even to imprisoned felons. In the United States one cannot purport to "tolerate" the rights of other citizens. Rights demand recognition and respect, they are the foundation upon which the law is built and thus cannot be truly denied even by the will of the majority.
The passage of Proposition 8 was no doubt welcome news to you, Congressman, though it violates the basic spirit of our democracy. Because it is so antithetical to the founding principles of our Republic, I and others feel that radical measures must be taken to counter this concerted campaign of discrimination. The surest and most durable protection against such injustice would be to amend the U.S. Constitution in precisely the opposite manner to that of Proposition 8, so as to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law.
The lives, love, and families of your fellow citizens are at stake, Congressman. It is unseemly of you to use the office you hold under sacred trust to impede recognition of their rights. I hope on reflection you will see the justice of this cause and desist your opposition to marriage equality in California and elsewhere. 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, March 1, 2009
California (XLIV) Congressman Joe Baca
Today I continue with Congressman Joe Baca, Democrat, representative of California's 43 Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Baca,
I write as a concerned citizen seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. As a long-serving member of the Democratic caucus, you have been a strong advocate for civil rights in the House, fighting for the rights of Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, and veterans, to name only a few groups that have benefited from your concern. Your record with regard to the rights of LGBT citizens has likewise been largely exemplary. You twice voted against a federal amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage nationally.
In the 109th Congress, however, you voted against a repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that continues to discriminate against LGBT soldiers in our military. You also voted against a bill that would have granted recognition of same-sex partnerships among immigrants to the United States. Your son, former California State Assemblyman Joe Baca, Jr., voted against a bill that would have instituted marriage equality at the state level.
These signs of ambivalence toward marriage equality make me fear that you are not prepared to fight aggressively against the forces of discrimination that have been so tragically effective in recent months. The passage of Proposition 8 in California is an enormous setback in the nation's collective struggle for civil rights; it stands as one of the few instances in our history in which recognition of rights already won by a whole class of citizens was nullified. This type of regression is not true to fundamental spirit of America, and must be met with direct and determined action.
The Government Accountability Office lists 1,138 benefits and protections that accrue to a couple from married status under federal law. Moreover, marriage to the partner of one's choice is among the most powerfully transformative social acts a citizen can undertake. It is the foundation of lifelong companionship, family, and community: many of the personal goods most essential to the enjoyment of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It is for this reason that the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled, in cases such as Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley, that marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man."
The surest defense against the kind of bigotry embodied by Proposition 8 would thus 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." Only in the shelter of such unequivocal guarantees will the basic and inalienable rights of all citizens be protected from those who would oppress them. Would you lend your voice to this reform, Congressman? I have set out to write every member of the 111th Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law. I hope that my entreaties will appeal to your proven sense of fairness and civic duty.
Please consider acting upon my request. 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 Baca,
I write as a concerned citizen seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. As a long-serving member of the Democratic caucus, you have been a strong advocate for civil rights in the House, fighting for the rights of Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, and veterans, to name only a few groups that have benefited from your concern. Your record with regard to the rights of LGBT citizens has likewise been largely exemplary. You twice voted against a federal amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage nationally.
In the 109th Congress, however, you voted against a repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that continues to discriminate against LGBT soldiers in our military. You also voted against a bill that would have granted recognition of same-sex partnerships among immigrants to the United States. Your son, former California State Assemblyman Joe Baca, Jr., voted against a bill that would have instituted marriage equality at the state level.
These signs of ambivalence toward marriage equality make me fear that you are not prepared to fight aggressively against the forces of discrimination that have been so tragically effective in recent months. The passage of Proposition 8 in California is an enormous setback in the nation's collective struggle for civil rights; it stands as one of the few instances in our history in which recognition of rights already won by a whole class of citizens was nullified. This type of regression is not true to fundamental spirit of America, and must be met with direct and determined action.
The Government Accountability Office lists 1,138 benefits and protections that accrue to a couple from married status under federal law. Moreover, marriage to the partner of one's choice is among the most powerfully transformative social acts a citizen can undertake. It is the foundation of lifelong companionship, family, and community: many of the personal goods most essential to the enjoyment of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It is for this reason that the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled, in cases such as Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley, that marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man."
The surest defense against the kind of bigotry embodied by Proposition 8 would thus 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." Only in the shelter of such unequivocal guarantees will the basic and inalienable rights of all citizens be protected from those who would oppress them. Would you lend your voice to this reform, Congressman? I have set out to write every member of the 111th Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law. I hope that my entreaties will appeal to your proven sense of fairness and civic duty.
Please consider acting upon my request. 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
Thanks to Thomas C. Waters
Thomas C. Waters, a fellow blogger and activist over at thomascwaters.com, ran a series of posts including an interview with me and a letter he asked me to write to his readers. Thank you, Thomas, for your encouragement and for introducing me to your readers. Keep up the good fight. Here's looking forward toward the day when all American marriages are truly equal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.png)
