Monday, June 29, 2009

Georgia (XI) Congressman Nathan Deal

Today I continue with Congressman Nathan Deal, Republican, representative of Georgia's 9th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Deal,

I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. You have voted in favor of an amendment to the constitution that would have denied same-sex couples across the United States their right to marry. This was not an isolated attack upon their civil rights, moreover, as you have consistently received a rating of "zero" from the Human Rights Campaign for your stance on issues of concern to LGBT citizens.

Marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is the single most socially significant act that a citizen may freely undertake, entailing 1,138 protections, benefits, and changes of legal status under federal law. The freedom to make this choice is thus among every citizen's most sacred and inalienable rights, one that can not be taken away even by a vote of the majority. Your proposed amendment would have been a tragic black mark on our Republic, as it would have profaned our basic law with the taint of injustice and discrimination.

Unfortunately, too many civic and government leaders share your prejudices. 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." Only when our basic law is thus amended or interpreted will the profanity of marital apartheid end, and the family be truly sanctified through the establishment of justice, fairness, and common decency.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking sponsorship of this reform. Perhaps on reflection you will see the error of your current views, and come over to the side of right. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Georgia (X) Congressman Jim Marshall

Today I continue with Congressman Jim Marshall, Democrat, representative of Georgia's 8th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Marshall,

I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. In the last Congress you crossed party lines to co-sponsor a so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage throughout the United States. This decision was exemplary of a larger pattern of antipathy to the interests of LGBT citizens. You have received failing ratings for each of the last three Congresses from the Human Rights Campaign.

Marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is the single most socially significant act that a citizen may freely undertake, entailing 1,138 protections, benefits, and changes of legal status under federal law. For government to deny citizens the power to make this choice on the basis of gender is senseless and arbitrary discrimination. How can Congress, or any elected body, dictate whom a citizen may love? How can the exclusion of an entire class of people from one of society's most basic institutions be fair? There is no logical answer to these questions, Congressman, and therefore marriage equality is the great civil rights struggle of our generation.

Your efforts against the rights of fellow Americans place you on the wrong side of history. There is yet time to repair your legacy, however. I and others propose that the U.S. constitution be amended to defend all citizens from depredations like the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment." The surest defense against such oppression would be a "Marriage Equality Amendment," 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."

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this reform. Perhaps on reflection you will recant your current views and join this good cause. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Saturday, June 27, 2009

Georgia (IX) Congressman John Linder

Today I continue with Congressman John Linder, Republican, representative of Georgia's 7th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Linder,

I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. You have persistently supported efforts to deny same-sex couples of their right to marry, even as far as co-sponsoring a bill calling for the amendment of the U.S. constitution to permanently and universally bar same-sex couples from the marital bond. Such an amendment would have been a travesty of justice and a black mark upon our nation's history, standing as one of the few times when our nation's basic law had been utilized to deprive citizens of their rights.

Marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is indeed a natural and inalienable right. Such was the finding of the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, which overturned state bans on so-called "interracial marriage." The same principle of marriage equality that applied then in the case of race applies now with respect to gender. If two adults come together in mutual love, care, and fidelity, to deny them the 1,138 protections and benefits their compatriots may take for granted simply because they are of the same gender is rank discrimination.

Your actions up to this point put you squarely on the wrong side of history, Congressman. Future generations will look back and judge those who opposed marriage equality in the same light that we view past opponents of the civil rights movement today. There is still time to repair your legacy, however. I and others propose that the Constitution should be amended in the opposite manner you endorsed, to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." If you recanted your former stance and took up the cause of this amendment it would go a long way toward atoning for your past assaults upon the rights of fellow Americans.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this Marriage Equality Amendment. Perhaps on reflection you will lend your voice to this cause. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Friday, June 26, 2009

Georgia (VIII) Congressman Tom Price

Today I continue with Congressman Tom Price, Republican, representative of Georgia's 6th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Price,

I write in protest of your persistent and strident opposition to marriage equality. Not only did you vote in favor of the Bush administration's so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment," but as chair of the Republican Study Committee you have helped initiate other attacks upon the civil rights of same-sex couples. Last month, at a press conference coinciding with the proposal of a so-called "D.C. Defense of Marriage Act," which would prohibit the sanctioning of same-sex unions in the capital district, you declared, “Nothing can be more important than the sanctity of our families."

