Today I continue with Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Republican, representative of Florida's 18th Congressional District:
Dear Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a change to the federal constitution is the surest and most durable means to ending the unjust state of marital apartheid that currently prevails in most of the nation.
You have already shown outstanding leadership on the issue of marriage equality. You crossed party lines to vote against the so-called "Marriage Equality Amendment" and are currently the only Republican member of the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus. Last year you spoke out forcefully against Florida's "Amendment 2," declaring: "[A]lthough some proponents would like to phrase this debate as a gay versus straight issue, it is not that at all. We're talking about basic, fundamental rights that could be in jeopardy."
A Marriage Equality Amendment would obviously attract strident opposition. As your wise obsevation implies, however, the risks of such a campaign are dwarfed by what is at stake. Though a constitutional amendment might not be achieved for many years (if ever), in advocating it we declare what we know to be true, that the freedom to marry the consenting partner of one's choice is a basic and inalienable right, one that cannot be taken away from any citizen even by a vote of the majority.
Your unimpeachable credibility and proven integrity would greatly aid the campaign for a Marriage Equality Amendment. I and others would be most grateful if you would take up the cause of this reform in the House. In any case I thank you for your attention and your service, and hope that this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Florida (XIX) Congressman Kendrick Meek
Today I continue with Congressman Kendrick Meek, Democrat, representative of Florida's 17th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Meek,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. You have vigorously opposed measures aimed at stonewalling the advance of marriage equality. In 2004, during debates over the so-called "Marriage Protection Act," you offered the following remarks:
"Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice strong objections to H.R. 3313, the so-called Marriage Protection Act. This Act prohibits federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, from hearing cases on the constitutionality of provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act, including those relating to same-sex marriage licenses.
“This bill is phony, and it is a sham. The title of the bill itself is false advertising. While claiming to 'protect' marriage, all the bill does is strip federal courts of jurisdiction so that they cannot even consider whether laws on same-sex marriages are consistent with our United States Constitution. For over 200 years, our Constitution has defined our nation and protected our rights. It is a document of empowerment, not limitation. But the Republican leadership wants to put a fence around it and padlock the gate, and they are doing it for purely political purposes....Even for people who, like myself, believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, this measure does nothing to strengthen or protect those bonds....
“Today, the very nature of the typical American family is changing. Just as families headed by only one adult were rare only a few decades ago but are common today, non-traditional couples are now a widespread fact of American society. Nearly 200 Fortune-500 companies and numerous municipalities and organizations have already recognized this fact on their own and provide benefits to same sex couples. In addition, several municipalities have adopted local ordinances prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing and employment.
“It is simply unfair to deny law-abiding American citizens the protections of civil law with respect to taxation, inheritance, hospital visits and the like, and it is wrong to shackle the federal courts by preventing them from even considering court cases pertaining to these matters."
Even as you express your reservations about the marriage of same-sex couples, you eloquently exposit the imperative of marriage equality. As you note in closing, the current state of our laws is simply and clearly unfair. Whatever one's personal feelings might be about same-sex love, to deny two consenting adults the equal protection of the law (to be specific, the 1,138 benefits and protections of marital status under federal law) is blatantly discriminatory.
What then, is the remedy? Allowing federal courts to review the constitutionality of ordinances like the so-called "DOMA" is of course important, but not enough. Civil unions are a solution that has been tried but proven inadequate: as the civil rights struggle demonstrated, separate is never equal. In the face of militant agitation for discrimination (such as California's Proposition 8 and your own state's Amendment 2), robust measures are required in order to establish basic equity and fairness into the operation of our laws and institutions.
I and others thus propose that the federal constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a reform is the surest and most durable means to securing recognition of the rights of marriage equality for all Americans. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking sponsorship of this amendment or one like it in the House and Senate.
Will you consider taking up the cause of this reform, Congressman? Such a step would obviously entail political risks, but would be commensurate with your outspoken defense of basic fairness on the issue of marriage equality. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and your conscientious service, and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Meek,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. You have vigorously opposed measures aimed at stonewalling the advance of marriage equality. In 2004, during debates over the so-called "Marriage Protection Act," you offered the following remarks:
"Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice strong objections to H.R. 3313, the so-called Marriage Protection Act. This Act prohibits federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, from hearing cases on the constitutionality of provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act, including those relating to same-sex marriage licenses.
“This bill is phony, and it is a sham. The title of the bill itself is false advertising. While claiming to 'protect' marriage, all the bill does is strip federal courts of jurisdiction so that they cannot even consider whether laws on same-sex marriages are consistent with our United States Constitution. For over 200 years, our Constitution has defined our nation and protected our rights. It is a document of empowerment, not limitation. But the Republican leadership wants to put a fence around it and padlock the gate, and they are doing it for purely political purposes....Even for people who, like myself, believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, this measure does nothing to strengthen or protect those bonds....
“Today, the very nature of the typical American family is changing. Just as families headed by only one adult were rare only a few decades ago but are common today, non-traditional couples are now a widespread fact of American society. Nearly 200 Fortune-500 companies and numerous municipalities and organizations have already recognized this fact on their own and provide benefits to same sex couples. In addition, several municipalities have adopted local ordinances prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing and employment.
“It is simply unfair to deny law-abiding American citizens the protections of civil law with respect to taxation, inheritance, hospital visits and the like, and it is wrong to shackle the federal courts by preventing them from even considering court cases pertaining to these matters."
Even as you express your reservations about the marriage of same-sex couples, you eloquently exposit the imperative of marriage equality. As you note in closing, the current state of our laws is simply and clearly unfair. Whatever one's personal feelings might be about same-sex love, to deny two consenting adults the equal protection of the law (to be specific, the 1,138 benefits and protections of marital status under federal law) is blatantly discriminatory.
