Today I continue with Congressman Allen Boyd, Democrat, representative of Florida's 2nd Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Boyd,
I write to respectfully urge you to change your stance with regard to marriage equality. In the past you have crossed party lines to vote in favor of the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage throughout the United States. That initiative had little chance of passage, and was largely perceived as a GOP political stunt. Since 2006, however, the issue of marriage equality has gathered increasing force and urgency. The rights of same-sex couples have been recognized in four states and prospects are good that the scope of this progress will widen. At the same time, the opponents of marriage equality have focused and accelerated their efforts to block or roll back the advancing tide of civil liberties. Travesties like Proposition 8 have actually succeeded in nullifying rights already won by American citizens, a kind of odious regression rare in our nation's history.
The stakes are thus much higher now than when you voted with the GOP. Decisions made over the next few years will materially impact the lives and welfare of millions of Americans for years to come, and every citizen must commit to a conscientious choice in the knowledge that the future of his or her compatriots hangs in the balance. Your record suggests that your thinking regarding the rights and concerns of LGBT citizens has evolved in recent years. The Human Rights Campaign gave you ratings of 0, 25, and 67 percent, respectively, over the last three Congresses. During this same period you yourself took pro-active steps to forge links with the Floridian LGBT community. It is my hope that this dynamism of perspective might extend to a full reversal of your former stance on marriage equality.
This is not a matter of enforcing party discipline for petty doctrinaire reasons. As a lifelong Democrat, I hope that the party can be a "big tent" and can appreciate an elected official who takes a conscientious stand in opposition to the partisan consensus. This is not an issue that is amenable to distinctions of degree, however. If one believes that marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is an inalienable right, one must commit to full marriage equality for all citizens as a matter of law. If one insists that same-sex couples must not be admitted to the marital bond, one must do so in the full awareness that this will deny millions of Americans 1,138 legal benefits and protections that automatically flow to married couples under federal law. Perhaps you have some explanation why this does not make LGBT Americans second-class citizens, Congressman. I do not.
As a married husband and father I was very upset by the passage of Proposition 8 in California. It never occurred to my wife and I that entering into an institution from which our compatriots were abitrarily excluded bore a moral burden, and that complacency was born from a latent faith that as our nation moved forward, natural progress would occur in the realm of marriage equality. It is clear now, however, that "natural progress" will not occur without the principled and active commitment of conscientious citizens and leaders.
For that reason I have set out to write every member of Congress, seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would secure the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." This reform is the surest means to ensuring that our fellow citizens may not be denied the security and happiness that marriage has facilitated for my wife, myself, and our daughter.
Support for a Marriage Equality Amendment would obviously entail high political risk, especially in light of your past voting record. Given what is at stake, however, I appeal to you to give this measure due consideration and reflection. Whatever your ultimate choice, I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
Florida (III) Congressman Jeff Miller
Today I continue with Congressman Jeff Miller, Republican, representative of Florida's 1st Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Miller,
I write to protest your opposition to marriage equality. As a co-sponsor of the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment," you have been a longtime and active opponent of the rights of same-sex couples. Your website contains the following policy statement:
"I believe that marriage consists of a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. This amendment is about the institution of marriage and the American values that are represented by the union between a man and woman. Same sex couples don’t have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society...It is time for our country to get back to the morals and values of our forefathers...The marriage of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored in all cultures and by every religious faith. It’s in this institution that children are meant to be nurtured. We know this after thousands of years of human experience.”
There are a number of serious lapses of logic in this declaration. Your appeal to "thousands of years of human experience" is particularly misguided, as over the course of that time marriage has varied dramatically from society to society and from era to era. For much of human history polygamy was the norm in many cultures, and an even more frequent phenomenon was the virtual enslavement of a wife to her husband. The recognition of marriage equality would thus not "redefine" marriage any more radically than has already been the case in American social history. Moreover, marriage between partners of the same sex was far from unknown in world history, and continues to be practiced today as an ancient tradition in some cultures.
As to whether heterosexual marriage embodies traditional "American" values, that is a matter of perspective. Denying women the vote and African-Americans their freedom were once "values" held by many Americans, but surely you would agree that those are "traditions" happily abandoned. Marriage equality, on the other hand, undoubtedly embodies the values of which we as Americans may be most proud. We are a nation founded on the proposition that all people have an inalienable right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In 1967, in its decision in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court recognized that the freedom to marry the consenting partner of one's choice was an essential and indispensable precondition of this basic American promise, and must be federally protected. They thus struck down the so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws that banned "interracial" marriage in many states.
What was true in the case of the Lovings is true of same-sex couples today. A couple whose bond is not sanctioned by the state are deprived of 1,138 protections and benefits that would flow to them under federal law. They are thus materially hindered in their enjoyment of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and are relegated to the status of second-class citizens. This is more than a matter of principle, but a cause of personal suffering for millions of Americans on a daily basis. Such a state of apartheid is unworthy of a Republic founded upon our great American values, and must not stand.
Unfortunately many share your prejudices, Congressman, and have been very effective in promoting them in the political arena. For that reason I and others propose that the U.S. constitution be amended to read, "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a reform is the surest and most durable means to securing and protecting the rights of all Americans.
You may disagree with the principles underlying this change, but please understand that millions will fight tirelessly until the practical goal of marriage equality is achieved. Perhaps on reflection you will see the error of your current stance. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope that this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Miller,
I write to protest your opposition to marriage equality. As a co-sponsor of the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment," you have been a longtime and active opponent of the rights of same-sex couples. Your website contains the following policy statement:
"I believe that marriage consists of a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. This amendment is about the institution of marriage and the American values that are represented by the union between a man and woman. Same sex couples don’t have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society...It is time for our country to get back to the morals and values of our forefathers...The marriage of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored in all cultures and by every religious faith. It’s in this institution that children are meant to be nurtured. We know this after thousands of years of human experience.”
There are a number of serious lapses of logic in this declaration. Your appeal to "thousands of years of human experience" is particularly misguided, as over the course of that time marriage has varied dramatically from society to society and from era to era. For much of human history polygamy was the norm in many cultures, and an even more frequent phenomenon was the virtual enslavement of a wife to her husband. The recognition of marriage equality would thus not "redefine" marriage any more radically than has already been the case in American social history. Moreover, marriage between partners of the same sex was far from unknown in world history, and continues to be practiced today as an ancient tradition in some cultures.