If you were truly concerned with the sanctity of families, Congressman, you would not impose arbitrary and unjust hindrances on the conduct of family life. If a couple lives together in mutual love, care, and fidelity, if they commit to work for their common welfare and that of the children in their care, would you not call them a "family?" If you single out that couple because they are of the same gender, and deny them the 1,138 legal protections that flow to families under federal law, would you call that justice? Such callous discrimination contributes nothing to the sanctity of the family, but is the among worst kind of profanity imaginable.

Unfortunately, too many civic and government leaders share your prejudices. 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." Only when our basic law is thus amended or interpreted will the profanity of marital apartheid end, and the family be truly sanctified through the establishment of justice, fairness, and common decency.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking sponsorship of this reform. Perhaps on reflection you will see the error of your current views, and come over to the side of right. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Georgia (VII) Congressman John Lewis

Today I continue with Congressman John Lewis, Democrat, representative of Georgia's 5th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Lewis:

I write seeking 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 would not entail an expansion of federal power at the expense of the states, but like the Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia, would merely safeguard the intrinsic rights that all Americans possess and should justly enjoy.

Your own struggles and sacrifices in the cause of civil rights are renowned, Congressman. Unsurprisingly, you have spoken out strongly condemning attempts to permanently undermine marriage equality within our legal system. In response to the Bush administrations so-called "Marrriage Protection Amendment," you declared: "I have fought too long and too hard to abolish legalized discrimination in America to be silent when the President of the United States advocates writing it into the U.S. Constitution."

As you rightfully observe, denial of marriage equality is discrimination, pure and simple. Unfortunately, such is the reality throughout much of the United States. A constitutional amendment is the surest and most durable means to achieving basic fairness for all Americans with respect to family law. Would you sponsor a Marriage Equality Amendment in the House, Congressman? You speak with a profound and hard-earned moral authority. If you lent your voice to this cause no one could fail to give it due respect and consideration.

I trust you to act conscientiously with regard to this issue. In any case I thank you for your attention to this matter and your great service to our nation, and I hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Georgia (VI) Congressman Hank Johnson

Today I continue with Congressman Hank Johnson, Democrat, representative of Georgia's 4th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Johnson,

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 means to bring fairness to our society and justice to the operation of our laws.

Your record since your election in 2006 has been solidly in support of the rights of LGBT citizens. You earned 95% positive ratings from the Human Rights Campaign for your first term in office. Moreover, you joined other House Democrats in co-sponsoring a bill to re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment, thus you clearly understand the urgency of civil rights issues pertaining to gender and sex.

A Marriage Equality Amendment would accomplish some of the goals of the Equal Rights Amendment. Though it is less ambitious in scope, its concerns are made pressing by the sustained campaign of discrimination and exclusion manifest in policies like Proposition Eight in California or the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" advocated by the last administration. If the champions of intolerance can advocate profaning our constitution with their discriminatory agenda, it is incumbent upon those of us who see the right to point out that the fundamental spirit of Republic will only be preserved by protecting, not obstructing, the inalienable rights of our citizens.

Though only beginning your second term in office, you have demonstrated great energy and seriousness of purpose. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking sponsorship of a Marriage Equality Amendment. Perhaps you will see fit to lend it your voice. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Georgia (V) Congressman Lynn A. Westmoreland

Today I continue with Congressman Lynn A. Westmoreland, Republican, representative of Georgia's 3rd Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Westmoreland,

I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. You made opposition to marriage equality a cornerstone of your election campaign in 2004, and once in Congress were co-sponsor of a constitutional amendment that would have denied the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. More generally, you have established a shockingly poor record on issues relating to the rights of LGBT citizens, earning ratings of 0% for both of the last two Congresses from the Human Rights Campaign.