What then, is the remedy? Allowing federal courts to review the constitutionality of ordinances like the so-called "DOMA" is of course important, but not enough. Civil unions are a solution that has been tried but proven inadequate: as the civil rights struggle demonstrated, separate is never equal. In the face of militant agitation for discrimination (such as California's Proposition 8 and your own state's Amendment 2), robust measures are required in order to establish basic equity and fairness into the operation of our laws and institutions.
I and others thus propose that the federal constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a reform is the surest and most durable means to securing recognition of the rights of marriage equality for all Americans. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking sponsorship of this amendment or one like it in the House and Senate.
Will you consider taking up the cause of this reform, Congressman? Such a step would obviously entail political risks, but would be commensurate with your outspoken defense of basic fairness on the issue of marriage equality. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and your conscientious service, and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Friday, May 29, 2009
Florida (XVIII) Congressman Thomas Rooney
Today I continue with Congressman Thomas Rooney, Republican, representative of Florida's 16th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Rooney,
As a concerned citizen I urge you to give your support to the cause of marriage equality, both in Florida and the nation as a whole. As a candidate you reportedly pledged to support so-called "traditional marriage," unfortunately registering your support for the unjust discrimination that remains the law of the land in most states. This stance puts you on the wrong side of history.
As a newly elected Congressman you should search your conscience and give some thought to your future place in the history of our Republic. Marriage equality is the great civil rights struggle of our generation, and future Americans will weigh present-day leaders in light of the stance each takes today while the battle is joined. Just as we look back on past supporters of slavery or Jim Crow with mixed incomprehension and distaste, today's advocates of marital apartheid will suffer the condemnation of posterity.
Because the issue is so pressing and the forces of discrimination remain robust, I and others feel that aggressive measures are necessary. We propose that the U.S. constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Though the many state-level bans on marriage equality are in flagrant violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, a Marriage Equality Amendment is the surest and most durable means to bring our operative laws and institutions into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law. Perhaps on reflection you will recant your misguided pledge and lend your support to this campaign for fairness and decency. In any case I congratulate you upon your election to the House and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
As a newly elected Congressman you should search your conscience and give some thought to your future place in the history of our Republic. Marriage equality is the great civil rights struggle of our generation, and future Americans will weigh present-day leaders in light of the stance each takes today while the battle is joined. Just as we look back on past supporters of slavery or Jim Crow with mixed incomprehension and distaste, today's advocates of marital apartheid will suffer the condemnation of posterity.
Because the issue is so pressing and the forces of discrimination remain robust, I and others feel that aggressive measures are necessary. We propose that the U.S. constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Though the many state-level bans on marriage equality are in flagrant violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, a Marriage Equality Amendment is the surest and most durable means to bring our operative laws and institutions into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law. Perhaps on reflection you will recant your misguided pledge and lend your support to this campaign for fairness and decency. In any case I congratulate you upon your election to the House and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Florida (XVII) Congressman Bill Posey
Today I continue with Congressman Bill Posey, Republican, representative of Florida's 15th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Posey,
The freedom to marry the consenting partner of one's choice is an inalienable right, one that cannot be taken away even by a vote of the majority. This was the principle of marriage equality that informed the Supreme Court's decision in Loving vs. Virginia, when it struck down the democratically instituted "anti-miscegenation laws" then current in much of the United States. The same principle of marriage equality applies with respect to same-sex couples today. One cannot arbitrarily deny a whole class of people 1,138 benefits and protections and still insist that they nonetheless enjoy equal opportunity of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The current state of marital apartheid in this country is a legal absurdity and a moral offense; it can not stand indefinitely.
For this reason I and others have proposed that the United States constitution be amended to read, "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a reform would redress the injustice wrought by travesties like Florida's Hate Amendment and California's "Proposition Eight." It is the surest and most durable means to bringing our laws into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law. Perhaps on reflection you will see the rightness of this cause and lend your voice to our campaign. In any case I hope this message finds you well and wish you success in your new office.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Monday, May 25, 2009
Florida (XVI) Congressman Connie Mack
Today I continue with Congressman Connie Mack, Republican, representative of Florida's 14th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Mack,
I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. In contrast to your wife, Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack, you have have embraced an extreme right-wing stance on this issue. Though your wife has crossed party lines to vote against the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment," you voted for it. Moreover, where she has pursued a moderate voting record, you have consistently earned 0% ratings from the Human Rights Campaign for your record on issues of concern to LGBT citizens.
All of this is quite ironic, as your marriage is one of the great Capitol Hill romances and an illustration of the continued importance of marriage in our society. One can only wish that your wife's more progressive views had made an impact on you, opening you to recognition of the rights that you as a couple have enjoyed for the millions of Americans to whom it remains denied. Thousands of couples are arbitrarily excluded from the marital bond for no other reason but that they are of the same gender. Would you insist that your love for your wife is more genuine? So much more so that you may enjoy 1,138 benefits and protections under federal law while same-sex couples may enjoy none?
The blatant unfairness of this situation has moved I and others to propose that the U.S. constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a reform is the surest and most durable way to bring our laws into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens. On this Memorial Day when we honor those who have sacrificed their lives to defend our rights, no tribute would be more fitting than to speak out in support of those whose natural rights remain unrecognized.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment. On reflection and after consulatation with your spouse, perhaps you will see the error of your current stance and join in this latest phase of the ongoing struggle for civil rights. In any case I thank you for your attention on this issue and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Mack,
I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. In contrast to your wife, Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack, you have have embraced an extreme right-wing stance on this issue. Though your wife has crossed party lines to vote against the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment," you voted for it. Moreover, where she has pursued a moderate voting record, you have consistently earned 0% ratings from the Human Rights Campaign for your record on issues of concern to LGBT citizens.