As to whether heterosexual marriage embodies traditional "American" values, that is a matter of perspective. Denying women the vote and African-Americans their freedom were once "values" held by many Americans, but surely you would agree that those are "traditions" happily abandoned. Marriage equality, on the other hand, undoubtedly embodies the values of which we as Americans may be most proud. We are a nation founded on the proposition that all people have an inalienable right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In 1967, in its decision in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court recognized that the freedom to marry the consenting partner of one's choice was an essential and indispensable precondition of this basic American promise, and must be federally protected. They thus struck down the so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws that banned "interracial" marriage in many states.
What was true in the case of the Lovings is true of same-sex couples today. A couple whose bond is not sanctioned by the state are deprived of 1,138 protections and benefits that would flow to them under federal law. They are thus materially hindered in their enjoyment of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and are relegated to the status of second-class citizens. This is more than a matter of principle, but a cause of personal suffering for millions of Americans on a daily basis. Such a state of apartheid is unworthy of a Republic founded upon our great American values, and must not stand.
Unfortunately many share your prejudices, Congressman, and have been very effective in promoting them in the political arena. For that reason I and others propose that the U.S. constitution be amended to read, "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a reform is the surest and most durable means to securing and protecting the rights of all Americans.
You may disagree with the principles underlying this change, but please understand that millions will fight tirelessly until the practical goal of marriage equality is achieved. Perhaps on reflection you will see the error of your current stance. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope that this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Florida (II) Senator Mel Martinez
Today I continue with Senator Mel Martinez, Republican, junior senator from the state of Florida:
Dear Senator Martinez,
I write in protest of your stance against marriage equality. In a debate against your electoral opponent on October 24, 2004, you declared: "I believe a marriage should be only between one man and one woman and I will vote for the constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and woman." You made your support of this constitutional ban a fundamental plank of your election campaign, sponsoring television advertisements calling upon other Senators to join you in such an assault on the rights of your fellow citizens.
You are certainly not alone in your beliefs concerning marriage, but that is no test of whether such beliefs are a fair basis for civil law. Many Jews, for example, quite understandably believe that interfaith marriage is wrong. No one would seriously contemplate emending the law to accommodate such beliefs, however, as to do so would deprive interfaith couples of their basic freedom to love whom they choose. On the same principle, it is grossly unfair to prevent consenting adults from sharing property and work benefits, holding joint guardianship of children, visiting one-another in hospital, or enjoying any of the 1,138 protections and benefits of marriage simply because you and others are troubled by the idea of same-sex love. Marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is a basic and inalienable right. Denying recognition of that right to same-sex couples relegates all LGBT Americans to second-class citizenship, a form of mass discrimination that is totally out of step with the founding principles of our democracy.
Unfortunately, many share your prejudices and have been very active in promoting them on the political scene, militating to not only preserve the current state of marital apartheid in our country but to broaden and deepen its reach. For this reason I and others have proposed that the U.S. constitution should be amended to read, "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a reform would be the surest and most durable means to secure and defend the rights of all Americans.
In time and upon reflection perhaps you will see the error of your current stance. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Senator Martinez,
I write in protest of your stance against marriage equality. In a debate against your electoral opponent on October 24, 2004, you declared: "I believe a marriage should be only between one man and one woman and I will vote for the constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and woman." You made your support of this constitutional ban a fundamental plank of your election campaign, sponsoring television advertisements calling upon other Senators to join you in such an assault on the rights of your fellow citizens.
You are certainly not alone in your beliefs concerning marriage, but that is no test of whether such beliefs are a fair basis for civil law. Many Jews, for example, quite understandably believe that interfaith marriage is wrong. No one would seriously contemplate emending the law to accommodate such beliefs, however, as to do so would deprive interfaith couples of their basic freedom to love whom they choose. On the same principle, it is grossly unfair to prevent consenting adults from sharing property and work benefits, holding joint guardianship of children, visiting one-another in hospital, or enjoying any of the 1,138 protections and benefits of marriage simply because you and others are troubled by the idea of same-sex love. Marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is a basic and inalienable right. Denying recognition of that right to same-sex couples relegates all LGBT Americans to second-class citizenship, a form of mass discrimination that is totally out of step with the founding principles of our democracy.
Unfortunately, many share your prejudices and have been very active in promoting them on the political scene, militating to not only preserve the current state of marital apartheid in our country but to broaden and deepen its reach. For this reason I and others have proposed that the U.S. constitution should be amended to read, "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a reform would be the surest and most durable means to secure and defend the rights of all Americans.
In time and upon reflection perhaps you will see the error of your current stance. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Monday, April 20, 2009
Florida (I) Senator Bill Nelson
Today I begin my correspondence with Florida's Congressional delegation with Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat, senior senator from that state:
Dear Senator Nelson,
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. Though you have supported the establishment of same-sex "civil unions" and voted against the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment," you have opposed the establishment of full marriage equality, asserting that marriage should only be "between a man and a woman." I hope you may be persuaded to reconsider your views on this issue.
In response to a campaign ad run by Senator Mel Martinez, in which he called upon you to support the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment," you stated: "throughout our history, the Constitution has always guaranteed civil rights, not taken them away." In so declaring you acknowledged the clear and compelling principle underlying marriage equality, Senator. Marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is a civil right, one that is not vulnerable to the will of the majority and should be federally protected. Acknowledging that two people of the same gender may be married (in other words, that they may love, honor and cherish one-another in mutual fidelity) poses no threat to the institution of marriage itself or to society at large. Refusing to do so, however, causes real human suffering for millions of Americans on a daily basis and at a personal level. Being denied married status deprives a couple (according to the Government Accountability Office) of 1,138 benefits and protections enjoyed by married couples under federal law. Most unconscionable is the plight of children in the care of same-sex guardians, who are arbitrarily robbed of the protections and security that the children of heterosexual couples may take for granted.
The current state of discrimination and injustice cannot stand. What then, should be done? At this moment the clash of progressive values with entrenched prejudice has produced an ever-more byzantine patchwork of conflicting conventions and legalities. This is neither fair to the citizens of America nor good for the institution of marriage: one of the enduring strengths of the marital bond has been its universal portability from state to state (indeed, from nation to nation). The surest and most durable redress would be to amend the U.S. constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law. I hope that you will see the wisdom and justice of this measure and lend it your voice in the Senate. In any case I trust you to act conscientiously and thank you for your attention on this matter. I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Senator Nelson,
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. Though you have supported the establishment of same-sex "civil unions" and voted against the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment," you have opposed the establishment of full marriage equality, asserting that marriage should only be "between a man and a woman." I hope you may be persuaded to reconsider your views on this issue.