Marriage equality is the civil rights struggle of our generation, and your opposition to it demonstrates your tone-deafness to the spirit of our times just as your description of President Obama as "uppity" did during the general election campaign last year. No one can fault your religious beliefs as to what constitutes a legitimate marriage, but you may be criticised for attempting to unfairly impose your beliefs at the expense of the rights of your fellow Americans. According to many Christian denominations my wife and I, who were married by a rabbi, are living in sinful adultery. Should the state then refuse us a marriage license? If your answer is no, then the logical case for your opposition to marriage equality becomes quite obscure. If being Jewish does not disqualify two people from the equal protection of the law, why should being of the same sex do so?

The logical imperative of marriage equality is pristinely clear, yet discrimination remains effective through most of the Union. For that reason 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." Only when the constitution is thus amended or intepreted will our laws and institutions be brought into alignment with the basic rights of all our citizens.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking sponsorship of this reform. Perhaps on reflection you will see the error of your current stance and join our righteous cause. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Friday, June 12, 2009

Georgia (IV) Congressman Sanford D. Bishop, Jr.

Today I continue with Congressman Sanford D. Bishop, Jr., Democrat, representative of Georgia's 2nd Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Bishop,

I write to urge you to support the struggle for marriage equality for all Americans. In the past you have crossed party lines to vote in favor of a constitutional amendment that would have denied the right of same-sex couples to marry across the U.S. This attempt to use our basic law to discriminate against a substantial portion of our citizenry was a shameful episode in our history, and your part in it will tarnish your reputation. Your recent record, however, shows a steadily improving stance regarding the rights of LGBT citizens, holding out hope that your understanding on these issues is evolving. If you will recant your former views and reverse your past actions there is yet time to repair your legacy.

The freedom to marry the consenting partner of one's choice is undeniably a basic right. This was the principle established by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia in 1967. The same logic that applied in the case of discrimination on the basis of race applies today in the case of discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation. A citizen who cannot form a family and maintain a legally protected household with the individual he or she loves is denied the American promise of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." To hold millions of citizens in such a state of exclusion and deprivation is a form of apartheid deeply unworthy of our great Republic.

To redress the current injustice, 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." Only when our constitution is thus amended or interpreted will justice and fairness be established within our institutions of family law.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this amendment. Perhaps on reflection you will lend this campaign your voice, if only by way of atoning for your past support of discrimination. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Georgia (III) Congressman Jack Kingston

Today I continue with Congressman Jack Kingston, Republican, representative of Georgia's 1st Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Kingston,

I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. As a senior member of the Republican caucus, you led debate in the House in support of House Joint Resolution 88, which proposed an amendment to the federal constitution that would have established marital discrimination within our basic law. During that debate you offered several specious arguments in support of the resolution, for example:

"Mr. Speaker, I would point out that if this amendment does, in fact, make marriage, well, discriminate, and the opponents want to make marriage more inclusive, then is it not also true that we should and will broaden the definition of marriage, so that as Mr. Forbes from Virginia pointed out it is not merely a matter of one same-sex couple....But why are we tripping over the word ``couple''? Why can't marriage be three people or four people? Why can't it be a combination, if that is what we are talking about."

This is a rehearsal of one of the most fallacious canards put forward by opponents of marriage equality. Marriage is such a profoundly powerful and important institution in our society precisely because the relationship effected by the marital bond is unique. A citizen can have many friends, siblings, and co-workers, but he or she can only have one spouse. An individual is free to choose one person to whom he or she is intimately and intensely joined. Because this relationship is both voluntary and unique it is especially privileged within our institutional system: married status carries with it 1,138 discrete benefits and protections under federal law. Opening the marital bond to multiple partners would fundamentally alter these aspects of marriage, making it resemble other more common relationships that enjoy fewer protections and privileges.

Opening the marital bond to partners of the same sex does not in any way alter the voluntary and unique nature of marriage. Moreover, because a citizen is free to choose only one person with whom to share this extraordinarily significant legal relationship, basic fairness dictates that the state must place the fewest possible restrictions on that choice. If two unrelated and consenting adults profess to love, honor, and respect one-another, the fact that they are of the same sex does not constitute fair cause to deny them the legal protections of marriage. Acknowledging the right of same-sex couples to marry thus does not in any way constitute a "slippery slope" leading to the legalization of polygamy. Marriage between same-sex partners is founded upon the same principles of mutual care and fidelity that have been the legal basis of marriage since the founding of our Republic.