All of this is quite ironic, as your marriage is one of the great Capitol Hill romances and an illustration of the continued importance of marriage in our society. One can only wish that your wife's more progressive views had made an impact on you, opening you to recognition of the rights that you as a couple have enjoyed for the millions of Americans to whom it remains denied. Thousands of couples are arbitrarily excluded from the marital bond for no other reason but that they are of the same gender. Would you insist that your love for your wife is more genuine? So much more so that you may enjoy 1,138 benefits and protections under federal law while same-sex couples may enjoy none?
The blatant unfairness of this situation has moved I and others to propose that the U.S. constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a reform is the surest and most durable way to bring our laws into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens. On this Memorial Day when we honor those who have sacrificed their lives to defend our rights, no tribute would be more fitting than to speak out in support of those whose natural rights remain unrecognized.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment. On reflection and after consulatation with your spouse, perhaps you will see the error of your current stance and join in this latest phase of the ongoing struggle for civil rights. In any case I thank you for your attention on this issue and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Florida (XV) Congressman Vern Buchanan
Today I continue with Congressman Vern Buchanan, Republican, representative of Florida's 13th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Buchanan,
I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. In your first term in Congress you supported a federal constitutional amendment that would have denied the right to marry to same-sex couples throughout the United States. More generally, you earned a 0% rating for your voting record on issues of concern to LGBT citizens from the Human Rights Campaign.
These aspects of your performance manifest a basic failing of fairness and empathy on your part. Your website understandably broadcasts your pride in your marriage of more than thirty years and your fatherhood of two grown children. With your own experience of how profoundly significant marriage can be toward the achievement of personal fulfillment, why would you seek to discriminate against fellow Americans who seek nothing more than the happiness you have been so blessed as to enjoy?
Like you I am a husband and a father, and because my wife is of a different gender I have never been forced to contemplate how difficult life would be if my family did not enjoy the 1,138 legal benefits and protections that flow to married couples under federal law. You and I may take the secure shelter of marriage for granted, but that does not excuse our being complacent in seeing it arbitrarily denied to other citizens- quite the contrary. Because, as you and I know, marriage is such a potentially powerful means toward the enrichment of life and the pursuit of happiness, the freedom to marry the consenting partner of one's choice is an inalienable right that cannot reasonably be denied to millions of Americans to satisfy social prejudice. That was the finding of the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, when it declared all so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws at the state level unconstitutional. The same principle of marriage equality that informed the Court in 1967 applies in the case of same-sex couples today.
Unfortunately, the forces of discrimination that would block progress toward full marriage equality are well-organized and well-funded. Aggressive measures are thus required to rescue Americans suffering today under the yoke of unjust laws. I and others therefore propose that the federal constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a Marriage Equality Amendment is the surest and most durable means to bring our institutions into alignment with the basic rights of all Americans.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law. A reversal on this issue would no doubt draw criticism, but it would have the virtue of redeeming your place in the future history of our Republic. Marriage equality is the great civil rights issue of our generation, and it would be regrettable for you to be remembered as an agent of intolerance and discrimination when the annals of our time are written. Perhaps on reflection you will see the error of your current stance. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Buchanan,
I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. In your first term in Congress you supported a federal constitutional amendment that would have denied the right to marry to same-sex couples throughout the United States. More generally, you earned a 0% rating for your voting record on issues of concern to LGBT citizens from the Human Rights Campaign.
These aspects of your performance manifest a basic failing of fairness and empathy on your part. Your website understandably broadcasts your pride in your marriage of more than thirty years and your fatherhood of two grown children. With your own experience of how profoundly significant marriage can be toward the achievement of personal fulfillment, why would you seek to discriminate against fellow Americans who seek nothing more than the happiness you have been so blessed as to enjoy?
Like you I am a husband and a father, and because my wife is of a different gender I have never been forced to contemplate how difficult life would be if my family did not enjoy the 1,138 legal benefits and protections that flow to married couples under federal law. You and I may take the secure shelter of marriage for granted, but that does not excuse our being complacent in seeing it arbitrarily denied to other citizens- quite the contrary. Because, as you and I know, marriage is such a potentially powerful means toward the enrichment of life and the pursuit of happiness, the freedom to marry the consenting partner of one's choice is an inalienable right that cannot reasonably be denied to millions of Americans to satisfy social prejudice. That was the finding of the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, when it declared all so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws at the state level unconstitutional. The same principle of marriage equality that informed the Court in 1967 applies in the case of same-sex couples today.
Unfortunately, the forces of discrimination that would block progress toward full marriage equality are well-organized and well-funded. Aggressive measures are thus required to rescue Americans suffering today under the yoke of unjust laws. I and others therefore propose that the federal constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a Marriage Equality Amendment is the surest and most durable means to bring our institutions into alignment with the basic rights of all Americans.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law. A reversal on this issue would no doubt draw criticism, but it would have the virtue of redeeming your place in the future history of our Republic. Marriage equality is the great civil rights issue of our generation, and it would be regrettable for you to be remembered as an agent of intolerance and discrimination when the annals of our time are written. Perhaps on reflection you will see the error of your current stance. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Monday, May 18, 2009
Florida (XIV) Congressman Adam Putnam
Today I continue with Congressman Adam Putnam, Republican, representative of Florida's 12th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Putnam,
I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. As one of the youngest members ever elected to Congress and the third-highest ranking Republican in the House of Representatives you occupy a position of considerable influence for good or ill. Your support of the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" placed you squarely on the wrong side of history, marking you as a voice for discrimination in what will be remembered as the great civil rights struggle of this generation.
I have read the suggestion that though you are not personally homophobic, you vote against the rights of LGBT citizens out of political necessity. If that is so then you should be ashamed. How can bear to you build your political fortunes on the suffering of others? Right now thousands of families in Florida and across the United States, many with children, persist without the legal protections that would help secure their prosperity and well-being. It is not only illogical, but immoral to deny millions of Americans the 1,138 legal benefits and protections of marriage simply to satisfy social prejudice, no matter how broadly held.