In response to a campaign ad run by Senator Mel Martinez, in which he called upon you to support the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment," you stated: "throughout our history, the Constitution has always guaranteed civil rights, not taken them away." In so declaring you acknowledged the clear and compelling principle underlying marriage equality, Senator. Marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is a civil right, one that is not vulnerable to the will of the majority and should be federally protected. Acknowledging that two people of the same gender may be married (in other words, that they may love, honor and cherish one-another in mutual fidelity) poses no threat to the institution of marriage itself or to society at large. Refusing to do so, however, causes real human suffering for millions of Americans on a daily basis and at a personal level. Being denied married status deprives a couple (according to the Government Accountability Office) of 1,138 benefits and protections enjoyed by married couples under federal law. Most unconscionable is the plight of children in the care of same-sex guardians, who are arbitrarily robbed of the protections and security that the children of heterosexual couples may take for granted.
The current state of discrimination and injustice cannot stand. What then, should be done? At this moment the clash of progressive values with entrenched prejudice has produced an ever-more byzantine patchwork of conflicting conventions and legalities. This is neither fair to the citizens of America nor good for the institution of marriage: one of the enduring strengths of the marital bond has been its universal portability from state to state (indeed, from nation to nation). The surest and most durable redress would be to amend the U.S. constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law. I hope that you will see the wisdom and justice of this measure and lend it your voice in the Senate. In any case I trust you to act conscientiously and thank you for your attention on this matter. I hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Delaware (III) Congressman Mike Castle
Today I conclude my correspondence with Delaware's Congressional delegation with Congressman Mike Castle, Republican, representative-at-large for the state:
Dear Congressman Castle,
I write asking you to reconsider your views on marriage equality. In the past you have crossed party lines to vote against the proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and have earned positive ratings of above 60% from the Human Rights Campaign for the last two Congresses. Your record thus demonstrates that you are not wholly unsympathetic to the rights of LGBT citizens. You have, however, expressed personal opposition to full marriage equality on the state level. I hope that you may be persuaded to relinquish that opposition.
Though many questions pertaining to marriage (the legal age of consent, conventions pertaining to common law marriage and divorce, etc.) do not fall within the proper purview of the federal government, marriage equality is not a principle that is amenable to negotiation on a state by state basis. Marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is so central to the enjoyment of "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and such a fundamental right, that the question of who may enter the marriage bond must be determined ecumenically for all citizens at the federal level. This was the view of the Supreme Court in 1967 when they struck down states' so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws in their ruling in Loving v. Virginia.
If you allow that some states may decide to institute marriage equality for same-sex couples, then logic compels you to recognize that all states must do so. How can it possibly be fair that a couple may enjoy the 1,138 benefits and protections that flow from marriage in some parts of the Union but not in others? Such a state of affair is neither good for the welfare of our citizens or the integrity of marriage itself as an institution.
The surest way to redress the current problem is to amend the U.S. constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a Marriage Equality Amendment would no doubt greatly anger many of your Republican co-partisans, but your long history of independent leadership suggests that you might be persuaded of its necessity. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law. I hope that you will lend this effort your considerable authority. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Castle,
I write asking you to reconsider your views on marriage equality. In the past you have crossed party lines to vote against the proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and have earned positive ratings of above 60% from the Human Rights Campaign for the last two Congresses. Your record thus demonstrates that you are not wholly unsympathetic to the rights of LGBT citizens. You have, however, expressed personal opposition to full marriage equality on the state level. I hope that you may be persuaded to relinquish that opposition.
Though many questions pertaining to marriage (the legal age of consent, conventions pertaining to common law marriage and divorce, etc.) do not fall within the proper purview of the federal government, marriage equality is not a principle that is amenable to negotiation on a state by state basis. Marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is so central to the enjoyment of "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and such a fundamental right, that the question of who may enter the marriage bond must be determined ecumenically for all citizens at the federal level. This was the view of the Supreme Court in 1967 when they struck down states' so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws in their ruling in Loving v. Virginia.
If you allow that some states may decide to institute marriage equality for same-sex couples, then logic compels you to recognize that all states must do so. How can it possibly be fair that a couple may enjoy the 1,138 benefits and protections that flow from marriage in some parts of the Union but not in others? Such a state of affair is neither good for the welfare of our citizens or the integrity of marriage itself as an institution.
The surest way to redress the current problem is to amend the U.S. constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a Marriage Equality Amendment would no doubt greatly anger many of your Republican co-partisans, but your long history of independent leadership suggests that you might be persuaded of its necessity. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law. I hope that you will lend this effort your considerable authority. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Delaware (II) Senator Ted Kaufman
Today I continue with Senator Ted Kaufman, Democrat, junior senator from the state of Delaware:
Dear Senator Kaufman,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." This reform is the surest and most durable way to end the discrimination that millions of Americans must currently endure.
Your predecessor and former employer, Vice President Biden, was on record as supporting civil unions for same-sex couples even as he opposed full marriage equality. In an interview on "Meet the Press" in 2007 , when asked if "gay marriage" was inevitable, he responded in these terms:
"Well, I think it probably is because social mores change. But I don’t think the government can dictate the definition of marriage to religious institutions. But government does have an obligation to guarantee that every individual is free of discrimination. And there’s a distinction. I think government should not be able to dictate to religions the definition of marriage, but on a civil side, government has the obligation to strip away every vestige of discrimination as to what individuals are able to do in terms of their personal conduct."
This answer compels one to make two observations. The first is that if you, like Vice-President Biden, feel that the "government does have an obligation to guarantee that every individual is free of discrimination," then the only route to that goal is full, federal marriage equality. Experience demonstrates that the full range of 1,138 benefits and protections which flow to couples from married status under federal law can not be secured to citizens through the establishment of a "second-track" institution like civil unions. A couple that is not deemed married by law does not enjoy all the legal safeguards of marriage, and is therefore discriminated against in myriad ways large and small.
Secondly, Vice-President Biden's concern that "governments should not be able to dictate to religions the definition of marriage" has no bearing on the issue of civil marriage equality. Civil and relgious marriage are separate institutions that circumstantially share a common name. There will never be perfect agreement between what the government deems "marriage" and the doctrinal statutes of any particular religious group. This has not derailed the parallel operation of civil and religious marriage in the past, and will not do so once rights of marriage equality have been fully recognized for all Americans. There are many types of marriage now legal which particular denominations will not sanction, none of which have caused a crisis in church-state relations or an abridgment of religious liberties. For example, every year thousands of interfaith couples are married in ceremonies that many orthodox rabbis refuse to perform, yet none of the synagogues those rabbis serve have suffered political consequences. Moreover, right now same-sex marriages are being sanctified in progressive churches and synagogues across the country despite lacking civil legal status, so that in refusing to recognize marriage equality rights the government is effectively doing precisely what Vice-President Biden wished to avoid.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment. I hope that you will see the justice of this cause and lend it your support. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter and congratulate you on your new office.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Senator Kaufman,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." This reform is the surest and most durable way to end the discrimination that millions of Americans must currently endure.