For these reasons, I and others propose that the U.S. constitution must be amended in precisely the opposite manner proposed by you and your Republican colleagues. We would see it read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Only when the constitution is thus amended or interpreted will our laws and institutions be brought into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for such a Marriage Equality Amendment. Perhaps on reflection you will see the error of your current stance and lend your voice to this cause. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Georgia (II) Senator Johnny Isakson

Today I continue with Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican, junior senator from the state of Georgia:

Dear Senator Isakson,

I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. You were a co-sponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 1 of the 109th Congress, that would have permanently established marital discrimination as a matter of constitutional law. Of your support for that amendment you write:

"I have co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Amendment [sic] because I believe it is important for the sanctity of marriage and for the laws of this country that we have a seamless definition of marriage, and the only way to do that is to establish one in the Constitution."

It is difficult to understand how the inscription of exclusion and discrimination into our basic law would contribute to the sanctity of marriage. Configuring our laws so that thousands of loving, committed couples are deprived of the 1,138 benefits and protections flowing from marital status under federal law has no positive or redeeming effects. When my wife and I were married six years ago it never occurred to us that we took upon ourselves a moral burden. But as we raise our daughter together and have come to understand how important the legal shelter of marriage is to the hard work of maintaining a family, it becomes increasingly clear that we have unfairly taken advantage of an institution from which our compatriots are arbitrarily excluded. The fact that same-sex couples are denied the basic rights that my wife and I enjoy does not make our marriage more sacred, but profanes it with the taint of bigotry and injustice.

Ironically, I could make a declaration of principles almost identical to the one that you wrote, Senator. In order for marriage to truly reflect my values of fairness and respect for the rights and dignity of all Americans, I and others believe that the constitution must be amended to create a "seamless" national definition of marriage. The constitutional amendment we propose, however, 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." Only when the constitution is thus amended or interpreted will the basic and inalienable rights of all citizens be embodied in the institution of marriage.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking sponsorship for such a Marriage Equality Amendment to the federal constitution. Perhaps on reflection you will see the error of your prior stance, and lend your voice to this righteous cause. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Georgia (I) Senator Saxby Chambliss

Today I begin my correspondence with Georgia's Congressional delegation with Senator Saxby Chambliss, Republican, senior senator for the state of Georgia:

Dear Senator Chambliss,

I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. You were a co-sponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 1 of the 109th Congress, which would have amended the constitution of the United States to deny same-sex couples their right to marry. Had your efforts succeeded, it would have been one of the few occasions on which our basic law was used to restrict citizens' freedom. The shame of such an act would have been epochal, as you sought to permanently and arbitrarily deprive millions of Americans of a fundamental and inalienable right.

If we have two pairs of unrelated adults, both professing to love one another, and the state grants 1,138 benefits and protections to the first but zero to the second, what would have to be true to make that fair? Would the deprived couple have to have committed some heinous crime? What could possibly make such an inequity anything but rank discrimination? Yet today that is precisely the state of affairs we find in most of the nation. A couple may enjoy the 1,138 benefits and protections of marriage (according to the findings of the Government Accountability Office) despite being convicted felons, financially bankrupt, incarcerated in prison, or known pedophiles. The one and only contingency that will exclude them from the shelter of the marital bond is being of the same sex. No other word can describe this form of injustice: it is apartheid, pure and simple.

The enormity of the situation contemplated in the abstract is outweighed only by its concrete human impact in the daily lives of millions of Americans. Thousands of same-sex couples struggle to maintain households and raise families under the handicap of state discrimination. Without rights of joint coverage, shared property, and insured inheritance, same-sex couples must bear extraordinary burdens and make inordinate sacrifices to compensate for their legal vulnerability. Most cruelly affected are the children in the care of same-sex parents. They live without the security that the children of heterosexual couples may take for granted, not because of any choice they made, but because society disapproves of the lifestyle of their parents. To punish the child on account of the parent is a barbarity that most of the world left behind long ago.