Because so many well-funded and well-organized political leaders and groups have shared your disposition, aggressive measure are required to redress the resulting injustice. I and others propose that the federal constitution should be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a Marriage Equality Amendment is the surest and most durable means to realizing the principles of fairness and decency upon which our Republic is founded.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment. Perhaps on searching your conscience you will awaken to the error of your current stance and lend your voice to this reform. Such a reversal would no doubt invite criticism from your co-partisans, but it would show principled leadership and redeem your place in the memory of posterity. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Putnam,
I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. As one of the youngest members ever elected to Congress and the third-highest ranking Republican in the House of Representatives you occupy a position of considerable influence for good or ill. Your support of the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" placed you squarely on the wrong side of history, marking you as a voice for discrimination in what will be remembered as the great civil rights struggle of this generation.
I have read the suggestion that though you are not personally homophobic, you vote against the rights of LGBT citizens out of political necessity. If that is so then you should be ashamed. How can bear to you build your political fortunes on the suffering of others? Right now thousands of families in Florida and across the United States, many with children, persist without the legal protections that would help secure their prosperity and well-being. It is not only illogical, but immoral to deny millions of Americans the 1,138 legal benefits and protections of marriage simply to satisfy social prejudice, no matter how broadly held.
Because so many well-funded and well-organized political leaders and groups have shared your disposition, aggressive measure are required to redress the resulting injustice. I and others propose that the federal constitution should be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a Marriage Equality Amendment is the surest and most durable means to realizing the principles of fairness and decency upon which our Republic is founded.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment. Perhaps on searching your conscience you will awaken to the error of your current stance and lend your voice to this reform. Such a reversal would no doubt invite criticism from your co-partisans, but it would show principled leadership and redeem your place in the memory of posterity. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Florida (XIII) Congresswoman Kathy Castor
Today I continue with Congresswoman Kathy Castor, Democrat, representative of Florida's 11th Congressional District:
Dear Congresswoman Castor,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Though this reform would obviously occasion fierce resistance from certain precincts, it is the surest and most durable means to bringing our laws into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens.
Since first being elected to Congress in 2006 you have proven yourself a staunch supporter of the rights of LGBT citizens. You earned a 100% approval rating from the Human Rights Campaign for the 110th Congress and were outspoken in your opposition to Florida's Amendment 2, aptly named "The Hate Amendment" by its detractors. Sadly, despite the conscientious opposition of you and others, Amendment 2 legally established marriage discrimination in your home state. It is travesties like the Hate Amendment that make a federal Marriage Equality Amendment an urgent necessity.
I have set out to write evey member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment. Please consider lending this campaign your voice among your colleagues in the House and Senate. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congresswoman Castor,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Though this reform would obviously occasion fierce resistance from certain precincts, it is the surest and most durable means to bringing our laws into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens.
Since first being elected to Congress in 2006 you have proven yourself a staunch supporter of the rights of LGBT citizens. You earned a 100% approval rating from the Human Rights Campaign for the 110th Congress and were outspoken in your opposition to Florida's Amendment 2, aptly named "The Hate Amendment" by its detractors. Sadly, despite the conscientious opposition of you and others, Amendment 2 legally established marriage discrimination in your home state. It is travesties like the Hate Amendment that make a federal Marriage Equality Amendment an urgent necessity.
I have set out to write evey member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment. Please consider lending this campaign your voice among your colleagues in the House and Senate. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Florida (XII) Congressman C.W. Bill Young
Today I continue with Congressman C.W. Bill Young, Republican, representative of Florida's 10th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Young,
I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. You twice voted in favor of a federal constitutional amendment that would have denied recognition to the marriage rights of same-sex couples throughout the U.S. Moreover, you have received a 0% rating for each of the last three Congresses from the Human Rights Campaign, denoting a general antipathy toward the LGBT community.
The freedom to marry the consenting partner of one's choice is a basic and inalienable right. Marriage is the sole kinship relationship an individual may freely choose. This is why it has always been deemed the closest and most binding connection an individual may have under U.S. law. To deny citizens the right to form marital bonds is thus an abridgment of their capacity for liberty and the pursuit of happiness that is anathema to the founding principles of our Republic. Moreover, marriage brings with it 1,138 benefits and protections under federal law. Denial of marriage rights to a whole class of citizens is thus in flagrant violation of the 14th Amendment's promise of "equal protection of the law."
Unfortunately many in this country share your prejudices. Therefore I and others propose that the U.S. constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a Marriage Equality Amendment is the surest and most durable way to bring our laws into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens.
Marriage equality is the great civil rights struggle of our generation, and will be the gauge of how current leaders are measured in years to come. Perhaps on reflection you will see the error of your current stance and redeem your place in the future history of our nation. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Young,
I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. You twice voted in favor of a federal constitutional amendment that would have denied recognition to the marriage rights of same-sex couples throughout the U.S. Moreover, you have received a 0% rating for each of the last three Congresses from the Human Rights Campaign, denoting a general antipathy toward the LGBT community.
The freedom to marry the consenting partner of one's choice is a basic and inalienable right. Marriage is the sole kinship relationship an individual may freely choose. This is why it has always been deemed the closest and most binding connection an individual may have under U.S. law. To deny citizens the right to form marital bonds is thus an abridgment of their capacity for liberty and the pursuit of happiness that is anathema to the founding principles of our Republic. Moreover, marriage brings with it 1,138 benefits and protections under federal law. Denial of marriage rights to a whole class of citizens is thus in flagrant violation of the 14th Amendment's promise of "equal protection of the law."
Unfortunately many in this country share your prejudices. Therefore I and others propose that the U.S. constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a Marriage Equality Amendment is the surest and most durable way to bring our laws into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens.