Your predecessor and former employer, Vice President Biden, was on record as supporting civil unions for same-sex couples even as he opposed full marriage equality. In an interview on "Meet the Press" in 2007 , when asked if "gay marriage" was inevitable, he responded in these terms:
"Well, I think it probably is because social mores change. But I don’t think the government can dictate the definition of marriage to religious institutions. But government does have an obligation to guarantee that every individual is free of discrimination. And there’s a distinction. I think government should not be able to dictate to religions the definition of marriage, but on a civil side, government has the obligation to strip away every vestige of discrimination as to what individuals are able to do in terms of their personal conduct."
This answer compels one to make two observations. The first is that if you, like Vice-President Biden, feel that the "government does have an obligation to guarantee that every individual is free of discrimination," then the only route to that goal is full, federal marriage equality. Experience demonstrates that the full range of 1,138 benefits and protections which flow to couples from married status under federal law can not be secured to citizens through the establishment of a "second-track" institution like civil unions. A couple that is not deemed married by law does not enjoy all the legal safeguards of marriage, and is therefore discriminated against in myriad ways large and small.
Secondly, Vice-President Biden's concern that "governments should not be able to dictate to religions the definition of marriage" has no bearing on the issue of civil marriage equality. Civil and relgious marriage are separate institutions that circumstantially share a common name. There will never be perfect agreement between what the government deems "marriage" and the doctrinal statutes of any particular religious group. This has not derailed the parallel operation of civil and religious marriage in the past, and will not do so once rights of marriage equality have been fully recognized for all Americans. There are many types of marriage now legal which particular denominations will not sanction, none of which have caused a crisis in church-state relations or an abridgment of religious liberties. For example, every year thousands of interfaith couples are married in ceremonies that many orthodox rabbis refuse to perform, yet none of the synagogues those rabbis serve have suffered political consequences. Moreover, right now same-sex marriages are being sanctified in progressive churches and synagogues across the country despite lacking civil legal status, so that in refusing to recognize marriage equality rights the government is effectively doing precisely what Vice-President Biden wished to avoid.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment. I hope that you will see the justice of this cause and lend it your support. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter and congratulate you on your new office.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Friday, April 17, 2009
Delaware (I) Senator Thomas Carper
Today I begin my correspondence with Delaware's Congressional delegation with Senator Thomas Carper, Democrat, senior senator from that state:
Dear Senator Carper,
I write as a concerned citizen to urge you to reconsider your views on marriage equality. Though your record shows you sympathetic to the rights of LGBT citizens (you have received consistent positive ratings from the Human Rights Campaign for the past three congresses), you have taken a deeply ambivalent stance on the issue of marriage equality. In voting against the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have effected a national ban on same-sex marriage, you issued the following statement:
"I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. When I was governor of Delaware, I signed legislation defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Forty-four other states besides Delaware have similar laws. When President Clinton was in office, he also signed a law that would prohibit states from having to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
This is why, contrary to what you claim in the above statement, it has not been true that "states have controlled and granted marriage rights" for the past 200 years. If that were so, in 1968 it would still have been a crime for two people deemed to be of different race to marry in much of the country, among which would have been included the parents of our current President, Barack Obama. In 1967 the Supreme Court struck down so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws on the principle that marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is an inalienable right and should be federally protected. On that same principle marriage equality must be expanded to include same-sex couples today.
Though there is already constitutional basis for the establishment of national marriage equality in the 14th Amendment's promise of "equal protection of the law," widespread prejudice has blocked millions of Americans from the enjoyment of their natural rights. For this reason I and others propose that the federal constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law. I hope that on reflection you will see the justice of this reform and lend it your support. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Senator Carper,
I write as a concerned citizen to urge you to reconsider your views on marriage equality. Though your record shows you sympathetic to the rights of LGBT citizens (you have received consistent positive ratings from the Human Rights Campaign for the past three congresses), you have taken a deeply ambivalent stance on the issue of marriage equality. In voting against the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have effected a national ban on same-sex marriage, you issued the following statement:
"I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. When I was governor of Delaware, I signed legislation defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Forty-four other states besides Delaware have similar laws. When President Clinton was in office, he also signed a law that would prohibit states from having to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
"Those laws are working. No state has been forced to recognize gay marriages performed in Massachusetts or gay civil unions performed in other states. As such, I’m not convinced that we need to take the extraordinary step of amending the Constitution to define marriage. Since the Bill of Rights was approved in 1791, more than 10,000 Constitutional amendments have been considered, but only 17 have been approved. Amending that sacred document is something we should do only when it's absolutely necessary and when the need is absolutely clear. For the past 200 years, states have controlled and granted marriage rights. States have been the ones to determine who can marry and at what age, as well as the rules of divorce, alimony and child support. This amendment, however, would usurp that tradition. We should stick with what has worked and let states continue to define marriage as they see fit."
There are several logical problems posed by the views you expressed here, Senator. You profess to believe that "marriage is between a man and a woman," and in this view you are certainly not alone. To my mind this view is misguided, but the question of which of us is right is not really germane to the issue as a matter of state. What you must ask yourself as a legislator is whether your beliefs may serve as a fair and just basis for the law, and to this question the answer is emphatically "no." Can it possibly be fair that two consenting adults who profess to love, honor, and respect one-another be denied 1,138 legal protections and benefits simply to accommodate your beliefs? Surely not.This is why, contrary to what you claim in the above statement, it has not been true that "states have controlled and granted marriage rights" for the past 200 years. If that were so, in 1968 it would still have been a crime for two people deemed to be of different race to marry in much of the country, among which would have been included the parents of our current President, Barack Obama. In 1967 the Supreme Court struck down so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws on the principle that marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is an inalienable right and should be federally protected. On that same principle marriage equality must be expanded to include same-sex couples today.
Though there is already constitutional basis for the establishment of national marriage equality in the 14th Amendment's promise of "equal protection of the law," widespread prejudice has blocked millions of Americans from the enjoyment of their natural rights. For this reason I and others propose that the federal constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law. I hope that on reflection you will see the justice of this reform and lend it your support. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Connecticut (VII) Congressman Chris Murphy
Today I conclude my correspondence with Connecticut's Congressional delegation with Congressman Chris Murphy, Democrat, representative of Connecticut's 5th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Murphy,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the U.S. constitution that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the nation. The Government Accountability Office lists 1,138 discrete benefits and protections that flow to a couple from married status under federal law. Marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is thus an inalienable right, one promised to all by the 14th Amendment's injunction that every citizen receive "equal protection of the law." Unfortunately, widespread bigotry and discrimination have alienated millions of Americans from the enjoyment of their natural rights. To redress this injustice the federal constitution should be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."