To redress these inequities, I and others propose that the U.S. constitution be amended in precisely the opposite manner entailed by your resolution. We would see it 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 sponsorship for this reform.

You should give some thought to your legacy as a legislator, Senator. Marriage equality is the great civil rights struggle of our generation. Posterity will look back on today's leaders and judge them for the stance they took in this contest. Just as we look back with incomprehension and disgust at those who supported slavery or Jim Crow, future Americans will condemn those who stood in the path of progress on the issue of marriage equality. Perhaps on reflection you will see the error of your current stance and come over to the side of right. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Monday, June 8, 2009

Florida (XXVII) Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart

Today I conclude my correspondence with Florida's Congressional delegation with Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, Republican, representative of Florida's 25th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Diaz-Balart,

I write urging you to reconsider your stance on the issue of marriage equality. In 2006 you crossed party lines to vote against the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have refused recognition of same-sex couples' right to marry across the U.S. You issued a statement, however, making clear that this action was taken out of regard for federalist principles, declaring:

"Congress must be diligent in its efforts not to overstep and impede on more than two centuries of a successful Republic without absolute necessity. I strongly believe that marriage should only be the union between one man and one woman, but I do not believe that the threshold for constitutional change has been reached."

While I respect your conscientious vote, I would contest your characterization of the legal history of our Republic. It is true that the adjudication of family law has largely been left to the states, but the federal government has rightly interceded in cases where state law violated citizens' fundamental rights. Among the most basic of these is the right of an adult to marry the consenting partner of his or her choice. The United States have overturned state law on numerous occasions to protect this right for all Americans, most famously in Loving v. Virginia when the Supreme Court struck down all so-called "anti-miscegenation laws" then effective at the state level in much of the Union.

We are now again at a watershed moment in the struggle for civil rights. Across the country same-sex couples are struggling to form and maintain family, arbitrarily deprived of the 1,138 legal benefits and protections that the majority of their compatriots may take for granted. Such a discriminatory state of affairs is deeply unworthy of our great democracy, and must be redressed. For that reason I and others have proposed 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." This is the surest and most durable means to turn back the tide of unjust discrimination militating against the basic rights of American citizens.

On reflection perhaps you will see the justness of this cause and lend it your support in the House. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Sunday, June 7, 2009

Florida (XXVI) Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas

Today I continue with Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas, Democrat, representative of Florida's 24th Congressional District:

Dear Congresswoman Kosmas,

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 defeat of Congressman Tom Feeney last fall was a clear step forward for the cause of civil rights in Congress. Though this is your first term in national office, as a state legislator you were outspoken in defense of a woman's right to choose. You also voted against a ban on marriage equality for same-sex couples in 1998 when few in your own party had the courage to stand up against discrimination. These present a stark contrast with Mr. Feeney, who pledged not to let "San Francisco taxes and values infiltrate [Florida]" after the California Supreme Court overturned a ban on marriage equality last year.

Long strides in the struggle for marriage equality have obviously been made in recent years and months. Five states now recognize the rights of same-sex couples to marry, and more may follow. The forces of injustice and discrimination remain active and powerful, however. California's Proposition 8 and your own state's Hate Amendment are only two examples of the cruel tactics employed by those who would deny basic freedoms to their fellow Americans.

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." This is the surest and most durable means to bring justice and basic fairness to our laws and our society. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking sponsorship for this reform.

As a newly elected legislator you will no doubt be cautious in choosing those causes in which you will invest your advocacy. Perhaps the moral urgency of this struggle will motivate you to disregard the political risks and lend this fight your voice, as you have done in the past. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and congratulate you on your new office.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Friday, June 5, 2009

Florida (XXV) Congressman Alcee L. Hastings

Today I continue with Congressman Alcee L. Hastings, Democrat, representative of Florida's 23rd Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Hastings,

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." Your record suggests that you may understand and agree, this is the surest and most durable way to bring fairness to our society and basic dignity to our citizens.