Marriage equality is the great civil rights struggle of our generation, and will be the gauge of how current leaders are measured in years to come. Perhaps on reflection you will see the error of your current stance and redeem your place in the future history of our nation. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Monday, May 11, 2009
Florida (XI) Congressman Gus Bilirakis
Today I continue with Congressman Gus Bilirakis, Republican, representative of Florida's 9th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Bilirakis,
I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. Since your election in 2006 you have been a consistent opponent of marriage equality, endorsing Florida's Amendment 2 and voting in favor of a federal constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. The passage of Amendment 2 in Florida was especially objectionable, as it not only denied rights of marriage equality to same-sex couples but also barred the legalization of civil unions and domestic partnerships, thus refusing any semblance of family rights to LGBT citizens. It is no wonder that in your first term you received a rating of 0% from the Human Rights Campaign.
As recent events in Maine, Vermont, and Iowa demonstrate, you are on the wrong side of history, Congressman. Marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is an inviolable right, one that is being progressively recognized throughout an ever-expanding portion of the U.S. electorate. Americans are coming to realize that whatever one's personal beliefs may be, it is unjust and unfair to refuse the 1,138 legal benefits and protections of marriage to fellow citizens for no crime other than loving someone of the same gender. This injustice is compounded when children in the care of same-sex guardians are denied the safeguards of family law simply to satisfy the prejudices of the community.
Future generations will look back on this day and find the current level of opposition to marriage equality difficult to comprehend, in the same way that we today look back and find opposition to emancipation or female suffrage misguided. There is no way to escape the harsh judgment of history unless you search your conscience and emend your position. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the federal constitution, which would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." This change to our basic law is the surest and most durable means to protect all American citizens from depredations like Florida's Amendment 2.
Perhaps on reflection you will see the wisdom of this reform and lend it your support. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this letter finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Bilirakis,
I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. Since your election in 2006 you have been a consistent opponent of marriage equality, endorsing Florida's Amendment 2 and voting in favor of a federal constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. The passage of Amendment 2 in Florida was especially objectionable, as it not only denied rights of marriage equality to same-sex couples but also barred the legalization of civil unions and domestic partnerships, thus refusing any semblance of family rights to LGBT citizens. It is no wonder that in your first term you received a rating of 0% from the Human Rights Campaign.
As recent events in Maine, Vermont, and Iowa demonstrate, you are on the wrong side of history, Congressman. Marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is an inviolable right, one that is being progressively recognized throughout an ever-expanding portion of the U.S. electorate. Americans are coming to realize that whatever one's personal beliefs may be, it is unjust and unfair to refuse the 1,138 legal benefits and protections of marriage to fellow citizens for no crime other than loving someone of the same gender. This injustice is compounded when children in the care of same-sex guardians are denied the safeguards of family law simply to satisfy the prejudices of the community.
Future generations will look back on this day and find the current level of opposition to marriage equality difficult to comprehend, in the same way that we today look back and find opposition to emancipation or female suffrage misguided. There is no way to escape the harsh judgment of history unless you search your conscience and emend your position. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the federal constitution, which would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." This change to our basic law is the surest and most durable means to protect all American citizens from depredations like Florida's Amendment 2.
Perhaps on reflection you will see the wisdom of this reform and lend it your support. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this letter finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Florida (X) Congressman Alan Grayson
Today I continue with Congressman Alan Grayson, Democrat, representative of Florida's 8th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Grayson,
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." It is the surest and most durable means to secure and protect the civil rights of all Americans, millions of whom are excluded from the marital bond on arbitrary and discriminatory pretexts.
Like you I am a married man and am blessed to be a proud father. It never occurred to my wife and I that entering into an institution from which millions of our compatriots were excluded bore a moral burden. As we watch the struggle for marriage equality unfold across the nation now, however, we feel the imperative to stand and be counted. It is fundamentally unfair that we should enjoy 1,138 benefits and protections under federal law that our fellow citizens are denied for no crime other than loving someone of the same gender.
As someone who has studied the special problems of aging and the ramifications it will have for our nation, you know that family is the most powerful institution that can mitigate the burden an aging population will increasingly place on the state in years to come. We know that joining a healthy marriage is among the most significant steps an individual can take in fostering his or her long-term prosperity and security. What wisdom is there in maintaining discriminatory laws that limit and circumscribe people's power to create and maintain families?
As a lifelong Democrat I am gladdened by your election to Congress and the increase it entails for our party's legislative majority. Will you take the opportunity your new office affords to champion the rights of fellow Americans? Support of a Marriage Equality Amendment would obviously cause a stir and entail some political risk, especially for a new Congressman. Events in Iowa, Vermont, and Maine show that marriage equality is the downhill slope of history, however. Fundamental change is in the air, it only awaits courageous and integral leadership to be its catalyst. I have set out to write every member of Congress pleading support for this change to our basic law, and I ask you to lend this campaign your voice. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my congratulations on your election and best wishes for success in your new office.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Grayson,
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." It is the surest and most durable means to secure and protect the civil rights of all Americans, millions of whom are excluded from the marital bond on arbitrary and discriminatory pretexts.
Like you I am a married man and am blessed to be a proud father. It never occurred to my wife and I that entering into an institution from which millions of our compatriots were excluded bore a moral burden. As we watch the struggle for marriage equality unfold across the nation now, however, we feel the imperative to stand and be counted. It is fundamentally unfair that we should enjoy 1,138 benefits and protections under federal law that our fellow citizens are denied for no crime other than loving someone of the same gender.
As someone who has studied the special problems of aging and the ramifications it will have for our nation, you know that family is the most powerful institution that can mitigate the burden an aging population will increasingly place on the state in years to come. We know that joining a healthy marriage is among the most significant steps an individual can take in fostering his or her long-term prosperity and security. What wisdom is there in maintaining discriminatory laws that limit and circumscribe people's power to create and maintain families?