Though only in your second term, your record shows you sympathetic to the rights of LGBT citizens. The fight for a Marriage Equality Amendment would obviously be difficult and fraught with political risk, but the most recent election has demonstrated that we can not know in what direction the nation is ready to move until someone has the courage to lead it there. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking sponsorship for this change to our basic law. Will you lend this reform your advocacy in the House of Representatives, Congressman? In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope that this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Murphy,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the U.S. constitution that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the nation. The Government Accountability Office lists 1,138 discrete benefits and protections that flow to a couple from married status under federal law. Marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is thus an inalienable right, one promised to all by the 14th Amendment's injunction that every citizen receive "equal protection of the law." Unfortunately, widespread bigotry and discrimination have alienated millions of Americans from the enjoyment of their natural rights. To redress this injustice the federal constitution should be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."
Though only in your second term, your record shows you sympathetic to the rights of LGBT citizens. The fight for a Marriage Equality Amendment would obviously be difficult and fraught with political risk, but the most recent election has demonstrated that we can not know in what direction the nation is ready to move until someone has the courage to lead it there. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking sponsorship for this change to our basic law. Will you lend this reform your advocacy in the House of Representatives, Congressman? In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope that this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Connecticut (VI) Congressman Jim Himes
Today I continue with Congressman Jim Himes, Democrat, representative of Connecticut's 4th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Himes,
I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." You expressed full support for marriage equality in your campaign for Congress. Your campaign website contains the following policy statement:
"Jim Himes supports marriage equality. Same-sex couples should have the same choices that other couples have, including whether or not to marry, and they should have access to the benefits and responsibilities of legally recognized relationships-including health insurance, unemployment compensation, taxes, immigration status, inheritance, family leave, and hospital visitation.
In recent years, there have been many misguided efforts by the federal government to legislate in this area. Jim opposes efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. He also supports the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and would oppose any effort to strip the courts of jurisdiction to hear civil rights challenges to discriminatory laws."
Such a forthright declaration of principle is both admirably progressive and politically courageous. The "misguided efforts" you note have unfortunately not been confined to Congress. Campaigns to block or roll back the establishment of marriage equality, both public and private, have accelerated and intensified across the nation. The passage of Proposition 8 in California and the release of the inflammatory "Gathering Storm" ad are only the most extreme example of the broad assault on Americans' rights being waged by those dedicated to discrimination and exclusion. These unjust and injurious attacks require a vigorous response, thus I and others propose that the federal constitution be amended to unequivocally and durably protect American citizens from being deprived of the right to marry the consenting partners of their choice.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law. My letters are collected at a weblog: http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/. As a newly elected member of Congress you will no doubt be cautious in choosing those causes to which you lend your public advocacy. The fight for a Marriage Equality Amendment will no doubt be met with vehement resistance and could prove politically perilous. This expansion of the nation's founding mandate for all citizens' rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" represents the next natural step in the historical development of our Republic, however. I hope that you will be persuaded to lend this campaign your voice, and will advocate on behalf of a Marriage Equality Amendment among your colleagues in the House. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter, and wish you every success in your new office.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Himes,
I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." You expressed full support for marriage equality in your campaign for Congress. Your campaign website contains the following policy statement:
"Jim Himes supports marriage equality. Same-sex couples should have the same choices that other couples have, including whether or not to marry, and they should have access to the benefits and responsibilities of legally recognized relationships-including health insurance, unemployment compensation, taxes, immigration status, inheritance, family leave, and hospital visitation.
In recent years, there have been many misguided efforts by the federal government to legislate in this area. Jim opposes efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. He also supports the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and would oppose any effort to strip the courts of jurisdiction to hear civil rights challenges to discriminatory laws."
Such a forthright declaration of principle is both admirably progressive and politically courageous. The "misguided efforts" you note have unfortunately not been confined to Congress. Campaigns to block or roll back the establishment of marriage equality, both public and private, have accelerated and intensified across the nation. The passage of Proposition 8 in California and the release of the inflammatory "Gathering Storm" ad are only the most extreme example of the broad assault on Americans' rights being waged by those dedicated to discrimination and exclusion. These unjust and injurious attacks require a vigorous response, thus I and others propose that the federal constitution be amended to unequivocally and durably protect American citizens from being deprived of the right to marry the consenting partners of their choice.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law. My letters are collected at a weblog: http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/. As a newly elected member of Congress you will no doubt be cautious in choosing those causes to which you lend your public advocacy. The fight for a Marriage Equality Amendment will no doubt be met with vehement resistance and could prove politically perilous. This expansion of the nation's founding mandate for all citizens' rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" represents the next natural step in the historical development of our Republic, however. I hope that you will be persuaded to lend this campaign your voice, and will advocate on behalf of a Marriage Equality Amendment among your colleagues in the House. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter, and wish you every success in your new office.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Monday, April 13, 2009
Connecticut (V) Congresswoman Rosa L. Delauro
Today I continue with Congresswoman Rosa L. Delauro, Democrat, representative of Connecticut's 3rd Congressional District:
Dear Congresswoman Delauro,
I write seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Though recent events in Iowa and Vermont have moved the cause of marriage equality forward in important ways, discriminatory forces around the country have effectively blocked or rolled back progress for millions of Americans. Such a focused assault on citizens' rights demands a robust response, thus I and others propose that the federal constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."
As a member of Congress since 1981, you have been a long-term champion of civil rights in the House, consistently earning high marks from the ACLU, the NAACP, and the Human Rights Campaign. Moreover, as a devout Catholic who has thought and spoken with sensitivity and erudition about the complexity of reconciling faith and political engagement, you well understand the destructive ways in which the politicization of religion has distorted the discourse on this issue. In a speech delivered to the Pew Forum in 2006, you reaffirmed President Kennedy's declaration of principle: "I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Jewish where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches, or any other ecclesiastical source." This is the philosophy that should guide the expression of faith in our national politics, and the reason why the morality of marriage equality should be assessed first and foremost as a question of legal doctrine and civil rights, unclouded by the religious views of any particular confessional group.
Sponsorship of a Marriage Equality Amendment would be in keeping with the record of articulate, thoughtful, and courageous leadership that you have established in your more than two decades of service. I hope that you will see the wisdom of this campaign and lend it your voice. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congresswoman Delauro,
I write seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Though recent events in Iowa and Vermont have moved the cause of marriage equality forward in important ways, discriminatory forces around the country have effectively blocked or rolled back progress for millions of Americans. Such a focused assault on citizens' rights demands a robust response, thus I and others propose that the federal constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."
As a member of Congress since 1981, you have been a long-term champion of civil rights in the House, consistently earning high marks from the ACLU, the NAACP, and the Human Rights Campaign. Moreover, as a devout Catholic who has thought and spoken with sensitivity and erudition about the complexity of reconciling faith and political engagement, you well understand the destructive ways in which the politicization of religion has distorted the discourse on this issue. In a speech delivered to the Pew Forum in 2006, you reaffirmed President Kennedy's declaration of principle: "I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Jewish where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches, or any other ecclesiastical source." This is the philosophy that should guide the expression of faith in our national politics, and the reason why the morality of marriage equality should be assessed first and foremost as a question of legal doctrine and civil rights, unclouded by the religious views of any particular confessional group.
Sponsorship of a Marriage Equality Amendment would be in keeping with the record of articulate, thoughtful, and courageous leadership that you have established in your more than two decades of service. I hope that you will see the wisdom of this campaign and lend it your voice. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Connecticut (IV) Congressman Joe Courtney
Today I continue with Congressman Joe Courtney, Democrat, representative of Connecticut's 2nd Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Courtney,
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. Across the U.S. the tide of marriage equality has been rising. The recent court decision in Iowa and the courageous action of the Vermont legislature demonstrate that public awareness has shifted. A new generation of Americans understand that marriage equality is not a religious issue but a question of civil rights. At stake is whether all Americans will enjoy the "equal protection of the law," or whether a system of apartheid will persist in which millions are relegated to second-class citizenship.
Even so, those who support injustice and discrimination remain active, vocal, and exceedingly well-funded. The narrow passage of "Proposition 8" in California and the fear-mongering "Gathering Storm" ad campaign by the so-called "National Organization for Marriage" evince the determination of those who not only oppose the recognition of marriage equality rights moving forward, but would turn back the clock and restore America's illiberal past. Such a coordinated assault upon the rights of American citizens must be met with a robust response. For this reason I and others propose that the federal constitution be amended to read, "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."
The fight for such a change to our basic law would obviously be long, difficult, and fraught with political peril. As a recently elected representative you no doubt will be cautious in choosing the issues to which you choose to lend your public advocacy. I recommend this campaign to you as not only right and just, but one which could effect real and positive change for millions of Americans in the long term. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment. Please consider advocating for this reform among your colleagues in the House. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Courtney,
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. Across the U.S. the tide of marriage equality has been rising. The recent court decision in Iowa and the courageous action of the Vermont legislature demonstrate that public awareness has shifted. A new generation of Americans understand that marriage equality is not a religious issue but a question of civil rights. At stake is whether all Americans will enjoy the "equal protection of the law," or whether a system of apartheid will persist in which millions are relegated to second-class citizenship.
Even so, those who support injustice and discrimination remain active, vocal, and exceedingly well-funded. The narrow passage of "Proposition 8" in California and the fear-mongering "Gathering Storm" ad campaign by the so-called "National Organization for Marriage" evince the determination of those who not only oppose the recognition of marriage equality rights moving forward, but would turn back the clock and restore America's illiberal past. Such a coordinated assault upon the rights of American citizens must be met with a robust response. For this reason I and others propose that the federal constitution be amended to read, "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."
The fight for such a change to our basic law would obviously be long, difficult, and fraught with political peril. As a recently elected representative you no doubt will be cautious in choosing the issues to which you choose to lend your public advocacy. I recommend this campaign to you as not only right and just, but one which could effect real and positive change for millions of Americans in the long term. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment. Please consider advocating for this reform among your colleagues in the House. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Connecticut (III) Congressman John B. Larson
Today I continue with Congressman John B. Larson, Democrat, representative of Connecticut's 1st Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Larson,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Your home state was among the first to realize that affording all citizens "equal protection of the law" required that full marriage equality must be enjoyed by all couples regardless of gender. Though this was an inspirational victory, it has been attended by a distressing discriminatory backlash. Across the nation travesties like Proposition 8 in California have set out to systematically strip citizens of their rights. Such an assault must be met with an aggressive response, thus I and others are advocating that the federal constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation.
Your record shows you sympathetic to the cause of marriage equality. You have earned a perfect positive rating from the Human Rights Campaign for each of the last three Congresses, and have voted consistently against the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have nationally banned same-sex marriage. The fight for a Marriage Equality Amendment would obviously be long and fraught with political peril. It is the best means, however, to counteract the reprehensible tactics of those who would spread injustice and discrimination.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking a sponsor for this measure. Would you take up its cause, Congressman? I hope that you will see the justness of this reform and lend it your support among your colleagues in the House. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Larson,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Your home state was among the first to realize that affording all citizens "equal protection of the law" required that full marriage equality must be enjoyed by all couples regardless of gender. Though this was an inspirational victory, it has been attended by a distressing discriminatory backlash. Across the nation travesties like Proposition 8 in California have set out to systematically strip citizens of their rights. Such an assault must be met with an aggressive response, thus I and others are advocating that the federal constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation.
Your record shows you sympathetic to the cause of marriage equality. You have earned a perfect positive rating from the Human Rights Campaign for each of the last three Congresses, and have voted consistently against the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have nationally banned same-sex marriage. The fight for a Marriage Equality Amendment would obviously be long and fraught with political peril. It is the best means, however, to counteract the reprehensible tactics of those who would spread injustice and discrimination.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking a sponsor for this measure. Would you take up its cause, Congressman? I hope that you will see the justness of this reform and lend it your support among your colleagues in the House. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Connecticut (II) Senator Joseph Lieberman
Today I continue with Senator Joseph Lieberman, the junior senator from Connecticut:
Dear Senator Lieberman,
I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment 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 both safeguarding the rights of our citizens and defending the institution of marriage itself.
In the past you have taken a "centrist" position on the issue of marriage equality. On the one-hand you have opposed the legalization of same-sex marriage, on the other you have opposed measures like the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment" that would have comprehensively denied marriage rights to same-sex couples. In registering your opposition to that amendment, you stated:
"Gay couples exist. They also enjoy the rights promised in the Declaration that are the endowments of our Creator. They are not going away. To say that these couples and their children should be denied any legal protections – or relieved of all legal responsibilities – would be unfair.
Dear Senator Lieberman,
I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment 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 both safeguarding the rights of our citizens and defending the institution of marriage itself.
In the past you have taken a "centrist" position on the issue of marriage equality. On the one-hand you have opposed the legalization of same-sex marriage, on the other you have opposed measures like the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment" that would have comprehensively denied marriage rights to same-sex couples. In registering your opposition to that amendment, you stated:
"Gay couples exist. They also enjoy the rights promised in the Declaration that are the endowments of our Creator. They are not going away. To say that these couples and their children should be denied any legal protections – or relieved of all legal responsibilities – would be unfair.
I presume that most all of us would agree, for example, that someone should not be excluded from his dying life partner’s hospital room on the ground that their decades-long relationship had no legal status. Probably many of us who have thought about it would not want to see someone who raised her partner’s biological child as her own and provided the family’s principal means of support be able to simply walk away without any financial obligations to the child if the couple ends their relationship.
I do not profess to know now exactly how and in what form these rights and responsibilities should be extended to gay couples. Different States are already providing different answers to those difficult questions. But I do know that this is a discussion and a debate that will and should continue."
The basic principles of fairness you outlined here make the passage of a Marriage Equality Amendment imperative, Senator. Experience shows that creating a "second track" system of civil unions will not guarantee same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities that are inherently their due. Marriage only works to protect couples' ties and obligations to one-another because it is universally recognized as the closest of kinship relationships, one that trumps natal family bonds because it is freely chosen. Unless and until our institutions fully recognize the binding force of the family ties same-sex partners form with one-another their unions will not afford them "equal protection of the law," thus consigning them to second-class citizenship. Such a condition of apartheid rebels against the founding spirit and basic values of our Republic. This was the logic that drove the Vermont legislature to so wisely convert from a system of civil unions to full marriage equality.
Moreover, the current state of our laws does injury to the institution of marriage itself. Historically, marriage has been among the most stable and powerful foundations of our civil society because it was universally portable and binding. The patchwork of conflicting legalities that has emerged as individual states negotiate the question of marriage equality has led to an unprecedented state of affairs. It is now possible for the marital status of a couple to alter by degrees as they travel from state to state. Such a condition was rare even for interracial couples during the days of so-called "anti-miscegenation laws," but is becoming ever more frequent in this new stage of the struggle for marriage equality. Until a uniform national policy is adopted, as was done in the case of Loving v. Virginia, the marital bond will be subjected to progressive fragmentation.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment. My letters are being collected at a weblog: http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/. Your career demonstrates that you are a person of principle, one who will follow his own conscience even against the consensus of his party or the interests of his own political career. I hope that on searching your conscience you will recognize the justness of this cause and lend it your considerable authority. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Connecticut (I) Senator Chris Dodd
Today I begin corresponding with Connecticut's Congressional delegation with Senator Chris Dodd, senior senator from that state:
Dear Senator Dodd,
I write soliciting your support for a Marriage Equality amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Your record regarding marriage equality has been somewhat ambivalent, Senator. During your recent presidential campaign you spoke out in favor of "civil unions," noting that you would want some guarantees of your young daughters' rights should they grow up to be of a different sexual orientation from their parents. But you have consistently opposed full marriage equality for same-sex couples, casting a vote in favor of the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996.
Creating a separate institution for same-sex couples will not help your daughters or any of the millions of Americans that are arbitrarily and unjustly excluded from the marriage bond, however. As was proven during the Civil Rights Movement of the '50's and '60's and has been demonstrated by hard experience ever since, separate is never equal. The full range of protections and guarantees flowing from marriage (1, 138 of them under federal law, according to the Government Accountability Office) can never be engineered into a novel institution. Even if they were, the patchwork of divergent terms and conventions adopted by the individual states guarantees that "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships" will never possess the same portability and legal force of marriage, consigning all couples restricted to such arrangements to perpetual second-class citizenship. Is this what you would wish upon your daughters, Senator?
Marriage is among the most fundamental and definitive social acts a citizen may undertake; it is the one kinship relationship that we may freely choose. Denial of the right to marry the consenting partner of one's choice thus amounts to nothing less than an assault upon an individual's capacity for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In casting your vote against the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" you noted that though there have been over 11,000 proposed amendments to our constitution, only 27 have been adopted. This, you observed, was because "our Nation's constitutional history clearly demonstrates that change to our Constitution is appropriate on only the rarest occasions--specifically, to correct problems in the government structure or to expand the category of individual rights."
The present need for full marriage equality is one of those "rarest occasions" on which Constitutional reform is necessary. Not only are millions of Americans systematically being denied their rights, but well-funded and highly energized groups are mobilized to deepen and expand the conditions of discrimination that currently prevail throughout most of the U.S. Aggressive action is needed if a fair and just society is ever to be achieved.
In closing I turn your own illustrative example upon you, Senator. If one of your two daughters does grow up to have a different sexual orientation, do you trust that the status quo would safeguard her dignity and afford her a fair and equal chance for happiness? If not, what type of change would give you peace of mind?
With this question in view, 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: http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/. I hope that you will be convinced of the justness and urgency of this campaign and will lend it your considerable authority. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter and for your service to our Nation, and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Senator Dodd,
I write soliciting your support for a Marriage Equality amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Your record regarding marriage equality has been somewhat ambivalent, Senator. During your recent presidential campaign you spoke out in favor of "civil unions," noting that you would want some guarantees of your young daughters' rights should they grow up to be of a different sexual orientation from their parents. But you have consistently opposed full marriage equality for same-sex couples, casting a vote in favor of the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996.
Creating a separate institution for same-sex couples will not help your daughters or any of the millions of Americans that are arbitrarily and unjustly excluded from the marriage bond, however. As was proven during the Civil Rights Movement of the '50's and '60's and has been demonstrated by hard experience ever since, separate is never equal. The full range of protections and guarantees flowing from marriage (1, 138 of them under federal law, according to the Government Accountability Office) can never be engineered into a novel institution. Even if they were, the patchwork of divergent terms and conventions adopted by the individual states guarantees that "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships" will never possess the same portability and legal force of marriage, consigning all couples restricted to such arrangements to perpetual second-class citizenship. Is this what you would wish upon your daughters, Senator?
Marriage is among the most fundamental and definitive social acts a citizen may undertake; it is the one kinship relationship that we may freely choose. Denial of the right to marry the consenting partner of one's choice thus amounts to nothing less than an assault upon an individual's capacity for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In casting your vote against the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" you noted that though there have been over 11,000 proposed amendments to our constitution, only 27 have been adopted. This, you observed, was because "our Nation's constitutional history clearly demonstrates that change to our Constitution is appropriate on only the rarest occasions--specifically, to correct problems in the government structure or to expand the category of individual rights."
The present need for full marriage equality is one of those "rarest occasions" on which Constitutional reform is necessary. Not only are millions of Americans systematically being denied their rights, but well-funded and highly energized groups are mobilized to deepen and expand the conditions of discrimination that currently prevail throughout most of the U.S. Aggressive action is needed if a fair and just society is ever to be achieved.
In closing I turn your own illustrative example upon you, Senator. If one of your two daughters does grow up to have a different sexual orientation, do you trust that the status quo would safeguard her dignity and afford her a fair and equal chance for happiness? If not, what type of change would give you peace of mind?
With this question in view, 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: http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/. I hope that you will be convinced of the justness and urgency of this campaign and will lend it your considerable authority. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter and for your service to our Nation, and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Friday, April 3, 2009
Colorado (IX) Congressman Ed Perlmutter
Today I conclude my correspondence with Colorado's Congressional delegation with Congressman Ed Perlmutter, Democrat, representative of Colorado's 7th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Perlmutter,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples throughout the United States to marry. Your record shows you sympathetic to the cause of marriage equality. As a state senator in Colorado you supported legislation granting spousal rights to same-sex partners, declaring: "It is without reservation that I am proud to endorse the Colorado Domestic Partnership Benefits and Responsibilities Act. My friends in the GLBT community deserve the dignity to be able to make their own decisions concerning matters such as hospital visitation, inheritance, health care decisions, and end-of-life decision." Despite this stance, however, you have declared yourself opposed to the recognition of full marriage equality. It is my hope that you may be persuaded to change your position on this issue.
Experience shows that separate is never equal. Married status affords citizens 1,138 benefits and protections under federal law. That full range of safeguards cannot be engineered into a "second track" institution reserved for same-sex couples, nor should such a feat be attempted. Please do not be taken in by those who would confuse the religious and civil institutions of marriage. If you are genuinely concerned for the dignity of friends and compatriots in the GLBT community you should not desire them to be relegated to the status of second-class citizens. Forming kinship ties and building a family with the partner of one's choice is indispensible to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Marriage Equality is thus a right that cannot be denied to any citizen, even by a vote of the majority. If our Republic is to remain true to the principles of its founding mandate, the institution of civil marriage cannot arbitrarily exclude millions of Americans.
Until rights of marriage are federally protected for all citizens, the forces of intolerance and injustice will continue to spread discriminatory measures like Proposition 8 in California. The surest and most durable way to bring our laws into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens is to amend the U.S. Constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied on account of sex or sexual orientation." I have set out to write every member of Congress soliciting support for such a reform.
I hope that you see the justice of this campaign and will lend the amendment your support. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Perlmutter,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples throughout the United States to marry. Your record shows you sympathetic to the cause of marriage equality. As a state senator in Colorado you supported legislation granting spousal rights to same-sex partners, declaring: "It is without reservation that I am proud to endorse the Colorado Domestic Partnership Benefits and Responsibilities Act. My friends in the GLBT community deserve the dignity to be able to make their own decisions concerning matters such as hospital visitation, inheritance, health care decisions, and end-of-life decision." Despite this stance, however, you have declared yourself opposed to the recognition of full marriage equality. It is my hope that you may be persuaded to change your position on this issue.
Experience shows that separate is never equal. Married status affords citizens 1,138 benefits and protections under federal law. That full range of safeguards cannot be engineered into a "second track" institution reserved for same-sex couples, nor should such a feat be attempted. Please do not be taken in by those who would confuse the religious and civil institutions of marriage. If you are genuinely concerned for the dignity of friends and compatriots in the GLBT community you should not desire them to be relegated to the status of second-class citizens. Forming kinship ties and building a family with the partner of one's choice is indispensible to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Marriage Equality is thus a right that cannot be denied to any citizen, even by a vote of the majority. If our Republic is to remain true to the principles of its founding mandate, the institution of civil marriage cannot arbitrarily exclude millions of Americans.
Until rights of marriage are federally protected for all citizens, the forces of intolerance and injustice will continue to spread discriminatory measures like Proposition 8 in California. The surest and most durable way to bring our laws into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens is to amend the U.S. Constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied on account of sex or sexual orientation." I have set out to write every member of Congress soliciting support for such a reform.
I hope that you see the justice of this campaign and will lend the amendment your support. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Colorado (VIII) Congressman Mike Coffman
Today I continue with Congressman Mike Coffman, Republican, representative of Colorado's 6th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Coffman,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the nation. 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 newly elected Republican representative you will no doubt be under pressure from your party to support policies diametrically opposed to such a reform. Moreover, your campaign website records your promise to "promote pro-life and pro-family values," which is rhetoric that has typically been associated with the fight against marriage equality. You portrayed yourself as a Republican "maverick" who cherishes independence of thought, however. I thus appeal to that professed independence in urging you to cross party lines in defense of your fellow citizens' rights.
As a Marine Major, you led soldiers in combat in both the first Gulf War and Iraq. You thus know firsthand the nature of individual sacrifice in support of our common values. What value is more fundamental to the American spirit than the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" And what is more essential to those blessings than the freedom to form families with those we love and cherish? Marriage equality is at the heart of the creed for which you risked your life. As long as millions of Americans are arbitrarily and unjustly denied the 1,138 benefits and protections that flow to married couples under federal law, a state of apartheid will persist in our country that violates the founding spirit of our Republic for which you fought.
I hope that you may be persuaded of the justness and urgency of this campaign. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and your service to our country, and extend my best wishes for success in your new office.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Coffman,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the nation. 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 newly elected Republican representative you will no doubt be under pressure from your party to support policies diametrically opposed to such a reform. Moreover, your campaign website records your promise to "promote pro-life and pro-family values," which is rhetoric that has typically been associated with the fight against marriage equality. You portrayed yourself as a Republican "maverick" who cherishes independence of thought, however. I thus appeal to that professed independence in urging you to cross party lines in defense of your fellow citizens' rights.
As a Marine Major, you led soldiers in combat in both the first Gulf War and Iraq. You thus know firsthand the nature of individual sacrifice in support of our common values. What value is more fundamental to the American spirit than the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" And what is more essential to those blessings than the freedom to form families with those we love and cherish? Marriage equality is at the heart of the creed for which you risked your life. As long as millions of Americans are arbitrarily and unjustly denied the 1,138 benefits and protections that flow to married couples under federal law, a state of apartheid will persist in our country that violates the founding spirit of our Republic for which you fought.
I hope that you may be persuaded of the justness and urgency of this campaign. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and your service to our country, and extend my best wishes for success in your new office.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.png)