You have been an outspoken advocate for civil rights in the House, and have consistently earned perfect scores from the Human Rights Campaign for your support of the rights of LGBT Americans. You voted against George W. Bush's execrable, so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" and before that broke with Bill Clinton in rejecting the deplorable, so-called "Defense of Marriage Act." Surely you have been aware that agitation for these forms of discrimination is on the rise. California's "Proposition 8" and your own state's Hate Amendment are only two of the worst examples to have appeared recently.

Such a climate calls for robust action. Despite hopeful developments in Iowa, Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire the tide of discrimination continues to threaten to overtake progress. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to protect the basic rights of all Americans from those who would relegate their compatriots to second-class citizenship. The campaign for this reform would obviously entail political risk, but you have not shown yourself shy of such risks in the past. Perhaps you will lend your voice to this effort in the House. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope that this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Florida (XXIV) Congressman Ron Klein

Today I continue with Congressman Ron Klein, Democrat, representative of Florida's 22nd Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Klein,

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. Since your election to Congress in 2007 you have been a consistent advocate for the rights of LGBT Americans. You have stopped short of supporting full marriage equality, however, opting instead to promote the establishment of "civil unions." I hope you may persuaded that more robust action is needed to redress the injustices endured by millions of citizens today.

Vermont, one of the few states to experiment with civil unions, has since enacted statutes according rights of full marriage equality to same-sex couples. Why is this so? As has occurred repeatedly in the history of civil rights in our country, separate was not equal: establishing a "second track" system for same-sex couples proved to be a path to institutionalized discrimination. If we recognize that same-sex couples should, in fairness, have all the rights of marriage, there is only one way to insure that is so. To have the rights and benefits of marriage (1,138 of them, according to the Government Accountability Office) one must be married, pure and simple.

The stakes in the current struggle are very high. The institution of marriage itself is being strained in ways unprecedented in our history. As more states legally establish marriage equality, we are increasingly faced with the phenomenon of citizens whose marriage in one state is not recognized in another. This was virtually unheard of in the past. Even states that had enacted so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws generally respected the rights of "interracial" couples married in other parts of the U.S. When Virginia refused to respect the marriage of Mildred and Richard Loving it led the Supreme Court to strike down all such discriminatory laws in 1967. This decision underscored the principle that the vitality of marriage as an institution flows from its universality, a principle that is under assault again today as the scope of civil rights naturally and logically expands.

More than the resilience of marriage in the abstract is at stake, however. Exclusion of same-sex couples from the marriage bond causes human suffering for millions of Americans on a daily basis. Couples who are struggling to care for one-another or raise children are faced with cruel and unfair obstacles because they are arbitrarily denied rights and protections that most citizens may take for granted. Such unjust discrimination is unworthy of our great Republic, and must end. 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." This reform is the surest and most durable means to restore fairness to our society and basic dignity to all 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 justness of this campaign and lend it your voice in the House. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Florida (XXIII) Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Today I continue with Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Republican, representative of Florida's 21st Congressional District:


Dear Congressman Diaz-Balart,


I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. As a Republican lawmaker, you have consistently taken a moderate stance on the issue of marriage equality. In 2006 you crossed party lines to vote against a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, though you did vote in favor of the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996.

I have not been able to find a public record of your views pertaining to marriage equality, so I do not know if your record reflects an ambivalent stance or a change in outlook over time. You display obvious independence of mind, however, and should give some thought to your legacy as a civic leader. Marriage equality is the great civil rights issue of our generation. As values continue to evolve the achievement of full marriage equality for all Americans is an eventual certainty, at which time public figures will be judged on whether they aided or impeded progress to that point. You should be remembered as someone who stood up for the rights and welfare of your compatriots.

More than the good opinion of posterity is at stake, however. Right now many couples are struggling in the absence of the protections and assistance that marital status affords, some while they work to care for children. If you or your child lack health insurance because you cannot share in your spouse's benefits, or you are denied the right to visit your spouse in hospital, it is cold comfort to know that "eventually" things will change. Marriage equality is an immediate moral imperative, one impacting the lives of millions of Americans as I write these words.

Because of this urgency, 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." Such a reform is the surest 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 Marriage Equality Amendment. I appeal to your proven sense of fairness and decency, Congressman. Perhaps on reflection you will see the justness of this cause and lend it your voice in the House. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer


Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Florida (XXII) Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Today I continue with Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat, representative of Florida's 20th Congressional District:

Dear Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz,

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 change to our federal constitution is the surest and most durable means to ending the present state of marital apartheid prevailing in most of the nation.