As a lifelong Democrat I am gladdened by your election to Congress and the increase it entails for our party's legislative majority. Will you take the opportunity your new office affords to champion the rights of fellow Americans? Support of a Marriage Equality Amendment would obviously cause a stir and entail some political risk, especially for a new Congressman. Events in Iowa, Vermont, and Maine show that marriage equality is the downhill slope of history, however. Fundamental change is in the air, it only awaits courageous and integral leadership to be its catalyst. I have set out to write every member of Congress pleading support for this change to our basic law, and I ask you to lend this campaign your voice. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my congratulations on your election and best wishes for success in your new office.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Florida (IX) Congressman John Mica
Today I continue with Congressman John Mica, Republican, representative of Florida's 7th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Mica,
I write to urge you to change your stance with regard to marriage equality. You have twice voted in favor of a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage throughout the United States. This stance is part of a larger pattern of disregard for the rights of LGBT citizens, moreover. You have received a rating of "0%" from the Human Rights Campaign for each of the last three Congresses.
Marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is a basic and inalienable right, one that is unfairly and arbitrarily denied to millions of Americans. Same-sex couples whose unions are denied state sanction are deprived of 1,138 benefits and protections that spontaneously flow to heterosexual married couples under federal law. Millions of Americans are thus denied recognition of rights routinely granted to felons and prisoners, for no crime but that of loving someone of the same gender. An even greater outrage is the harm this discrimination inflicts on children, thousands of whom lack stability and security because the government refuses to acknowledge their same-sex guardians as married.
This state of marital apartheid is unworthy of a great Republic like our own. Unfortunately widespread social prejudice has engendered forces committed to preserving and extending the discriminatory character of our laws. For that reasons I and others have proposed that the United States 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 redress to the injustice that yet prevails in most states of the Union.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this Marriage Equality Amendment. Though you have supported its polar opposite in the past, for the sake of your future legacy I hope that you will come over to the side of right. Marriage equality is the great civil rights issue of our generation, and current leaders will be judged by coming generations for the choices they make today in this regard. Perhaps on reflection you will see the error of your past views. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Mica,
I write to urge you to change your stance with regard to marriage equality. You have twice voted in favor of a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage throughout the United States. This stance is part of a larger pattern of disregard for the rights of LGBT citizens, moreover. You have received a rating of "0%" from the Human Rights Campaign for each of the last three Congresses.
Marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is a basic and inalienable right, one that is unfairly and arbitrarily denied to millions of Americans. Same-sex couples whose unions are denied state sanction are deprived of 1,138 benefits and protections that spontaneously flow to heterosexual married couples under federal law. Millions of Americans are thus denied recognition of rights routinely granted to felons and prisoners, for no crime but that of loving someone of the same gender. An even greater outrage is the harm this discrimination inflicts on children, thousands of whom lack stability and security because the government refuses to acknowledge their same-sex guardians as married.
This state of marital apartheid is unworthy of a great Republic like our own. Unfortunately widespread social prejudice has engendered forces committed to preserving and extending the discriminatory character of our laws. For that reasons I and others have proposed that the United States 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 redress to the injustice that yet prevails in most states of the Union.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this Marriage Equality Amendment. Though you have supported its polar opposite in the past, for the sake of your future legacy I hope that you will come over to the side of right. Marriage equality is the great civil rights issue of our generation, and current leaders will be judged by coming generations for the choices they make today in this regard. Perhaps on reflection you will see the error of your past views. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Monday, May 4, 2009
Florida (VIII) Congressman Cliff Stearns
Today I continue with Congressman Cliff Stearns, Republican, representative of Florida's 6th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Stearns,
I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. In 2006 you voted in favor of the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage throughout the United States. In doing so you issued the following statement:
"Marriage, the union of one man and one woman, is imbedded [sic] deeply in our legal, religious, and economic institutions. Marriage is also the central structure supporting the family, which is the building block of our society. Undermining marriage as between one man and one woman weakens the family and our society. This amendment protects states from being forces [sic] to recognize same-sex marriages created by other states...Marriage and family laws should be determined by the people in their states through their legislatures and not by activist judges promoting their political agendas. The voters in twenty states supported amendments to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and 23 other states have enacted laws to limit marriage to unions between a man and a woman, including Florida. Yet, not in one state has the public voted to permit same-sex unions. This amendment protects the democratic process used by millions of Americans to preserve the traditional definition of marriage."
There are a number of problems with your logic. You never make clear how marriage equality will "undermine" marriage or "weaken" the family. If anything, the family is made weaker by our current situation, in which children in the care of same-sex guardians do not enjoy the same protections and securities that safeguard the wards of heterosexual married couples. Moreover, your amendment would have done more than "protect states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages created by other states." That bit of theater had supposedly been accomplished by the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act." Your amendment would have banned same-sex marriage altogether, thus contravening the recently expressed democratic will of the voters of Vermont, who instituted statutory marriage equality by a vote of their legislature. Had your amendment been enacted we would now have a constitutional crisis on our hands, as the federal government attempted to restrict rights being recognized by one of the sovereign states.
Your assertion that "marriage and family laws should be determined by the people in their states" has a familiar ring to it. The same type of argument was made in favor of so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws banning "interracial" marriage when those laws were challenged in the 1960's. Such laws were likewise "deeply embedded" in the cultural and religious sensibilities of many communities, and had been democratically enacted in the 16 states that still maintained them when they were overturned by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia in 1967. From your frame of reference that Court were "activist judges promoting their political agendas," yet few today would deny that they acted rightly.
The same principles that informed the Court's decision in favor of marriage equality in 1967 compel the institution of full marriage equality today. Marriage is the most powerful social act a citizen may undertake, one that entails the receipt of 1,138 legal protections and benefits under federal law. The freedom to marry the consenting partner of one's choice is a thus basic condition of human happiness, and may not be denied to any citizen, even by a vote of the majority.
Unfortunately, misconceptions like yours are widespread and politically influential. Aggressive measures must thus be taken to rescue and protect millions of Americans from discrimination. The surest and most durable means to that end would be to amend the federal 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.
You may not be able to see the justice of a Marriage Equality Amendment, Congressman, but please know that millions of Americans hold these rights to be inviolable and will fight to see them recognized for all citizens. Perhaps someday you will see the error of your current stance and take steps to redeem your place in our nation's history. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Stearns,
I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. In 2006 you voted in favor of the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage throughout the United States. In doing so you issued the following statement:
"Marriage, the union of one man and one woman, is imbedded [sic] deeply in our legal, religious, and economic institutions. Marriage is also the central structure supporting the family, which is the building block of our society. Undermining marriage as between one man and one woman weakens the family and our society. This amendment protects states from being forces [sic] to recognize same-sex marriages created by other states...Marriage and family laws should be determined by the people in their states through their legislatures and not by activist judges promoting their political agendas. The voters in twenty states supported amendments to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and 23 other states have enacted laws to limit marriage to unions between a man and a woman, including Florida. Yet, not in one state has the public voted to permit same-sex unions. This amendment protects the democratic process used by millions of Americans to preserve the traditional definition of marriage."
There are a number of problems with your logic. You never make clear how marriage equality will "undermine" marriage or "weaken" the family. If anything, the family is made weaker by our current situation, in which children in the care of same-sex guardians do not enjoy the same protections and securities that safeguard the wards of heterosexual married couples. Moreover, your amendment would have done more than "protect states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages created by other states." That bit of theater had supposedly been accomplished by the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act." Your amendment would have banned same-sex marriage altogether, thus contravening the recently expressed democratic will of the voters of Vermont, who instituted statutory marriage equality by a vote of their legislature. Had your amendment been enacted we would now have a constitutional crisis on our hands, as the federal government attempted to restrict rights being recognized by one of the sovereign states.
Your assertion that "marriage and family laws should be determined by the people in their states" has a familiar ring to it. The same type of argument was made in favor of so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws banning "interracial" marriage when those laws were challenged in the 1960's. Such laws were likewise "deeply embedded" in the cultural and religious sensibilities of many communities, and had been democratically enacted in the 16 states that still maintained them when they were overturned by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia in 1967. From your frame of reference that Court were "activist judges promoting their political agendas," yet few today would deny that they acted rightly.
The same principles that informed the Court's decision in favor of marriage equality in 1967 compel the institution of full marriage equality today. Marriage is the most powerful social act a citizen may undertake, one that entails the receipt of 1,138 legal protections and benefits under federal law. The freedom to marry the consenting partner of one's choice is a thus basic condition of human happiness, and may not be denied to any citizen, even by a vote of the majority.
Unfortunately, misconceptions like yours are widespread and politically influential. Aggressive measures must thus be taken to rescue and protect millions of Americans from discrimination. The surest and most durable means to that end would be to amend the federal 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.
You may not be able to see the justice of a Marriage Equality Amendment, Congressman, but please know that millions of Americans hold these rights to be inviolable and will fight to see them recognized for all citizens. Perhaps someday you will see the error of your current stance and take steps to redeem your place in our nation's history. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Florida (VII) Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite
Today I continue with Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite, Republican, representative of Florida's 5th Congressional District:
Dear Congresswoman Brown-Waite,
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. Had your measure passed, it would have been one of the few times in our nation's history that our constitution was used to restrict rather than expand the rights of American citizens, a discriminatory measure that would have rebelled against the founding spirit of our Republic and redounded to the shame of our generation. Your actions are cast in an even more unfavorable light by your voting record, which has earned a 0% rating from the Human Rights Campaign for each of the last three Congresses. Such consistency would suggest that your opposition to marriage equality is not rooted in affirmative belief, but in visceral prejudice against LGBT citizens.
As Loving v. Virginia established in 1967, marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is indisputably a basic and inalienable right. According to the Government Accountability Office, under federal law a couple derives 1,138 protections and benefits from married status. Denial of those safeguards on the arbitrary criterion of gender is execrably unjust, a depth of discrimination unworthy of an exemplary democracy such as our own.
Because bias such as yours remains widespread and influential, I and others seek a robust redress in precisely the opposite measure to that you proposed. We propose that the federal constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a Marriage Equality Amendment is the surest and most durable means to protecting all American citizens from discriminatory policies such as you have championed in the past.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this progressive change to our basic law. Perhaps on reflection you will see the error of your past stance, and favorably amend your place in the future history of our great nation. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter, and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congresswoman Brown-Waite,
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. Had your measure passed, it would have been one of the few times in our nation's history that our constitution was used to restrict rather than expand the rights of American citizens, a discriminatory measure that would have rebelled against the founding spirit of our Republic and redounded to the shame of our generation. Your actions are cast in an even more unfavorable light by your voting record, which has earned a 0% rating from the Human Rights Campaign for each of the last three Congresses. Such consistency would suggest that your opposition to marriage equality is not rooted in affirmative belief, but in visceral prejudice against LGBT citizens.
As Loving v. Virginia established in 1967, marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is indisputably a basic and inalienable right. According to the Government Accountability Office, under federal law a couple derives 1,138 protections and benefits from married status. Denial of those safeguards on the arbitrary criterion of gender is execrably unjust, a depth of discrimination unworthy of an exemplary democracy such as our own.
Because bias such as yours remains widespread and influential, I and others seek a robust redress in precisely the opposite measure to that you proposed. We propose that the federal constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a Marriage Equality Amendment is the surest and most durable means to protecting all American citizens from discriminatory policies such as you have championed in the past.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this progressive change to our basic law. Perhaps on reflection you will see the error of your past stance, and favorably amend your place in the future history of our great nation. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter, and hope this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Florida (VI) Congressman Ander Crenshaw
Today I continue with Congressman Ander Crenshaw, Republican, representative of Florida's 4th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Crenshaw,
I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. You twice voted in favor of the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage throughout the United States, and have consistently received a rating of "zero" from the Human Rights Campaign. These facts are no surprise, as you have been quite open about your antipathy towards LGBT citizens. During a campaign for governor in 1994 you declared that you would not hire gay individuals for your personal staff and would support a landlord's refusal to rent to gay tenants (St. Petersburg Times 7/19/94, "The State" p. 4B).
As long as you hold such prejudices it is difficult to imagine your being persuaded of the justice of marriage equality. If you feel that a person's sexual orientation justifies denying them a roof under which to sleep, could you sympathize with that person's desire to form a family? Still, perhaps even you can yet see the logic underlying the campaign for marriage equality. After all, it was once quite common for elected leaders to eschew the employment and promote the exclusion of Jews, yet even those legislators would never have dreamed of forbidding Jews to marry one-another.
Or take yet another example, that of so-called "interracial marriage." At the time of their wedding, our President's parents would have been criminals in much of the Union thanks to "anti-miscegenation" laws favored by large majorities in many states. In 1967 the Supreme Court ruled that marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice was such a basic condition of human happiness that it could not be proscribed on such arbitrary criteria as race, and the same principle of marriage equality imbues same-sex couples with rights that are as inalienable as they are unrecognized in 46 states.
Because your views are all too widespread, robust action will obviously be required to secure recognition of marriage equality rights across the U.S. For that 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 error of your previously stated views and come over to the side of justice and fairness, Congressman. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Crenshaw,
I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. You twice voted in favor of the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage throughout the United States, and have consistently received a rating of "zero" from the Human Rights Campaign. These facts are no surprise, as you have been quite open about your antipathy towards LGBT citizens. During a campaign for governor in 1994 you declared that you would not hire gay individuals for your personal staff and would support a landlord's refusal to rent to gay tenants (St. Petersburg Times 7/19/94, "The State" p. 4B).
As long as you hold such prejudices it is difficult to imagine your being persuaded of the justice of marriage equality. If you feel that a person's sexual orientation justifies denying them a roof under which to sleep, could you sympathize with that person's desire to form a family? Still, perhaps even you can yet see the logic underlying the campaign for marriage equality. After all, it was once quite common for elected leaders to eschew the employment and promote the exclusion of Jews, yet even those legislators would never have dreamed of forbidding Jews to marry one-another.
Or take yet another example, that of so-called "interracial marriage." At the time of their wedding, our President's parents would have been criminals in much of the Union thanks to "anti-miscegenation" laws favored by large majorities in many states. In 1967 the Supreme Court ruled that marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice was such a basic condition of human happiness that it could not be proscribed on such arbitrary criteria as race, and the same principle of marriage equality imbues same-sex couples with rights that are as inalienable as they are unrecognized in 46 states.
Because your views are all too widespread, robust action will obviously be required to secure recognition of marriage equality rights across the U.S. For that 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 error of your previously stated views and come over to the side of justice and fairness, Congressman. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Friday, May 1, 2009
Florida (V) Congresswoman Corrine Brown
Today I continue with Congresswoman Corrine Brown, Democrat, representative of Florida's 3rd Congressional District:
Dear Congresswoman Brown,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the U.S. Such an amendment 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." This is the surest and most durable means to protecting the liberties of all Americans from arbitrary and unjust discrimination.
In a press release issued on July 18, 2006, in opposition to the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment," you declared:
"As a Member of the Congressional Black Caucus, and a resident of a State that had not elected an African American to Congress since the time of reconstruction, I have always believed that our Constitution has served to expand the civil rights of our citizens, not restrict them. However, in this instance we are doing just the reverse; namely, proposing an amendment to the constitution to effectively deny the rights of a single group of people."
You are absolutely right that the federal constitution has historically served to expand rather than restrict civil rights. Moreover, in this case there can be no doubt that it is the rights of American citizens that are at stake. The Supreme Court found, in Loving v. Virginia, that marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice was such a fundamental precondition of human happiness that it could not be restricted by the arbitrary preferences of the state or the community. Just as the Lovings could not be forbidden to marry because of social prejudice regarding race, couples today can not be denied the 1,138 legal benefits and protections of marriage because of particular ideas regarding sex or gender, no matter how widespread they may be. Marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is a basic and inalienable right, one that is arbitrarily denied to millions of Americans and must be federally protected.
The fight for a Marriage Equality Amendment would obviously be long and difficult, but there can be little doubt as to its value. I have set out to write every member of Congress soliciting support for this reform. I hope that you may be persuaded to lend this campaign your voice and your proven energy. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congresswoman Brown,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the U.S. Such an amendment 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." This is the surest and most durable means to protecting the liberties of all Americans from arbitrary and unjust discrimination.
In a press release issued on July 18, 2006, in opposition to the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment," you declared:
"As a Member of the Congressional Black Caucus, and a resident of a State that had not elected an African American to Congress since the time of reconstruction, I have always believed that our Constitution has served to expand the civil rights of our citizens, not restrict them. However, in this instance we are doing just the reverse; namely, proposing an amendment to the constitution to effectively deny the rights of a single group of people."
You are absolutely right that the federal constitution has historically served to expand rather than restrict civil rights. Moreover, in this case there can be no doubt that it is the rights of American citizens that are at stake. The Supreme Court found, in Loving v. Virginia, that marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice was such a fundamental precondition of human happiness that it could not be restricted by the arbitrary preferences of the state or the community. Just as the Lovings could not be forbidden to marry because of social prejudice regarding race, couples today can not be denied the 1,138 legal benefits and protections of marriage because of particular ideas regarding sex or gender, no matter how widespread they may be. Marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is a basic and inalienable right, one that is arbitrarily denied to millions of Americans and must be federally protected.
The fight for a Marriage Equality Amendment would obviously be long and difficult, but there can be little doubt as to its value. I have set out to write every member of Congress soliciting support for this reform. I hope that you may be persuaded to lend this campaign your voice and your proven energy. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.png)