As a Vice-Chairperson of the LGBT Equality Caucus you have long been a spokesperson for the right of LGBT citizens. At a press conference announcing the founding of the Caucus you declared:

"Equality for our gay, lesbian and transgender friends is not negotiable...Our Constitution demands equal justice under the law, nothing more, nothing less. As a Member of the House Judiciary Committee, I know that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered Americans are awash in a sea of inequality."

No one could give a more concise or cogent summation of the basic rightness and imperative necessity of marriage equality. As you imply, same-sex couples are relegated to second-class citizenship by our current laws and institutions. Though some selective progress has been made on the state level in specific regions, full equality remains a distant goal. Until a same-sex couple married in Maine can be confident that they will remain married should they travel or move to Alabama, Utah, or any other state they will not truly enjoy the "equal protection of the laws" promised by the 14th Amendment. Moreover, despite progress in states like Maine and Iowa, powerful forces have organized to impede or roll back advances in marriage equality, as exemplified by the tragic case of California and your own state's Hate Amendment.

True equality for all citizens waits upon (among other things) the establishment of federal protections for all Americans' right to marry. I have thus set out to write every member of Congress pleading support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the U.S. constitution. Would you, as an outstanding leader in the cause of civil rights, lend your voice to this cause? Though such a campaign would obviously engender vehement opposition, your proven integrity and sense of civic duty would give it unimpeachable credibility and genuine momentum. In any case, I thank you for your service and attention on this matter, and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Monday, June 1, 2009

Florida (XXI) Congressman Robert Wexler

Today I continue with Congressman Robert Wexler, Democrat, representative of Florida's 19th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Wexler,

I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. You have been outspoken in the House in defense of the rights of LGBT Americans, receiving perfect scores from the Human Rights Campaign for each of the last three Congresses, and have joined colleagues in the LGBT Equality Caucus. You have stopped short of declaring yourself in favor of full marriage equality, however. The "issues" section of your web page declares:

"I support civil unions for same-sex couples and believe that a majority of Americans rightfully recognize that same-sex couples who are committed to a lifelong relationship should enjoy all of the civil benefits that come with marriage. The ability to make medical decisions for a incapacitated partner, inherit property without large tax penalties and receive Social Security survivor benefits are a few examples of domestic benefits that every couple joined in a state-sanctioned union should enjoy and are wholly unrelated to religious matters."

You are right that basic fairness cries out against the arbitrary denial of basic protections to same-sex couples. You note, however, that statutes such as DOMA absolve both the federal government and other states from any responsibility to honor marriages and civil unions performed for same-sex couples in the states where they are legal. Though you acknowledge that DOMA is of dubious constitutionality, you stop short of calling for its repeal.

Though yours is a moderate and seemingly reasonable stance, the times call for a more unequivocal position. Experience has shown that separate is never equal, creating a "second track" system for same-sex couples will not secure them enjoyment of "all the civil benefits that come with marriage." DOMA, to seize upon only one example, ensures that they may not enjoy the peace of mind of knowing that their union will be honored in the 49 states of the Union other than that in which it was sanctioned.

On reflection it must be clear that acknowledging the right of citizens' to marry in the abstract is simply not enough. It is cold comfort to know that most Americans feel one should enjoy all the benefits of marriage while one's life waits on hold for our laws to catch up with public sentiment. Moreover, well-funded, well-organized and militant forces have rallied to block or roll back the progress of marriage equality across the nation. How can we be complacent when citizens who once had the right to marry have now seen it stripped away by Proposition 8?

Because the issue has reached such a dire impasse, 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." Your deeds and words demonstrate that you are cognizant of the justness of the principles underlying this reform. If you would lend it your voice in the House the cause of marriage equality would benefit significantly from your credibility and good name.

I have set out to write every member of Congress asking support for this change to our basic law. Perhaps on reflection you will decide to champion it among your colleagues. In any case, I thank you for your attention and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer