Marriage Equality Amendment

Cut the Glitter

2011-05-19T06:06:00.000-07:00

Though it has been a shamefully long time since I posted on this blog, a recent event compels me to speak up. On Tuesday, May 17, activist Nick Espinosa dumped a box of glitter on GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, in protest of Gingrich's opposition to marriage equality. Though I would agree that, "Anyone telling people who [sic] they can and cannot love is offensive, especially coming from a serial adulterer like Newt," I cannot approve of Espinosa's actions. Condemning and even embarrassing those who would discriminate against their fellow Americans is legitimate, but no political protest is acceptable that actually trespasses upon the physical person of the target.

This principle has become especially urgent in the wake of the shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords, and does not apply only in the movement for marriage equality but for all Americans of any political persuasion. Though glitter may seem harmless and "fun," Espinosa's use of it exposed vulnerabilities in Gingrich's security that might be exploited by those who mean him actual harm. Security personnel are acutely aware of this fact, and will adjust the public profile of Gingrich and other similar public figures to close off these vulnerabilities in future. Even if incidents like Espinosa's don't open the door to further violence, the sum effect of such actions will be to radically curtail the accessibility of all figures across the entire political spectrum, bleeding our civic life and politics of much of its dynamism and openness.

As a society we must adopt a "zero tolerance" policy to any and all physical assaults on public officials and politicians. Either the persons of our officials and politicians are sacrosanct, or we condemn ourselves to living in a police state in which the "political class" is forever insulated from the public it serves. To pranksters like Espinosa, I say: cut the crap. Speaking truth to power with humor is all fine and good, but physical comedy is not a funny matter when it comes to politics.

Illinois (II) Senator Richard Durbin

2010-05-26T08:39:00.000-07:00

Today I resume my correspondence with Senator Richard Durbin, Democrat, senior senator from Illinois:

To the Honorable Senator Richard Durbin,

I write to you seeking your support for a constitutional amendment that would end the discriminatory practice of marriage in our country. Such a Marriage Equality Amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."

During the Bush administration, you repeatedly voted against proposed amendments that would have permanently institutionalized marital discrimination in the United States. That defense of basic civil rights was laudatory, but it is not enough to defend against travesties such as the so-called "marriage protection amendment," for the status quo as it stands in most of the Union is an intolerable breach of the rights of millions of Americans. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees "equal protection of the laws" to all citizens, yet thousands of couples and their children are denied the 1,138 protections and benefits deriving from married status under federal law in deference to the social prejudices of a portion of the population. The constitution must be newly amended, therefore, to clarify the scope of the "equal protection" clause and secure the basic rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for all Americans.

You have been an outstanding leader in the cause of promoting American support for human rights abroad, please consider joining this fight to promote civil rights here at home. I thank you for your attention and hope that this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Don't Ask Don't Tell

2010-02-04T13:50:00.000-08:00

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen based his opposition to the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on a fallacy. DADT does not require Jewish soldiers to "lie about who they are," it only requires that they serve with discretion. Jews are free to serve in the military as long as they keep their private business to themselves.

If openly Jewish soldiers were allowed to serve in the military, this would have an irreparably harmful effect on unit cohesion. The bonds of trust that are key to military life would be unsustainable if soldiers knew that their fellow soldiers were Jews. Can we reasonably ask a young recruit to trust the comrade he shares a foxhole with if he knows he is a Jew?

Moreover, one can not help but fear that the repeal of DADT is only the prelude of a further expansion of the Jewish agenda. Next we will no doubt be asked to allow a Jewish soldier to bring his or her Jewish spouse and Jewish children to live on base, so that they may make public display of their Jewish lifestyle for other military families to see. One can only wonder what offenses to good taste and decency will result then.

Illinois (I) Senator Roland Burris

2010-01-06T07:49:00.000-08:00

Today I continue with Senator Roland Burris, Democrat, junior senator from Illinois:

To the Honorable Roland W. Burris,

I write to you soliciting your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the federal constitution 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." Such a change to our basic law is necessary to bring our institutions into alignment with the natural rights of all of our citizens.

You have been eloquent in exalting the cause of civil rights, declaring: "America's story is a story of ever greater equality- of expanding inclusiveness. Thanks to all those who came before us, this nation is more free, more fair, and more equal than the nation of our forefathers. We are all a part of this story- in fact, it is up to us to write the next chapter." These words are resoundingly true, and it is with the issue of marriage equality that the "next chapter" in the great struggle for civil rights begins.

Though our nation is more fair than it once was, our marriage laws arbitrarily discriminate against tens of thousands of families, with cruel effect. Children are impoverished or subjected to insecurity because their parents' union is unrecognized. Couples that have been together for decades are kept apart or prevented from giving one-another vital assistance because their love does not meet the test of social prejudice. In 1967, in the case of Loving versus Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that to deny citizens' the right to marry on the basis of race was a violation of the fundamental principles at the core of human happiness and fulfillment. That same violation continues today for millions of Americans, because society deems it acceptable to discriminate on the basis of gender where it does not on the basis of race. This is not justice. It is, rather, a call to action- to write our portion of the story of which, as you say, we are all a part.

Though the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all citizens "the equal protection of the law," that safeguard has obviously failed to prevent millions from being deprived of rights of marriage equality. A Marriage Equality Amendment is thus necessary to redress the moral injustice perpetuated by the current state of our laws. Your post in the senate gives you a powerful platform from which to address this issue, Senator. Would you be the voice that speaks up in support of the right? Such an act would inspire millions, and would perfectly embody the principles you so eloquently espoused. Whatever your decision, I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for the new year. I hope this letter finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Idaho (II) Senator Mike Crapo

2009-12-25T07:20:00.000-08:00

Seasons greetings to all who read this blog. Today I continue my correspondence with the Senate with Idaho's junior senator, Mike Crapo, Republican:

To the Honorable Senator Mike Crapo:

I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. You have been a consistent supporter of discriminatory legislation denying the right of same-sex couples to marry, going so far as to advocate the amendment of the U.S. Constitution to establish discrimination as part of our basic law. Your website decries recent "judicial activism" that threatens the "sanctity of marriage." Those same charges were made in opposition to the Supreme Court's ruling in Loving vs. Virginia, which overturned so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws popularly enforced throughout much of the Union. The same principles upheld by the Supreme Court with respect to marriage between blacks and whites in 1967 hold force with respect to marriage between two persons of the same gender today: neither does or ever did pose a threat to the "sanctity of marriage."

The sanctity of marriage is something that must be upheld by each married couple, through their mutual love, care, and fidelity. Marriage is thus sadly profaned daily by myriad Americans, many of them our leaders whose tawdry affairs are broadcast to the world by the every-growing media juggernaut. These people needed to pass no moral qualifying exam to enter into the institution of marriage, they were free to marry anyone at all, provided their partner of choice was the right gender. Where was the government's resolve to defend the sanctity of marriage then? How can the government claim a special mandate to protect the sanctity of marriage with respect to gender, in which only the bigotry of a few perceives a threat, when it abdicates any responsibility to safeguard the sanctity of all other dimensions of matrimonial life? Such sanctity is no sanctity at all. Rather, the government profanes marriage by grounding it in bias and inequity when it would be best sanctified by being fair for all.

Our Republic is founded on the principle that each citizen should have the opportunity to live the life of his or her greatest potential, and that is only possible when all are free to choose their own place in this world. The choice of one's spouse is among the most significant an individual can make, and any limitation of the freedom to make that choice is a betrayal of the founding promise of our nation. For this reason, I and others propose that the U.S. Constitution must be amended in precisely the opposite manner to that attempted by you and your colleagues, 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 changed will it be brought into proper alignment with the natural rights of all our citizens.

Perhaps on further reflection you will see the error of your past position and lend your support to this necessary Marriage Equality Amendment. In any case please know that millions of Americans cherish this goal, and will continue to fight until its principles are realized. I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Idaho (I) Senator James E. Risch

2009-11-25T09:56:00.000-08:00

I begin my renewed correspondence with the U.S. Senate with Senator James E. Risch, Republican, junior senator from the state of Idaho:

To the Honorable Senator James E. Risch,

I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. Under "family values" on the "issues" page of your website, you express your support of Idaho's discriminatory law banning same-sex marriage and your determination to fight against any attempt to repeal the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act." You go as far as expressing your support for a federal Constitutional amendment that would define marriage in the same language as DOMA.

It is hard to see how any of this amounts to an endorsement of "family values," Senator. Thousands of families led by same-sex couples are economically and socially beleaguered because the government arbitrarily denies them the protections and guarantees that flow to all married couples under U.S. law. The suffering of the children of these families is particularly unjust, as they are forced to do without health benefits or basic security to appease social prejudices.

In order to reliably and securely redress the unjust and discriminatory state of our laws, the federal Constitution must indeed be amended, but not in the manner that you proposed. Rather, a Marriage Equality Amendment should be adopted that would safeguard the rights and privileges of all American families, not just those that satisfy the standards of popular bigotry. 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."

Please reconsider your position on this vital concern, Senator. Marriage equality is the great civil rights issue of our time, those who fall on the wrong side of it will be harshly judged by history. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Change of Mission

2009-11-25T09:48:00.000-08:00

A long bout of blog neglect this summer and fall has squandered the time I would have needed to contact every member of the 111th Congress before the next Congress convenes. I thus have left myself no choice but to adopt a more manageable goal: I will petition every member of the current Senate to sponsor a Marriage Equality Amendment, while continuing to use this blog as a platform from which to contact particular Representatives and other officials who play an active role in either promoting or obstructing the cause of marriage equality. I am disappointed in having to lower my sights this way, but my original goal proved unsustainable in the face of other commitments to teaching, parenting, and scholarship. I beg the understanding of those who read this blog and who feel passionately about the cause of marriage equality.

Open Letter to the People of Maine

2009-10-20T21:01:00.001-07:00

Dear Compatriots of Maine,

Joyous greetings from New Jersey, the Garden State. Let me congratulate you in advance. When your governor signed the law on May 6, 2009, granting full marriage equality to all citizens of Maine, I and millions of other Americans celebrated. What a triumph of democracy! History books will forever record that Maine was the fifth state in our great nation to recognize the full civil rights of all its citizens, and the second state to do so by legislative action.

Maine's legacy does not end there, however! On November 3, when voters turn out to vote "no" on Question 1, Maine will be the first state in the Union to recognize its citizens' rights of marriage equality by popular referendum. When you stand up and declare, "No, we will not turn on our neighbors, we will not tell them that you may have a right today, but you will not enjoy it tomorrow," then all the world will take notice. To see an entire community reject intolerance and choose freedom will be an inspiring affirmation of our country's founding values. It will remind us all why we are so proud to be Americans.

On that day my wife and I, like millions of parents, will turn to our daughter and say, "See, sweetheart, ordinary people can do great things." And when the whole nation awakens from the dark night of discrimination, and civil rights are enjoyed by all from sea to shining sea, then everyone will say, "Remember Maine. The beacon was first lit there."

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Hawaii (III) Congressman Neil Abercrombie

2009-09-21T07:44:00.000-07:00

After a long hiatus, I continue today with Congressman Neil Abercrombie, Democrat, representative of Hawaii's 1st Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Abercrombie,

I write soliciting your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the federal constitution that would secure the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." In 2006 you voted against House Joint Resolution 88, which would have amended the U.S. constitution to permanently bar millions of Americans from the marital bond. In doing so, you issued the following statement:

“This ban would be almost unique among constitutional amendments, because it curtails rather than expands individual rights and liberties. The sole exception was the 18^th amendment, which brought us the ‘noble experiment’ of prohibition. Prohibition was repealed a short time later, because it proved to be an utter failure both in terms of enforceability and of elevating the nation’s moral tone.

“Marriage and civil unions have always been and rightfully remain the province of individual states. Asserting a Federal power to regulate marriage is only a short step away from claiming Federal authority to govern every other aspect of family life—divorce, child support, inheritance, child rearing, etc.

“The U.S. Constitution is the underlying document which: (1) serves as the basic blueprint for the operation of the Federal government; and (2) defines the balance of powers and rights among the national government, states, and individuals. To drag the Constitution into areas beyond those fundamentals is to trivialize the basic document of our freedom.

“That prospect is why the founders made changing the Constitution much more difficult than passing statutory law. Amendments must pass each house of Congress by a two-thirds margin and be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. This is a formidable hurdle, and rightly so. Amending the Constitution because of changes in the political weather endangers the stability of the country and embedded protections for minorities that have served the nation well.”

You are entirely correct in comparing House Joint Resolution 88 to Prohibition, and identifying the inherent failings of such attempts to use the constitution to curtail individual rights. I would point out, however, that the most necessary and successful amendments to our basic law have been those that secure and guarantee individual rights. It is thus not inappropriate to amend the constitution to, borrowing your words, "expand individual rights and liberties" and "protect minorities." Though marriage has been the traditional purview of the states, arbitrary exclusion from the marital bond is such a grievous curtailment of personal liberty that it requires the intervention of federal power to redress. This was the principle underlying the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, and it is the legal, ethical, and moral imperative underlying the need for a Marriage Equality Amendment today in 2009.

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 fit to lend this measure your support. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Hawaii (II) Senator Daniel Akaka

2009-07-20T11:57:00.000-07:00

Today I continue with Senator Daniel Akaka, junior senator from the state of Hawaii:

Dear Senator Akaka,

I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry across the United States. In 2006, you rose on the floor of the Senate to speak in opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 1 of the 109th Congress, proposing a so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" to the U.S. constitution that would have instituted marital discrimination nationwide, even in states where marriage equality rights had already been recognized. In your remarks, you declared:

"The proposed Marriage Protection Amendment directly contradicts one of the Constitution's fundamental principles-the guarantee of equal protection for all. Since the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791, the Constitution has been amended only 17 times and, with the exception of prohibition, each time it has been to expand the rights of the American people. Adoption of the Marriage Protection Amendment would tarnish that rich tradition by targeting a specific group for social, economic and civic discrimination. I believe that, as government leaders, it is our responsibility to protect individual liberties, not to take them away or restrict them....This amendment will only serve to segregate a portion of our population and prevent them from participating as full citizens. Instead I urge us all to work together to ensure that the freedoms enumerated by the Constitution can be equally enjoyed by all."

You eloquently articulated the philosophical and constitutional imperative underlying the movement for marriage equality, Senator. As you note, marriage equality is not an extraordinary privilege or special consideration, but a fundamental corollary of the 14th Amendment's promise of "the equal protection of the laws." As long as an entire class of citizens is arbitrarily excluded from the marital bond, the founding vision of our Republic remains unrealized.

Because the current state of marital apartheid that prevails in 45 states is intolerable, 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." Though, as you noted in other remarks, marriage law has traditionally been the purview of the states, this federal guarantee of marriage equality is a liberal safeguard wholly consonant with established tradition and constitutional precedent, as exemplified by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case of Loving v. Virginia.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this Marriage Equality Amendment. If you truly hold to heart the principles you expressed in 2006, please lend your voice again to this fair and just reform. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Hawaii (I) Senator Daniel Inouye

2009-07-17T13:58:00.000-07:00

Today I begin corresponding with Hawaii's Congressional delegation with Senator Daniel Inouye, Democrat, senior senator from that state:

Dear Senator Inouye,

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 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 establish justice and equity within our society and legal institutions.

Though efforts to establish marriage equality in Hawaii have been thwarted, you have shown yourself sympathetic to the cause on the national stage. You have taken a politically courageous stand against attempts to hinder or roll back marriage equality, voting against both the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" and the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment." This last stand was made a special point of contention by your Republican opponent in your last reelection campaign.

Having witnessed the internment of fellow Japanese-Americans during WWII, you well understand the urgency of the 14th Amendment's pledge that all deserve "the equal protection of the laws," and have personal experience of the tragedy that ensues when that pledge is broken. As a Medal of Honor recipient you speak with the moral authority of one who has given the highest measure of devotion in defense of the Republic and its principles. Your support of a Marriage Equality Amendment could profoundly alter the state of national discourse on this vital civil rights question.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking sponsorship for this change to our basic law. Perhaps on reflection you will choose to lend it your considerable authority. In any case I thank you for your attention and for your great service to our nation, and I hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Georgia (XV) Congressman David Scott

2009-07-16T08:06:00.000-07:00

Today I conclude my correspondence with Georgia's Congressional delegation with Congressman David Scott, Democrat, representative of Georgia's 13th Congressional district:

Dear Congressman Scott,

I write to urge you to change your stance on the issue of marriage equality. In the past you have crossed party lines to vote in favor of the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have denied same-sex couples the right to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment, if passed, would have rebelled against the founding spirit of our Republic, as it would have withdrawn recognition of natural rights already being enjoyed by citizens in certain states.

The current movement for marriage equality is an extension of that begun in 1967, with the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia. The same principle the court upheld then with respect to race holds true today with respect to gender and sexual identity. The state can not arbitrarily exclude citizens from the institution of marriage. Denial of the 1,138 legal benefits and protections of marriage solely on the basis of gender is discrimination, pure and simple.

Because progress has been slow and powerful forces seek to hinder or roll it back, 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 means to establish justice and basic fairness in our society and institutions. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this measure.

Your voting record demonstrates that you are not entirely unsympathetic to the concerns of LGBT Americans and their struggle for equal rights. I would urge you to give further consideration to this issue, and to align yourself with the forces that will secure you the most positive legacy as a legislator and civic leader. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Georgia (XIV) Congressman John Barrow

2009-07-15T10:35:00.000-07:00

Today I continue with Congressman John Barrow, Democrat, representative of Georgia's 12th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Barrow,

I write to urge you to change your position regarding marriage equality. In the past you have crossed party lines and joined efforts to deny same-sex couples their right to marry. On the wise decision of Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance C. Russell to strike down a Georgia state ban on marriage equality enacted by referendum, you declared:

“I believe that any individual has the right to live his or her life as they please within
the law, but I also believe that marriage should follow law and tradition and remain
between a man and a woman."

This is an exercise in circular reasoning, Congressman. On the one hand you aver that all have the right to live as they please within the law, on the other you declare that the law should be configured so as to deny thousands the right to live as they please. Such tepid wording does not cut to the crux of the issue, moreover. At stake is not merely a question of personal pleasure or convenience, but the health, security, and general welfare of myriad Americans, many of them children. Marriage carries with it 1,138 legal benefits and protections. Those couples attempting to build families and maintain homes outside of the shelter of the marital bond (and any children that might be in their care) suffer real deprivation and hardship as a result. How does such a situation fulfill our nation's founding promise of the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" or the 14th Amendment's guarantee of the "equal protection of the laws?"

Basic fairness requires that marriage equality be instituted not only in Georgia, but nationwide. To that end, I and others have proposed 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." I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this Marriage Equality Amendment.

Marriage equality is the great civil rights struggle of our generation, and in your opposition to this good cause you imperil your place in the eyes of posterity. Perhaps on reflection you will recant your current views and join the fight against discrimination. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Georgia (XIII) Congressman Phil Gingrey

2009-07-14T08:59:00.000-07:00

Today I continue with Congressman Phil Gingrey, Republican, representative of Georgia's 11th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Gingrey:

I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. In 2006 you were very vocal in your support of the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment." In your remarks on the floor of the House during that debate, you declared:

"This Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with exclusion but has everything to do with protecting the traditional and historical definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. And, contrary to what the opponents of this resolution will say today, this Amendment will simply PRESERVE the traditional definition of marriage as it has existed for millennia."

Your argument begins with a fallacy. If one searches the records of history, one of course finds that there has never been one historical and enduring definition of marriage, certainly not one limiting it to a "union between one man and one woman." Polygamy was widely practiced for many centuries, and same-sex unions have been commonplace in certain cultures and eras, extending up to the present day. Even if one limits "real marriage" to some notion of a "Judaeo-Christian" tradition (though why one should in a system dedicated to the separation of church and state is dubious at best), one must acknowledge that marriage has changed radically over the course of recent years, to accommodate society's evolving understanding of the nature of individual rights and personal autonomy. If the public voted to restore certain "historical" dimensions of marriage, such as the power of families to force their members into arranged marriage or the lack of protection against spousal rape, would that serve the interest of justice?

Beyond your appeal to a fictional "millenia-old" definition of marriage, you posited other specious arguments in support of discrimination:

"[T]his Amendment is in response to a few activist judges are trying to throw out the definition of marriage along with over 200 years of American judicial precedent. These judges and these judges alone made this matter an issue, and they did so without one vote cast in either a legislature or at the ballot box. These activist judges substituted legal precedent and the will of the American people with their own personal desires and political beliefs. Their decision to scrap the traditional definition of marriage has forced us to now consider enshrining the definition of marriage into our Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, like most of my colleagues, I would prefer to not have to address this issue in this manner. Unfortunately, I know my constituents and a strong majority of the American people want us to defend the traditional definition of marriage. A poll by the New York Times, not exactly a bastion of right wing conservatism, found that 59%, I repeat, 59% of Americans favor an amendment to the Constitution stating that marriage is a union between one man and one woman."

The decisions of courts in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Iowa can only be deemed "judicial activism" if one ignores their philosophical and jurisprudential bases. The Founders established the powers of the independent judiciary as a safeguard for the rights of individual citizens against the tyrrany of the majority, and that is precisely the role that the courts have played in upholding the principle of marriage equality. This is not a recent move by the courts, moreover, but a precedent that extends back decades. At the time that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws back in 1967, such laws had broad popular support in much of the United States, and would have passed any referendum test. The Supreme Court held that two people could not be kept apart simply because their neighbors deemed them to be of a different "race," that such meddling by the community was a breach of each citizen's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." By your reckoning, Loving v. Virginia was no less an instance of "judicial activism" than the more recent decisions upholding marriage equality handed down by state courts.

Call it what you like, Loving v. Virginia was justice, and an expression of the best principles at the heart of our system of laws. I would hazard to guess that you share my admiration of the court's actions in Loving v. Virginia, Congressman. If so, the difference you perceive between that movement toward marriage equality and what transpires today does not reflect your opposition to judicial activism, but your embrace of one form of discrimination even as you reject others.

Marriage equality is the great civil rights struggle of our generation. Posterity will look back and judge harshly those who stand against it today, just as we look back in shock and disgust at those who supported the "anti-miscegenation" laws struck down in 1967. Unfortunately, many share your views. Progress has been slow and difficult, and powerful forces are gathered to hinder it or roll it back. For that reason, I and others propose that the U.S. constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a Marriage Equality Amendment is the surest means to establishing fairness and justice within our society and laws.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support fo this change to our basic law. Perhaps on reflection you will recant your discriminatory policies and redeem your place in the future history of our Republic. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Georgia (XII) Congressman Paul C. Broun

2009-07-13T05:17:00.000-07:00

Today I continue with Congressman Paul Broun, Republican, representative of Georgia's 10th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Broun,

I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. This year you reintroduced legislation that would have amended the U.S. constitution to bar marriage equality throughout the Union, despite its repeated failure to win ratification in previous Congresses and its acute lack of support in the current legislature. Your quixotic devotion to the cause of discrimination might seem quaint if it were not so mean-spirited and frighteningly illiberal.

You cited the recent recognition of marriage equality rights in several states as the motivation for your current initiative. I and others perceive the situation in diametrically opposed terms. Now that American citizens in five state finally are enjoying the natural and inalienable rights that were theirs all along, we only fear that misguided leaders such as you will roll back the tide of progress and return our compatriots to a condition of oppression. Moreover, we can not help but be dismayed that citizens in forty-five states still live in the dark ages. For these reasons, we propose that the constitution be amended in precisely the opposite manner you propose, so as to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this Marriage Equality Amendment.

Perhaps on reflection you will see the error of your views and cease your campaign against the rights of fellow Americans. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Georgia (XI) Congressman Nathan Deal

2009-06-29T13:41:00.000-07:00

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

Georgia (X) Congressman Jim Marshall

2009-06-28T10:58:00.000-07:00

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

Georgia (IX) Congressman John Linder

2009-06-27T06:28:00.001-07:00

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

Georgia (VIII) Congressman Tom Price

2009-06-26T07:28:00.000-07:00

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

Georgia (VII) Congressman John Lewis

2009-06-25T06:35:00.000-07:00

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

Georgia (VI) Congressman Hank Johnson

2009-06-17T08:46:00.001-07:00

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

Georgia (V) Congressman Lynn A. Westmoreland

2009-06-14T12:52:00.000-07:00

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

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

2009-06-12T13:16:00.000-07:00

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

Georgia (III) Congressman Jack Kingston

2009-06-11T06:16:00.000-07:00

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

Georgia (II) Senator Johnny Isakson

2009-06-10T07:25:00.000-07:00

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

Georgia (I) Senator Saxby Chambliss

2009-06-09T06:54:00.000-07:00

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

Florida (XXVII) Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart

2009-06-08T08:07:00.000-07:00

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

Florida (XXVI) Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas

2009-06-07T14:46:00.000-07:00

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

Florida (XXV) Congressman Alcee L. Hastings

2009-06-05T06:53:00.000-07:00

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

Florida (XXIV) Congressman Ron Klein

2009-06-04T08:09:00.000-07:00

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

Florida (XXIII) Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart

2009-06-03T05:27:00.000-07:00

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

Florida (XXII) Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz

2009-06-02T07:06:00.000-07:00

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

Florida (XXI) Congressman Robert Wexler

2009-06-01T14:43:00.000-07:00

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

Florida (XX) Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

2009-05-31T07:42:00.000-07:00

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

Florida (XIX) Congressman Kendrick Meek

2009-05-30T05:49:00.000-07:00

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

Florida (XVIII) Congressman Thomas Rooney

2009-05-29T09:14:00.000-07:00

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

Florida (XVII) Congressman Bill Posey

2009-05-28T13:49:00.000-07:00

Today I continue with Congressman Bill Posey, Republican, representative of Florida's 15th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Posey,

I write to urge you to take the side of right in the ongoing debate over marriage equality in our country. As a newly elected Congressman, you have yet to establish a legislative record on this issue. You reportedly did endorse the recently passed Hate Amendment to the Florida constitution, however, which denies same-sex couples recognition of their right to marry. I implore you to reconsider your stance, Congressman, and side with the cause of justice rather than that of discrimination.

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

Florida (XVI) Congressman Connie Mack

2009-05-25T11:52:00.000-07:00

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

Florida (XV) Congressman Vern Buchanan

2009-05-19T08:03:00.000-07:00

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

Florida (XIV) Congressman Adam Putnam

2009-05-18T07:26:00.001-07:00

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

Florida (XIII) Congresswoman Kathy Castor

2009-05-17T11:35:00.000-07:00

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

Florida (XII) Congressman C.W. Bill Young

2009-05-16T07:14:00.000-07:00

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

Florida (XI) Congressman Gus Bilirakis

2009-05-11T06:49:00.000-07:00

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

Florida (X) Congressman Alan Grayson

2009-05-10T06:02:00.000-07:00

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

Florida (IX) Congressman John Mica

2009-05-06T06:26:00.000-07:00

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

Florida (VIII) Congressman Cliff Stearns

2009-05-04T05:40:00.000-07:00

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

Florida (VII) Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite

2009-05-03T07:26:00.000-07:00

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

Florida (VI) Congressman Ander Crenshaw

2009-05-02T15:25:00.000-07:00

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

Florida (V) Congresswoman Corrine Brown

2009-05-01T08:28:00.000-07:00

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

Florida (IV) Congressman Allen Boyd

2009-04-29T07:09:00.000-07:00

Today I continue with Congressman Allen Boyd, Democrat, representative of Florida's 2nd Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Boyd,

I write to respectfully urge you to change your stance with regard to marriage equality. In the past you have crossed party lines to vote in favor of the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage throughout the United States. That initiative had little chance of passage, and was largely perceived as a GOP political stunt. Since 2006, however, the issue of marriage equality has gathered increasing force and urgency. The rights of same-sex couples have been recognized in four states and prospects are good that the scope of this progress will widen. At the same time, the opponents of marriage equality have focused and accelerated their efforts to block or roll back the advancing tide of civil liberties. Travesties like Proposition 8 have actually succeeded in nullifying rights already won by American citizens, a kind of odious regression rare in our nation's history.

The stakes are thus much higher now than when you voted with the GOP. Decisions made over the next few years will materially impact the lives and welfare of millions of Americans for years to come, and every citizen must commit to a conscientious choice in the knowledge that the future of his or her compatriots hangs in the balance. Your record suggests that your thinking regarding the rights and concerns of LGBT citizens has evolved in recent years. The Human Rights Campaign gave you ratings of 0, 25, and 67 percent, respectively, over the last three Congresses. During this same period you yourself took pro-active steps to forge links with the Floridian LGBT community. It is my hope that this dynamism of perspective might extend to a full reversal of your former stance on marriage equality.

This is not a matter of enforcing party discipline for petty doctrinaire reasons. As a lifelong Democrat, I hope that the party can be a "big tent" and can appreciate an elected official who takes a conscientious stand in opposition to the partisan consensus. This is not an issue that is amenable to distinctions of degree, however. If one believes that marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is an inalienable right, one must commit to full marriage equality for all citizens as a matter of law. If one insists that same-sex couples must not be admitted to the marital bond, one must do so in the full awareness that this will deny millions of Americans 1,138 legal benefits and protections that automatically flow to married couples under federal law. Perhaps you have some explanation why this does not make LGBT Americans second-class citizens, Congressman. I do not.

As a married husband and father I was very upset by the passage of Proposition 8 in California. It never occurred to my wife and I that entering into an institution from which our compatriots were abitrarily excluded bore a moral burden, and that complacency was born from a latent faith that as our nation moved forward, natural progress would occur in the realm of marriage equality. It is clear now, however, that "natural progress" will not occur without the principled and active commitment of conscientious citizens and leaders.

For that reason I have set out to write every member of Congress, seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would secure the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." This reform is the surest means to ensuring that our fellow citizens may not be denied the security and happiness that marriage has facilitated for my wife, myself, and our daughter.

Support for a Marriage Equality Amendment would obviously entail high political risk, especially in light of your past voting record. Given what is at stake, however, I appeal to you to give this measure due consideration and reflection. Whatever your ultimate choice, I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Florida (III) Congressman Jeff Miller

2009-04-24T05:48:00.000-07:00

Today I continue with Congressman Jeff Miller, Republican, representative of Florida's 1st Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Miller,

I write to protest your opposition to marriage equality. As a co-sponsor of the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment," you have been a longtime and active opponent of the rights of same-sex couples. Your website contains the following policy statement:

"I believe that marriage consists of a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. This amendment is about the institution of marriage and the American values that are represented by the union between a man and woman. Same sex couples don’t have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society...It is time for our country to get back to the morals and values of our forefathers...The marriage of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored in all cultures and by every religious faith. It’s in this institution that children are meant to be nurtured. We know this after thousands of years of human experience.”

There are a number of serious lapses of logic in this declaration. Your appeal to "thousands of years of human experience" is particularly misguided, as over the course of that time marriage has varied dramatically from society to society and from era to era. For much of human history polygamy was the norm in many cultures, and an even more frequent phenomenon was the virtual enslavement of a wife to her husband. The recognition of marriage equality would thus not "redefine" marriage any more radically than has already been the case in American social history. Moreover, marriage between partners of the same sex was far from unknown in world history, and continues to be practiced today as an ancient tradition in some cultures.

As to whether heterosexual marriage embodies traditional "American" values, that is a matter of perspective. Denying women the vote and African-Americans their freedom were once "values" held by many Americans, but surely you would agree that those are "traditions" happily abandoned. Marriage equality, on the other hand, undoubtedly embodies the values of which we as Americans may be most proud. We are a nation founded on the proposition that all people have an inalienable right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In 1967, in its decision in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court recognized that the freedom to marry the consenting partner of one's choice was an essential and indispensable precondition of this basic American promise, and must be federally protected. They thus struck down the so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws that banned "interracial" marriage in many states.

What was true in the case of the Lovings is true of same-sex couples today. A couple whose bond is not sanctioned by the state are deprived of 1,138 protections and benefits that would flow to them under federal law. They are thus materially hindered in their enjoyment of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and are relegated to the status of second-class citizens. This is more than a matter of principle, but a cause of personal suffering for millions of Americans on a daily basis. Such a state of apartheid is unworthy of a Republic founded upon our great American values, and must not stand.

Unfortunately many share your prejudices, Congressman, and have been very effective in promoting them in the political arena. For that reason I and others propose that the U.S. constitution be amended to read, "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a reform is the surest and most durable means to securing and protecting the rights of all Americans.

You may disagree with the principles underlying this change, but please understand that millions will fight tirelessly until the practical goal of marriage equality is achieved. Perhaps on reflection you will see the error of your current stance. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope that this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Florida (II) Senator Mel Martinez

2009-04-22T07:34:00.001-07:00

Today I continue with Senator Mel Martinez, Republican, junior senator from the state of Florida:

Dear Senator Martinez,

I write in protest of your stance against marriage equality. In a debate against your electoral opponent on October 24, 2004, you declared: "I believe a marriage should be only between one man and one woman and I will vote for the constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and woman." You made your support of this constitutional ban a fundamental plank of your election campaign, sponsoring television advertisements calling upon other Senators to join you in such an assault on the rights of your fellow citizens.

You are certainly not alone in your beliefs concerning marriage, but that is no test of whether such beliefs are a fair basis for civil law. Many Jews, for example, quite understandably believe that interfaith marriage is wrong. No one would seriously contemplate emending the law to accommodate such beliefs, however, as to do so would deprive interfaith couples of their basic freedom to love whom they choose. On the same principle, it is grossly unfair to prevent consenting adults from sharing property and work benefits, holding joint guardianship of children, visiting one-another in hospital, or enjoying any of the 1,138 protections and benefits of marriage simply because you and others are troubled by the idea of same-sex love. Marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is a basic and inalienable right. Denying recognition of that right to same-sex couples relegates all LGBT Americans to second-class citizenship, a form of mass discrimination that is totally out of step with the founding principles of our democracy.

Unfortunately, many share your prejudices and have been very active in promoting them on the political scene, militating to not only preserve the current state of marital apartheid in our country but to broaden and deepen its reach. For this reason I and others have proposed that the U.S. constitution should be amended to read, "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a reform would be the surest and most durable means to secure and defend the rights of all Americans.

In time and upon reflection perhaps you will see the error of your current stance. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Florida (I) Senator Bill Nelson

2009-04-20T07:01:00.001-07:00

Today I begin my correspondence with Florida's Congressional delegation with Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat, senior senator from that state:

Dear Senator Nelson,

I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Though you have supported the establishment of same-sex "civil unions" and voted against the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment," you have opposed the establishment of full marriage equality, asserting that marriage should only be "between a man and a woman." I hope you may be persuaded to reconsider your views on this issue.

In response to a campaign ad run by Senator Mel Martinez, in which he called upon you to support the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment," you stated: "throughout our history, the Constitution has always guaranteed civil rights, not taken them away." In so declaring you acknowledged the clear and compelling principle underlying marriage equality, Senator. Marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is a civil right, one that is not vulnerable to the will of the majority and should be federally protected. Acknowledging that two people of the same gender may be married (in other words, that they may love, honor and cherish one-another in mutual fidelity) poses no threat to the institution of marriage itself or to society at large. Refusing to do so, however, causes real human suffering for millions of Americans on a daily basis and at a personal level. Being denied married status deprives a couple (according to the Government Accountability Office) of 1,138 benefits and protections enjoyed by married couples under federal law. Most unconscionable is the plight of children in the care of same-sex guardians, who are arbitrarily robbed of the protections and security that the children of heterosexual couples may take for granted.

The current state of discrimination and injustice cannot stand. What then, should be done? At this moment the clash of progressive values with entrenched prejudice has produced an ever-more byzantine patchwork of conflicting conventions and legalities. This is neither fair to the citizens of America nor good for the institution of marriage: one of the enduring strengths of the marital bond has been its universal portability from state to state (indeed, from nation to nation). The surest and most durable redress would be to amend the U.S. constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law. I hope that you will see the wisdom and justice of this measure and lend it your voice in the Senate. In any case I trust you to act conscientiously and thank you for your attention on this matter. I hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Delaware (III) Congressman Mike Castle

2009-04-19T05:54:00.000-07:00

Today I conclude my correspondence with Delaware's Congressional delegation with Congressman Mike Castle, Republican, representative-at-large for the state:

Dear Congressman Castle,

I write asking you to reconsider your views on marriage equality. In the past you have crossed party lines to vote against the proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and have earned positive ratings of above 60% from the Human Rights Campaign for the last two Congresses. Your record thus demonstrates that you are not wholly unsympathetic to the rights of LGBT citizens. You have, however, expressed personal opposition to full marriage equality on the state level. I hope that you may be persuaded to relinquish that opposition.

Though many questions pertaining to marriage (the legal age of consent, conventions pertaining to common law marriage and divorce, etc.) do not fall within the proper purview of the federal government, marriage equality is not a principle that is amenable to negotiation on a state by state basis. Marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is so central to the enjoyment of "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and such a fundamental right, that the question of who may enter the marriage bond must be determined ecumenically for all citizens at the federal level. This was the view of the Supreme Court in 1967 when they struck down states' so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws in their ruling in Loving v. Virginia.

If you allow that some states may decide to institute marriage equality for same-sex couples, then logic compels you to recognize that all states must do so. How can it possibly be fair that a couple may enjoy the 1,138 benefits and protections that flow from marriage in some parts of the Union but not in others? Such a state of affair is neither good for the welfare of our citizens or the integrity of marriage itself as an institution.

The surest way to redress the current problem is to amend the U.S. constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a Marriage Equality Amendment would no doubt greatly anger many of your Republican co-partisans, but your long history of independent leadership suggests that you might be persuaded of its necessity. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law. I hope that you will lend this effort your considerable authority. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Delaware (II) Senator Ted Kaufman

2009-04-18T06:19:00.000-07:00

Today I continue with Senator Ted Kaufman, Democrat, junior senator from the state of Delaware:

Dear Senator Kaufman,

I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." This reform is the surest and most durable way to end the discrimination that millions of Americans must currently endure.

Your predecessor and former employer, Vice President Biden, was on record as supporting civil unions for same-sex couples even as he opposed full marriage equality. In an interview on "Meet the Press" in 2007 , when asked if "gay marriage" was inevitable, he responded in these terms:

"Well, I think it probably is because social mores change. But I don’t think the government can dictate the definition of marriage to religious institutions. But government does have an obligation to guarantee that every individual is free of discrimination. And there’s a distinction. I think government should not be able to dictate to religions the definition of marriage, but on a civil side, government has the obligation to strip away every vestige of discrimination as to what individuals are able to do in terms of their personal conduct."

This answer compels one to make two observations. The first is that if you, like Vice-President Biden, feel that the "government does have an obligation to guarantee that every individual is free of discrimination," then the only route to that goal is full, federal marriage equality. Experience demonstrates that the full range of 1,138 benefits and protections which flow to couples from married status under federal law can not be secured to citizens through the establishment of a "second-track" institution like civil unions. A couple that is not deemed married by law does not enjoy all the legal safeguards of marriage, and is therefore discriminated against in myriad ways large and small.

Secondly, Vice-President Biden's concern that "governments should not be able to dictate to religions the definition of marriage" has no bearing on the issue of civil marriage equality. Civil and relgious marriage are separate institutions that circumstantially share a common name. There will never be perfect agreement between what the government deems "marriage" and the doctrinal statutes of any particular religious group. This has not derailed the parallel operation of civil and religious marriage in the past, and will not do so once rights of marriage equality have been fully recognized for all Americans. There are many types of marriage now legal which particular denominations will not sanction, none of which have caused a crisis in church-state relations or an abridgment of religious liberties. For example, every year thousands of interfaith couples are married in ceremonies that many orthodox rabbis refuse to perform, yet none of the synagogues those rabbis serve have suffered political consequences. Moreover, right now same-sex marriages are being sanctified in progressive churches and synagogues across the country despite lacking civil legal status, so that in refusing to recognize marriage equality rights the government is effectively doing precisely what Vice-President Biden wished to avoid.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment. I hope that you will see the justice of this cause and lend it your support. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter and congratulate you on your new office.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Delaware (I) Senator Thomas Carper

2009-04-17T05:24:00.000-07:00

Today I begin my correspondence with Delaware's Congressional delegation with Senator Thomas Carper, Democrat, senior senator from that state:

Dear Senator Carper,

I write as a concerned citizen to urge you to reconsider your views on marriage equality. Though your record shows you sympathetic to the rights of LGBT citizens (you have received consistent positive ratings from the Human Rights Campaign for the past three congresses), you have taken a deeply ambivalent stance on the issue of marriage equality. In voting against the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have effected a national ban on same-sex marriage, you issued the following statement:

"I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. When I was governor of Delaware, I signed legislation defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Forty-four other states besides Delaware have similar laws. When President Clinton was in office, he also signed a law that would prohibit states from having to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

"Those laws are working. No state has been forced to recognize gay marriages performed in Massachusetts or gay civil unions performed in other states. As such, I’m not convinced that we need to take the extraordinary step of amending the Constitution to define marriage. Since the Bill of Rights was approved in 1791, more than 10,000 Constitutional amendments have been considered, but only 17 have been approved. Amending that sacred document is something we should do only when it's absolutely necessary and when the need is absolutely clear. For the past 200 years, states have controlled and granted marriage rights. States have been the ones to determine who can marry and at what age, as well as the rules of divorce, alimony and child support. This amendment, however, would usurp that tradition. We should stick with what has worked and let states continue to define marriage as they see fit."

There are several logical problems posed by the views you expressed here, Senator. You profess to believe that "marriage is between a man and a woman," and in this view you are certainly not alone. To my mind this view is misguided, but the question of which of us is right is not really germane to the issue as a matter of state. What you must ask yourself as a legislator is whether your beliefs may serve as a fair and just basis for the law, and to this question the answer is emphatically "no." Can it possibly be fair that two consenting adults who profess to love, honor, and respect one-another be denied 1,138 legal protections and benefits simply to accommodate your beliefs? Surely not.

This is why, contrary to what you claim in the above statement, it has not been true that "states have controlled and granted marriage rights" for the past 200 years. If that were so, in 1968 it would still have been a crime for two people deemed to be of different race to marry in much of the country, among which would have been included the parents of our current President, Barack Obama. In 1967 the Supreme Court struck down so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws on the principle that marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is an inalienable right and should be federally protected. On that same principle marriage equality must be expanded to include same-sex couples today.

Though there is already constitutional basis for the establishment of national marriage equality in the 14th Amendment's promise of "equal protection of the law," widespread prejudice has blocked millions of Americans from the enjoyment of their natural rights. For this reason I and others propose that the federal constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law. I hope that on reflection you will see the justice of this reform and lend it your support. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Connecticut (VII) Congressman Chris Murphy

2009-04-15T06:43:00.000-07:00

Today I conclude my correspondence with Connecticut's Congressional delegation with Congressman Chris Murphy, Democrat, representative of Connecticut's 5th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Murphy,

I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the U.S. constitution that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the nation. The Government Accountability Office lists 1,138 discrete benefits and protections that flow to a couple from married status under federal law. Marriage to the consenting partner of one's choice is thus an inalienable right, one promised to all by the 14th Amendment's injunction that every citizen receive "equal protection of the law." Unfortunately, widespread bigotry and discrimination have alienated millions of Americans from the enjoyment of their natural rights. To redress this injustice the federal constitution should be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."

Though only in your second term, your record shows you sympathetic to the rights of LGBT citizens. The fight for a Marriage Equality Amendment would obviously be difficult and fraught with political risk, but the most recent election has demonstrated that we can not know in what direction the nation is ready to move until someone has the courage to lead it there. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking sponsorship for this change to our basic law. Will you lend this reform your advocacy in the House of Representatives, Congressman? In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope that this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Connecticut (VI) Congressman Jim Himes

2009-04-14T05:40:00.001-07:00

Today I continue with Congressman Jim Himes, Democrat, representative of Connecticut's 4th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Himes,

I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." You expressed full support for marriage equality in your campaign for Congress. Your campaign website contains the following policy statement:

"Jim Himes supports marriage equality. Same-sex couples should have the same choices that other couples have, including whether or not to marry, and they should have access to the benefits and responsibilities of legally recognized relationships-including health insurance, unemployment compensation, taxes, immigration status, inheritance, family leave, and hospital visitation.

In recent years, there have been many misguided efforts by the federal government to legislate in this area. Jim opposes efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. He also supports the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and would oppose any effort to strip the courts of jurisdiction to hear civil rights challenges to discriminatory laws."

Such a forthright declaration of principle is both admirably progressive and politically courageous. The "misguided efforts" you note have unfortunately not been confined to Congress. Campaigns to block or roll back the establishment of marriage equality, both public and private, have accelerated and intensified across the nation. The passage of Proposition 8 in California and the release of the inflammatory "Gathering Storm" ad are only the most extreme example of the broad assault on Americans' rights being waged by those dedicated to discrimination and exclusion. These unjust and injurious attacks require a vigorous response, thus I and others propose that the federal constitution be amended to unequivocally and durably protect American citizens from being deprived of the right to marry the consenting partners of their choice.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law. My letters are collected at a weblog: http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/. As a newly elected member of Congress you will no doubt be cautious in choosing those causes to which you lend your public advocacy. The fight for a Marriage Equality Amendment will no doubt be met with vehement resistance and could prove politically perilous. This expansion of the nation's founding mandate for all citizens' rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" represents the next natural step in the historical development of our Republic, however. I hope that you will be persuaded to lend this campaign your voice, and will advocate on behalf of a Marriage Equality Amendment among your colleagues in the House. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter, and wish you every success in your new office.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Connecticut (V) Congresswoman Rosa L. Delauro

2009-04-13T07:43:00.000-07:00

Today I continue with Congresswoman Rosa L. Delauro, Democrat, representative of Connecticut's 3rd Congressional District:

Dear Congresswoman Delauro,

I write seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Though recent events in Iowa and Vermont have moved the cause of marriage equality forward in important ways, discriminatory forces around the country have effectively blocked or rolled back progress for millions of Americans. Such a focused assault on citizens' rights demands a robust response, thus I and others propose that the federal constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."

As a member of Congress since 1981, you have been a long-term champion of civil rights in the House, consistently earning high marks from the ACLU, the NAACP, and the Human Rights Campaign. Moreover, as a devout Catholic who has thought and spoken with sensitivity and erudition about the complexity of reconciling faith and political engagement, you well understand the destructive ways in which the politicization of religion has distorted the discourse on this issue. In a speech delivered to the Pew Forum in 2006, you reaffirmed President Kennedy's declaration of principle: "I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Jewish where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches, or any other ecclesiastical source." This is the philosophy that should guide the expression of faith in our national politics, and the reason why the morality of marriage equality should be assessed first and foremost as a question of legal doctrine and civil rights, unclouded by the religious views of any particular confessional group.

Sponsorship of a Marriage Equality Amendment would be in keeping with the record of articulate, thoughtful, and courageous leadership that you have established in your more than two decades of service. I hope that you will see the wisdom of this campaign and lend it your voice. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Connecticut (IV) Congressman Joe Courtney

2009-04-12T07:11:00.000-07:00

Today I continue with Congressman Joe Courtney, Democrat, representative of Connecticut's 2nd Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Courtney,

I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Across the U.S. the tide of marriage equality has been rising. The recent court decision in Iowa and the courageous action of the Vermont legislature demonstrate that public awareness has shifted. A new generation of Americans understand that marriage equality is not a religious issue but a question of civil rights. At stake is whether all Americans will enjoy the "equal protection of the law," or whether a system of apartheid will persist in which millions are relegated to second-class citizenship.

Even so, those who support injustice and discrimination remain active, vocal, and exceedingly well-funded. The narrow passage of "Proposition 8" in California and the fear-mongering "Gathering Storm" ad campaign by the so-called "National Organization for Marriage" evince the determination of those who not only oppose the recognition of marriage equality rights moving forward, but would turn back the clock and restore America's illiberal past. Such a coordinated assault upon the rights of American citizens must be met with a robust response. For this reason I and others propose that the federal constitution be amended to read, "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."

The fight for such a change to our basic law would obviously be long, difficult, and fraught with political peril. As a recently elected representative you no doubt will be cautious in choosing the issues to which you choose to lend your public advocacy. I recommend this campaign to you as not only right and just, but one which could effect real and positive change for millions of Americans in the long term. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment. Please consider advocating for this reform among your colleagues in the House. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Connecticut (III) Congressman John B. Larson

2009-04-11T06:53:00.000-07:00

Today I continue with Congressman John B. Larson, Democrat, representative of Connecticut's 1st Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Larson,

I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Your home state was among the first to realize that affording all citizens "equal protection of the law" required that full marriage equality must be enjoyed by all couples regardless of gender. Though this was an inspirational victory, it has been attended by a distressing discriminatory backlash. Across the nation travesties like Proposition 8 in California have set out to systematically strip citizens of their rights. Such an assault must be met with an aggressive response, thus I and others are advocating that the federal constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation.

Your record shows you sympathetic to the cause of marriage equality. You have earned a perfect positive rating from the Human Rights Campaign for each of the last three Congresses, and have voted consistently against the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have nationally banned same-sex marriage. The fight for a Marriage Equality Amendment would obviously be long and fraught with political peril. It is the best means, however, to counteract the reprehensible tactics of those who would spread injustice and discrimination.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking a sponsor for this measure. Would you take up its cause, Congressman? I hope that you will see the justness of this reform and lend it your support among your colleagues in the House. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Connecticut (II) Senator Joseph Lieberman

2009-04-09T08:41:00.000-07:00

Today I continue with Senator Joseph Lieberman, the junior senator from Connecticut:

Dear Senator Lieberman,

I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." This change to our basic law is the surest and most durable means to both safeguarding the rights of our citizens and defending the institution of marriage itself.

In the past you have taken a "centrist" position on the issue of marriage equality. On the one-hand you have opposed the legalization of same-sex marriage, on the other you have opposed measures like the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment" that would have comprehensively denied marriage rights to same-sex couples. In registering your opposition to that amendment, you stated:

"Gay couples exist. They also enjoy the rights promised in the Declaration that are the endowments of our Creator. They are not going away. To say that these couples and their children should be denied any legal protections – or relieved of all legal responsibilities – would be unfair.

I presume that most all of us would agree, for example, that someone should not be excluded from his dying life partner’s hospital room on the ground that their decades-long relationship had no legal status. Probably many of us who have thought about it would not want to see someone who raised her partner’s biological child as her own and provided the family’s principal means of support be able to simply walk away without any financial obligations to the child if the couple ends their relationship.

I do not profess to know now exactly how and in what form these rights and responsibilities should be extended to gay couples. Different States are already providing different answers to those difficult questions. But I do know that this is a discussion and a debate that will and should continue."

The basic principles of fairness you outlined here make the passage of a Marriage Equality Amendment imperative, Senator. Experience shows that creating a "second track" system of civil unions will not guarantee same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities that are inherently their due. Marriage only works to protect couples' ties and obligations to one-another because it is universally recognized as the closest of kinship relationships, one that trumps natal family bonds because it is freely chosen. Unless and until our institutions fully recognize the binding force of the family ties same-sex partners form with one-another their unions will not afford them "equal protection of the law," thus consigning them to second-class citizenship. Such a condition of apartheid rebels against the founding spirit and basic values of our Republic. This was the logic that drove the Vermont legislature to so wisely convert from a system of civil unions to full marriage equality.

Moreover, the current state of our laws does injury to the institution of marriage itself. Historically, marriage has been among the most stable and powerful foundations of our civil society because it was universally portable and binding. The patchwork of conflicting legalities that has emerged as individual states negotiate the question of marriage equality has led to an unprecedented state of affairs. It is now possible for the marital status of a couple to alter by degrees as they travel from state to state. Such a condition was rare even for interracial couples during the days of so-called "anti-miscegenation laws," but is becoming ever more frequent in this new stage of the struggle for marriage equality. Until a uniform national policy is adopted, as was done in the case of Loving v. Virginia, the marital bond will be subjected to progressive fragmentation.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment. My letters are being collected at a weblog: http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/. Your career demonstrates that you are a person of principle, one who will follow his own conscience even against the consensus of his party or the interests of his own political career. I hope that on searching your conscience you will recognize the justness of this cause and lend it your considerable authority. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Connecticut (I) Senator Chris Dodd

2009-04-04T11:09:00.000-07:00

Today I begin corresponding with Connecticut's Congressional delegation with Senator Chris Dodd, senior senator from that state:

Dear Senator Dodd,

I write soliciting your support for a Marriage Equality amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Your record regarding marriage equality has been somewhat ambivalent, Senator. During your recent presidential campaign you spoke out in favor of "civil unions," noting that you would want some guarantees of your young daughters' rights should they grow up to be of a different sexual orientation from their parents. But you have consistently opposed full marriage equality for same-sex couples, casting a vote in favor of the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996.

Creating a separate institution for same-sex couples will not help your daughters or any of the millions of Americans that are arbitrarily and unjustly excluded from the marriage bond, however. As was proven during the Civil Rights Movement of the '50's and '60's and has been demonstrated by hard experience ever since, separate is never equal. The full range of protections and guarantees flowing from marriage (1, 138 of them under federal law, according to the Government Accountability Office) can never be engineered into a novel institution. Even if they were, the patchwork of divergent terms and conventions adopted by the individual states guarantees that "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships" will never possess the same portability and legal force of marriage, consigning all couples restricted to such arrangements to perpetual second-class citizenship. Is this what you would wish upon your daughters, Senator?

Marriage is among the most fundamental and definitive social acts a citizen may undertake; it is the one kinship relationship that we may freely choose. Denial of the right to marry the consenting partner of one's choice thus amounts to nothing less than an assault upon an individual's capacity for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In casting your vote against the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" you noted that though there have been over 11,000 proposed amendments to our constitution, only 27 have been adopted. This, you observed, was because "our Nation's constitutional history clearly demonstrates that change to our Constitution is appropriate on only the rarest occasions--specifically, to correct problems in the government structure or to expand the category of individual rights."

The present need for full marriage equality is one of those "rarest occasions" on which Constitutional reform is necessary. Not only are millions of Americans systematically being denied their rights, but well-funded and highly energized groups are mobilized to deepen and expand the conditions of discrimination that currently prevail throughout most of the U.S. Aggressive action is needed if a fair and just society is ever to be achieved.

In closing I turn your own illustrative example upon you, Senator. If one of your two daughters does grow up to have a different sexual orientation, do you trust that the status quo would safeguard her dignity and afford her a fair and equal chance for happiness? If not, what type of change would give you peace of mind?

With this question in view, I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment. My letters are being collected on a weblog: http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/. I hope that you will be convinced of the justness and urgency of this campaign and will lend it your considerable authority. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter and for your service to our Nation, and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Colorado (IX) Congressman Ed Perlmutter

2009-04-03T12:05:00.000-07:00

Today I conclude my correspondence with Colorado's Congressional delegation with Congressman Ed Perlmutter, Democrat, representative of Colorado's 7th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Perlmutter,

I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples throughout the United States to marry. Your record shows you sympathetic to the cause of marriage equality. As a state senator in Colorado you supported legislation granting spousal rights to same-sex partners, declaring: "It is without reservation that I am proud to endorse the Colorado Domestic Partnership Benefits and Responsibilities Act. My friends in the GLBT community deserve the dignity to be able to make their own decisions concerning matters such as hospital visitation, inheritance, health care decisions, and end-of-life decision." Despite this stance, however, you have declared yourself opposed to the recognition of full marriage equality. It is my hope that you may be persuaded to change your position on this issue.

Experience shows that separate is never equal. Married status affords citizens 1,138 benefits and protections under federal law. That full range of safeguards cannot be engineered into a "second track" institution reserved for same-sex couples, nor should such a feat be attempted. Please do not be taken in by those who would confuse the religious and civil institutions of marriage. If you are genuinely concerned for the dignity of friends and compatriots in the GLBT community you should not desire them to be relegated to the status of second-class citizens. Forming kinship ties and building a family with the partner of one's choice is indispensible to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Marriage Equality is thus a right that cannot be denied to any citizen, even by a vote of the majority. If our Republic is to remain true to the principles of its founding mandate, the institution of civil marriage cannot arbitrarily exclude millions of Americans.

Until rights of marriage are federally protected for all citizens, the forces of intolerance and injustice will continue to spread discriminatory measures like Proposition 8 in California. The surest and most durable way to bring our laws into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens is to amend the U.S. Constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied on account of sex or sexual orientation." I have set out to write every member of Congress soliciting support for such a reform.

I hope that you see the justice of this campaign and will lend the amendment your support. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Colorado (VIII) Congressman Mike Coffman

2009-04-01T06:29:00.000-07:00

Today I continue with Congressman Mike Coffman, Republican, representative of Colorado's 6th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Coffman,

I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the nation. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." As a newly elected Republican representative you will no doubt be under pressure from your party to support policies diametrically opposed to such a reform. Moreover, your campaign website records your promise to "promote pro-life and pro-family values," which is rhetoric that has typically been associated with the fight against marriage equality. You portrayed yourself as a Republican "maverick" who cherishes independence of thought, however. I thus appeal to that professed independence in urging you to cross party lines in defense of your fellow citizens' rights.

As a Marine Major, you led soldiers in combat in both the first Gulf War and Iraq. You thus know firsthand the nature of individual sacrifice in support of our common values. What value is more fundamental to the American spirit than the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" And what is more essential to those blessings than the freedom to form families with those we love and cherish? Marriage equality is at the heart of the creed for which you risked your life. As long as millions of Americans are arbitrarily and unjustly denied the 1,138 benefits and protections that flow to married couples under federal law, a state of apartheid will persist in our country that violates the founding spirit of our Republic for which you fought.

I hope that you may be persuaded of the justness and urgency of this campaign. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and your service to our country, and extend my best wishes for success in your new office.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Colorado (VII) Congressman Doug Lamborn

2009-03-30T07:03:00.001-07:00

Today I continue with Congressman Doug Lamborn, Republican, representative of Colorado's 5th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Lamborn,

I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. As a state legislator in Colorado you fought for a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, and have carried that agenda forward onto the national stage with your election to Congress. In the past you have spoken of the threat posed by those who would "force homosexual values on Colorado" and "completely redefine the meaning of marriage." These are fallacious principles on which to structure your actions as a legislator.

The demand that one's family enjoy the same basic legal protections extended to others is not a "homosexual value," it is a question of basic fairness. As Jews my wife and I were married by a rabbi. Did this make our desire to hold property in common, share health benefits, file joint tax returns, or enjoy any of the other 1,138 federally guaranteed benefits and protections of marriage a "Jewish" value? Of course not. We simply expected that the "equal protection of the law" that is promised by the 14th amendment would accord our union the same legal force of that performed by a priest or a minister. That is no more a "Jewish value" than Mildred and Richard Loving's expectation of marriage equality was an "interracial value." Marriage equality is, in fact, an American value, one which is profaned by those like you who would arbitrarily deny rights of marriage equality to millions of Americans.

Nor does recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry "redefine" the meaning of marriage. To insist so is to confuse the separate institutions of civil and religious marriage. As a legislator your concern is only for marriage as a legal, not a spiritual entity. Your faith might dictate that my rabbinically sanctioned union is not a "true" marriage, but would refusing my wife and I married status on that basis be anything short of un-American? The definition of "true marriage" will always remain disputed between the diverse confessional communities that inhabit our Republic. As a civil society our only obligation is to decide what legal definition of marriage will extend protection to all citizens fairly and equitably.

Unfortunately, your discriminatory attitudes are widespread in this country, resulting in profound and chronic injustice. For that reason I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would correct the state of marital apartheid that prevails through most of the country. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."

I hope that eventually you will see the error of your ways and cease your campaign against the rights of fellow Americans. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Colorado (VI) Congresswoman Betsy Markey

2009-03-27T00:00:00.000-07:00

Today I continue with Congresswoman Betsy Markey, Democrat, representative of Colorado's 4th Congressional District:

Dear Congresswoman Markey,

I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Conscientious citizens across the nation celebrated your election last year, in which you unseated the stridently homophobic Marilyn Musgrave, one of the chief sponsors of the execrably misnamed "Marriage Protection Amendment." Her claims that so-called "gay marriage" was the single greatest "problem" facing the nation were a stain upon the Congress and a gratuitous assault upon the dignity and well-being of millions of Americans.

You rightly condemned Ms. Musgrave's rhetoric as extremist, and noted that, "People in my district don't want to regulate marriage, they want to improve their economic conditions and provide for national security." Such reasonable views are obviously a vast improvement on the hatred and bigotry that Musgrave represented, but rationality alone does not suffice to redress the problem that Musgrave embodies. Tragically, Musgrave is symptomatic of a broad movement for discrimination and intolerance that is on the march throughout the U.S. The passage of Proposition 8 in California in the midst of progressive victories like yours and that of President Obama demonstrate how well-funded and well-disciplined these illiberal forces are.

Marriage to the partner of one's choice is an inalienable right, one that can not be deprived to any citizen even by a vote of the majority. In the face of discriminatory forces like those represented by Marilyn Musgrave, rights of marriage equality require robust protection. The surest and most durable guarantee of these rights would be to amend the United States constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."

Critics might claim that this position is as extreme as that propounded by Marilyn Musgrave. Such an assertion is false. There is no such thing as "gay marriage" or "straight marriage," only marriage, a civil institution that affords those who enter into it 1,138 legal benefits and protections under federal law. Removing the barriers that prevent millions of Americans from enjoying those benefits and protections is not extremism, it is simple justice and right.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking sponsorship of the above Marriage Equality Amendment. As a newly elected representative you no doubt feel a sense of caution in choosing those causes to which you will commit your public advocacy. I hope, however, that you may be persuaded of the urgency and justness of this campaign and lend it your evident energy and intellectual force. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my congratulations on your election.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Colorado (V) Congressman John T. Salazar

2009-03-26T00:00:00.000-07:00

Today I continue with Congressman John T. Salazar, Democrat, representative of Colorado's 3rd Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Salazar,

I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. As you may be aware, married status conveys 1,138 discrete benefits and protections to citizens under federal law. Additional safeguards devolve upon children thanks to the legal recognition of their parents' union. Marriage to the partner of one's choice is thus a basic and inalienable right, one that should be (and is, for heterosexual couples) federally protected. Exclusion of tens of thousands of same-sex couples and their children from the protections of marriage is arbitrary and discriminatory. The surest and most durable way to redress this injustice would be to amend the U.S. Constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."

You have had a relatively strong voting record in support of LGBT rights, earning ratings of 80% and 63%, respectively, for the last two Congresses from the Human Rights Campaign. More importantly, you have shown yourself in sympathy with the cause of marriage equality by voting against the execrably misnamed "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have comprehensively banned same-sex marriage. Marriage equality is the civil rights struggle of our generation. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a change to our basic law to combat discriminatory measures like the amendment against which you voted and the regrettably passed Proposition 8 in California.

I hope you can be persuaded to lend your proven sense of civic duty to this cause, Congressman. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Colorado (IV) Congressman Jared Polis

2009-03-25T04:56:00.000-07:00

Today I continue with Congressman Jared Polis, Democrat, representative of Colorado's 2nd Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Polis,

I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. The text of such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a reform would be the most certain and durable means to aligning our laws with the basic and inalienable rights of our citizens.

As the first openly gay candidate for Congress from the state of Colorado you made history upon winning election last November. You made support for LGBT rights and a pledge to fight for marriage equality a cornerstone of your campaign. Support for a Marriage Equality Amendment would thoroughly and unequivocally fulfill those campaign promises.

As a newly elected Representative you are no doubt cautious about choosing the issues to which you will commit your public advocacy. Some might advise you that an amendment to the federal constitution is an overly aggressive and politically untimely remedy, but I would urge you to think otherwise. On the one hand, the expansion of marriage equality rights in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and elsewhere demonstrates that a sea change in social attitudes is underway across our nation, especially among young voters that came out in such large numbers last November. On the other hand, the passage of travesties like Proposition 8 in California demonstrate that the forces of bigotry and discrimination are well-funded and highly motivated, and must be met with equivalently unwavering determination. Now is assuredly the time to take an unambiguous and principled stand in support of what is right and just.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment. My letters are being collected on a weblog at: http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/. The fight for a Marriage Equality Amendment would no doubt be long, difficult, and politically perilous. I hope, however, that you can be persuaded to lend your proven energy and ingenuity to this cause. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my congratulations on your election.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Colorado (III) Congresswoman Diana Degette

2009-03-23T08:06:00.001-07:00

Today I continue with Congresswoman Diana Degette, representative of Colorado's 1st Congressional District:

Dear Congresswoman Degette:

I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. You have been admirably outspoken about your support for marriage equality. At a rally in Denver in 2004 opposing the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" you delivered the following prepared remarks:

"This is fundamentally a question of whether two people in a committed relationship should have the same rights as every other American couple. It is unconscionable that any politicians should seek to prevent other Americans from the ability to see their loved ones in the hospital, from sharing health insurance or health decisions, from sharing survivor and inheritance benefits. But that is exactly what supporters of the amendment seek to do.

Our opponents will claim that this not about discrimination, but about protecting the sanctity of marriage. Well, I have been married for more than fifteen years. Allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry will not impact the sanctity of my marriage one bit. Any married couple that thinks legalizing gay marriage will hurt their relationship needs a marriage counselor, not a Constitutional amendment.

In fact, we are seeing the power and sanctity of marriage in the hundreds of gay and lesbian couples who have lined up at City Hall in San Francisco this weekend to get married. Their weddings have only strengthened the institution of marriage.

All of us stand with them today and with the hundreds of thousands of Colorado families who oppose enshrining intolerance and discrimination of the right in our Constitution. Together, we will make sure that our founding document continues to protect the rights of all Americans, gay or straight, married or not. "

Like you I feel that marriage equality "is fundamentally a question of whether two people in a committed relationship should have the same rights as every other American couple." As you suggest, everything about our nation's history and traditional values dictate that the answer to this question is a resounding "yes." Marriage to the partner of one's choice is an inalienable right, one that is systematically denied to millions of citizens and should be federally protected.

Travesties like Proposition 8 in California demonstrate that progress will not be made on this issue without aggressive and sustained action. That is why I propose that the U.S. constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a change to our basic law is the surest and most durable way to bring our institutions into alignment with the fundamental rights of our citizens.

The fight for a Marriage Equality Amendment would no doubt be long, difficult, and fraught with uncertainty. With the support of a conscientious public servant like yourself, however, it could change the discourse in our country, demonstrating to both opponents and supporters of marriage equality the seriousness and urgency of this issue.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this amendment. My letters are collected on a weblog at: http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/. I hope that you will lend your proven energy and integrity to this cause. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Colorado (II) Senator Michael Bennet

2009-03-21T07:17:00.000-07:00

Today I continue with Senator Michael Bennet, junior senator for Colorado:

Dear Senator Bennet,

I write as a concerned citizen to enlist your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Marriage equality is the civil rights issue of our generation. The recognition of full marriage equality rights in Massachusetts and Connecticut and the unfortunate passage of Proposition 8 in California demonstrate that our nation is at a crossroads. All Americans must take a side and be counted, either among the proponents of discrimination and injustice or among the supporters of human dignity and liberty.

As someone newly arrived upon the national stage you are no doubt cautious about choosing the issues to which you will commit your public advocacy. I appeal, however, to your personal conscience in urging you to declare for marriage equality. Your website describes your good fortune in marrying your wife, Susan, and your pride in raising your three children. As a married man myself I understand your sense of happiness and fulfillment. I cannot help but feel some responsibility, however, for entering into an institution from which millions of my fellow citizens are arbitrarily excluded. What if my wife and daughter could not be enrolled on my health benefits at work because our union was not legally recognized? What if my daughter could not count on clear determination of her inheritance and next of kin in the event of her parents' deaths? These conditions and other hardships are ones with which thousands of Americans must cope because of the state of marital apartheid that prevails in this nation.

The Government Accountability Office lists 1,138 protections and benefits that you and I derive from being legally married. Denial of these guarantees to same-sex couples is arbitrary and discriminatory, and must not stand in a Republic committed to the preservation of individual liberties. Though the fight for a Marriage Equality Amendment would obviously be difficult, long, and fraught with political peril, it is the surest and most durable means to bringing our institutions into alignment with the inalienable rights of our citizens.

I hope that you will be persuaded by the justness and urgency of this cause. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my congratulations for your elevation to your new office.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Colorado (I) Senator Mark Udall

2009-03-20T12:43:00.000-07:00

Today I begin my correspondence with Colorado's Congressional delegation with Senator Mark Udall, senior senator of that state:

Dear Senator Udall,

I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the United States constitution that would legalize same-sex marriage throughout the Union. As a member of the House of Representatives you established a long record of support for the rights of LGBT citizens, and spoke candidly of this stance during the campaign for your current Senate seat last year. Your campaign web site included the following position statement:

"At Colorado Outward Bound, I insisted on outreach to include the GLBT community. I have always opposed discrimination based on sexual orientation, and I have been proud that key members of my staff have included GLBT Americans. I support the establishmen of civil unions and domestic partnership legislation to ensure that the rights of all couples - including inheritance decisions and hospital visitation rights - are protected, regardless of sexual orientation. I have consistently opposed efforts to amend the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Our Constitution is a solemn compact that is the foundation for the freedoms that we enjoy as Americans, and historically has been amended to expand rights, not restrict them. I do not think our Constitution should be used to discriminate against any American, including gay and lesbian Americans. The issue of marriage has always been left to the authority of the states, rather than the federal government, and it should stay that way. "

Your open opposition to discrimination is progressive and commendable, Senator, but you stop short of advocacy of full marriage equality. Though compromise solutions like civil unions and domestic partnerships may be well intentioned, long experience shows that separate is never equal. Such unions do not afford couples all of the 1,138 benefits and protections that flow from marriage under federal law, nor are they universally portable and legally recognized in the manner of marriage, effectively relegating same-sex couples to second-class citizenship. Moreover the institution of marriage itself is ill served through being diluted by the confused patchwork of conflicting and incoherent legal arrangements created by the states operating individually.

The issue of marriage has not always been left entirely to the states, nor should it be. In 1967 the Supreme Court ruled, in Loving v. Virginia, that marriage to the partner of one's choice was such a basic human right that two people could not be denied recognition of such a bond due to race, thus striking down so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws in 17 states. The same principle of marriage equality that underpinned the rights of the Lovings remains true in the case of same-sex couples today. The issue does not stop at concern for the couples themselves, moreover, but extends to the thousands of children in the care of same-sex guardians. Those children are denied the basic security that the children of heterosexual guardians may take for granted, effectively punishing the child for the lifestyle choices of the parents.

You are right that the Constitution has historically been amended to expand rights, and the time has come for another such expansion. A Marriage Equality Amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a reform is the surest and most durable way to end the injustices that daily arise from our current system of marital apartheid.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this amendment. I hope that you will see the justness and urgency of this cause and lend it your proven integrity and sense of civic duty. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for success in your new office.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (LIV) Congresswoman Susan Davis

2009-03-19T00:00:00.000-07:00

Today I conclude my correspondence with California's Congressional delegation (until the vacancy created by the departure of Congresswoman Hilda Solis from the seat representing the 32nd District is filled) with Congresswoman Susan Davis, Democrat, representative of California's 53rd Congressional District:

Dear Congresswoman Davis,

I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would guarantee the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. The text of such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Though great strides have been made in the fight for marriage equality in recent years, tragic setbacks like the recent passage of Proposition 8 are a reminder of how well-funded and determined are the forces of discrimination and injustice. The time has come to make an unequivocal and principled stand, and to seek a permanent and universal redress for the injuries that those deprived rights of marriage equality have been made to suffer.

As a founding member of the LGBT Equality Caucus you have been a staunch champion for the rights of LGBT citizens. Support of a Marriage Equality Amendment would be a fitting extension of your already admirable record. Though the fight for a constitutional amendment would obviously be long, difficult, and fraught with political peril, with the backing of a well-respected public servant such as yourself it could change the public discourse in this country long before its goal was practically achieved.

I have set out to write every member of Congress enlisting support for this campaign. The letters are all being gathered at a weblog online: http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/. I hope that you will lend this amendment your proven energy and integrity. In any case I thank you for your service to our nation and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (LIII) Congressman Duncan D. Hunter

2009-03-18T06:13:00.000-07:00

Today I continue with Congressman Duncan D. Hunter, Republican, representative of California's 52nd Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Hunter,

I write as a concerned citizen to urge you to change your position on marriage equality. As a newly elected congressman you have yet to establish your voting record with regard to this issue. You succeed your father, Congressman Duncan L. Hunter, however, who twice voted for the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage throughout the United States. On your website you also declare your commitment to "protecting traditional marriage."

If the amendment for which your father twice voted is your notion of how best to "protect" marriage then the people of your district and this nation will be poorly served. Religious and civil marriage are two separate institutions that share a common name. As a legislator it is not your place to "protect" the religious sacrament of marriage, that is an issue of conscience for Americans to decide within the precincts of their communal faiths. Your duty is to attend to the civil institution of marriage, and to see that it is constructed and adjudicated in a way that is fair and just to all citizens.

Any objective view of American civil marriage today can determine that it is not instituted fairly and equitably. Couples that have lived with and cared for one-another for decades, many of which have raised or are raising children, are denied the basic safeguards and protections that the majority of their fellow citizens may take entirely for granted. The Government Accountability Office lists 1,138 rights and benefits that flow to a couple from marital status. As a government official, do you really feel justified in denying same-sex couples those rights simply because you give no credence to their mutual love and commitment? Are you that complacently certain of your own opinion, Congressman?

As a soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan you fought to defend the freedoms that are guaranteed to all Americans in our Constitution, among which is the 14th Amendment's assurance of "equal protection of the laws." When the law arbitrarily excludes millions of citizens from the enjoyment of 1,138 discrete protections, that promise of equal treatment is breached. The current state of marital apartheid in this nation is thus an abrogation of the principles for which you yourself risked your life.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." This reform is the surest and most durable means to protecting both the rights of our citizens and the institution of marriage itself, which is threatened not by the legalization of same-sex marriage but by the confusing patchwork of differing legalities created by the individual states. Marriage to the partner of one's choice is a civil right and thus should be federally protected. Such was the ruling of the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down the so-called "anti-miscegenation laws" barring interracial marriage in many states, and such is the case with respect to the rights of same-sex couples today.

I hope that on reflection you will see the justness of this cause and lend your support to the struggle for marriage equality. In any case I thank you for your attention to this matter and for your service to our country, and wish you success in your new office.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (LII) Congressman Bob Filner

2009-03-17T00:00:00.000-07:00

Today I continue with Congressman Bob Filner, Democrat, representative of California's 51st Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Filner,

I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment to the federal constitution would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Would you take up the cause of this reform among your colleagues in Congress?

Your deeds as a Freedom Rider during the civil rights struggle of the 1960's are well known and rightly celebrated, Congressman. Your inspirational history makes me surprised that you have not been more vocal on the issue of marriage equality, especially given recent distressing developments in your own state. Marriage equality is the civil rights struggle of this generation. At stake are the lives, loves, and families of millions of American citizens. Mildred Loving recognized this when she declared her support for marriage equality in 2007.

Your record in support of the rights of LGBT citizens has been exemplary. You twice voted against the execrable so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" and consistently receive perfect scores from the Human Rights Campaign. Now is a critical juncture in our nation's history, however. All who support civil rights and oppose discrimination must go to extraordinary lengths to stand up and be counted. If you lent your integrity and moral authority to the cause of a Marriage Equality Amendment you could tangibly shift the discourse within our country, placing those who posture about "protecting" marriage on the defensive.

I appeal to your proven sense of civic duty and public service, Congressman. I hope that you will see the wisdom of this campaign and lend it your support. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (LI) Congressman Brian Bilbray

2009-03-14T00:00:00.000-07:00

Today I continue with Congressman Brian Bilbray, Republican, representative of California's 50th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Bilbray,

I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. You were a co-sponsor of the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage throughout the United States, even in those few states where it is now legal. Moreover, your proposed change to our basic law would have closed off the potential for even inadequate "separate but equal" compromises such as domestic partnerships and civil unions.

You thus have the distinction of co-authoring one of the most egregious monstrosities in the constitutional history of our nation. Rarely have lawmakers attempted to use our founding charter as an instrument for depriving citizens of rights they have already won. The basic genius of our Republic has been that rights tend to deepen and broaden over time; our Founders established a historical mandate for liberty that they understood would continue to expand as human understanding unfolded. You and your colleagues bear the shame of trying to stem that progressive tide.

Marriage to the partner of one's choice is undoubtedly among what our Founders identified as humanity's "inalienable rights," a fact that the Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged in Loving v. Virginia and numerous other decisions. Any group which is systematically denied the 1,138 legal benefits and protections that flow from the marital bond cannot be said to enjoy what the 14th Amendment terms "equal protection of the law." Our current state of marital apartheid is thus an injustice that cannot stand within a democracy dedicated to the preservation of individual rights, as ours is.

Because the kind of prejudice and discrimination exemplified by your amendment and other measures like it is obviously rife, the normal safeguards that protect individual liberties are clearly inadequate to securing full rights of marriage equality for all American citizens. For that reason I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking the following amendment to the U.S. constitution: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." You may disagree with the principles underlying such a Marriage Equality Amendment, but please understand that millions of Americans hold these rights to be sacred and inviolable and will fight ceaselessly until they are realized for all people.

I hope that in time you will see the error of your current stance, Congressman. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (L) Congressman Darrell Issa

2009-03-11T20:17:00.000-07:00

Today I continue with Congressman Darrell Issa, Republican, representative of California's 49th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Issa,

I write to protest your opposition to marriage equality. You have shown yourself consistently hostile to the rights of LGBT citizens, typically earning a rating of "zero" from the Human Rights Campaign for your voting record. You voted twice for the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage throughout the nation. In 2004 you issued this statement:

"Congressman Darrell Issa has voted to protect the sanctity of marriage and to uphold the right of states to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The House of Representatives voted 233-194 to pass H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act of 2004, which denies federal activist judges jurisdiction to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of the right of states to define marriage as a union between and man and a woman or the Federal statute defining marriage."

Such rhetoric betrays prejudice and insensitivity unworthy of the office you hold in trust, Congressman. Admitting same-sex couples into the marital bond poses no threat to the "sanctity of marriage." Marriage is made sacred by a couple's mutual love, respect, and care for one-another, none of which depend upon their respective genders. Moreover, as a United States legislator the "sanctity" of marriage is not genuinely your concern.

The sanctity of a marriage is a private matter, the legal status of a marriage is a civil concern. As in all legal affairs, the first responsibility of the government and its officials is to see that the law is applied fairly, to ensure that all citizens enjoy what the 14th amendment calls "the equal protection of the law." When two adults make a lifelong commitment to love, honor and protect one-another but are denied the 1,138 legal benefits and protections that the state ordinarily grants to such a union, they can not be said to enjoy the equal protection of the law by any stretch of the imagination.

This is what the Supreme Court found in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, when it struck down the so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws that banned interracial marriage in much of the U.S. Would you call that an act of "judicial activism," Congressman? The same principle of marriage equality that held true in the case of the Lovings holds true for same-sex couples today.

I have set out to write every member of Congress promoting an amendment to the U.S. constitution diametrically opposed to the one for which you twice voted. Such a Marriage Equality Amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." This change to or basic law would be the surest and most durable assurance of the "sanctity of marriage," as it would replace the state of unjust marital apartheid we have today with an institution grounded in basic fairness and equity.

I hope that you will have a change of heart and cease supporting discriminatory and oppressive laws. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (XLIX) Congressman John Campbell

2009-03-09T07:20:00.000-07:00

Today I continue with Congressman John Campbell, Republican, representative of California's 48th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Campbell,

I write to protest your consistent opposition to marriage equality. You voted twice for the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage throughout the United States. Last year you endorsed the passage of Proposition 8, placing this statement of support on your campaign website:

"In 2000, over 61% of Californians (including this Congressman) voted to reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman (Proposition 22). However, because this language wasn’t put into the California Constitution, four activist judges from San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote in a closely divided 4-3 decision. Proposition 8 reverses the court’s decision by restoring the definition of marriage as a man and a woman in the state Constitution.

The entire text of Proposition 8 is as follows: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California." It’s not an attack on the gay lifestyle. Proposition 8 doesn’t take away any rights or benefits from gays or lesbians in domestic partnerships. Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits” as married spouses. (Family Code §297.5.) There are no exceptions. Proposition 8 will not change this."

Your reasoning here is either misguided or disingenuous, Congressman. Long experience shows that "separate but equal" may be separate but is never equal. Domestic partnerships do not enjoy the full range of benefits and protections (1, 138 of them under federal law, according to the GAO) of marriage. Moreover, domestic partnerships are not truly universal or portable as marriages are, thus same-sex couples who join them are exposed to unfair risks and insecurity whenever they travel beyond the state in which their partnerships were sanctioned. Marriage is a civil institution, entering the marriage bond is one of the most powerful and definitive acts that a citizen can undertake in shaping his or her place in society. Exclusion of an entire class of people from this institution on arbitrary and prejudicial grounds is thus the height of injustice and can not stand in a democracy such as ours.

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for an amendment to our federal constitution diametrically opposed to the one for which you twice voted. Such a Marriage Equality Amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." This change to our basic law is the surest and most durable means to bringing our nation's institutions into alignment with the fundamental rights of its citizens.

Marriage equality is the civil rights struggle of our time, Congressman. Future generations will look back and judge the leaders of today with respect to the stance each chooses in this moment. I hope, for the sake of your future reputation and the welfare of today's Americans, that you experience a change of heart and lend your support to this just cause. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend you my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (XLVIII) Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez

2009-03-08T10:14:00.000-07:00

Today I continue with Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, Democrat, representative of California's 47th Congressional District:

Dear Congresswoman Sanchez,

I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." As a long-serving legislator with a robust record of defending civil and human rights, I hope that you will lend this reform your voice and your authority.

You have long shown yourself sympathetic to the cause of marriage equality, having voted twice against the execrable so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" and having received consistently high positive ratings from the Human Rights Campaign. In the last election your Republican challenger, Rosie Avila, tried to make your past support for marriage equality an issue, linking her campaign to a call for passage of Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage in California. Though Ms. Avila's tactics did not ultimately succeed, the passage of Proposition 8 showed how well-financed the forces of discrimination are and how much traction this appeal to social prejudice may afford unscrupulous politicians within our political process.

A Marriage Equality Amendment would be the surest and most durable means to secure the rights of millions of Americans now unjustly excluded from the marriage bond. It would also deprive opportunists of the chance to exploit this issue for momentary political gain. Please contemplate advocating for this change to our basic laws among your colleagues and constituents. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope that this letter find you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (XLVII) Dana Rohrabacher

2009-03-07T00:00:00.000-08:00

Today I continue with Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, representative of California's 46th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Rohrabacher,

I write to protest your stance on marriage equality. You have been consistent in your refusal to recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry. You twice voted to amend our federal constitution to ban same-sex marriage throughout the United States, and were outspokenly opposed to the wise and just ruling of California's Supreme Court granting full marriage equality in your home state. At a campaign debate during the last election, you said:

“It’s a wonderful thing when you find the person you love, but that does not mean that you change the legal structure in this country. I don’t think we should change the definition of marriage in our country to make a small number of people in our country feel comfortable.”

These comments betray an insensitivity and obtuseness unworthy of the office you hold in trust, Congressman. The "small number" of people to whom you refer ranges up into the millions. Moreover, marriage equality is not merely a subjective or sentimental issue. In being excluded from the marital bond, same-sex couples are denied 1,138 benefits and protections that flow to couples under federal law. Children under the care of same-sex couples live without the safeguards and securities that would shield them if the state sanctioned their guardians' union. The current state of marital apartheid in our country is thus not a mere sleight to the feelings of a small minority, it is a full-fledged assault upon the rights and families of millions of Americans.

Think, Congressman, that words just like the ones you spoke were no doubt uttered in defense of the so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws that once outlawed marriages between citizens of different race in many states: "We can't change the law to suit the feelings of a few radicals." But just as in 1967, in its ruling in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court recognized that marriage to the partner of one's choice is an inalienable right that cannot bow to the prejudices of the majority, today the same principle of marriage equality applies with regard to same-sex couples. People's capacity to love, honor, and support one-another does not exist for the sake of "the legal structure" of this nation. Quite the reverse is true.

For this reason, I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking an amendment to our federal constitution diametrically opposed to the one for which you twice voted, Congressman. Such a Marriage Equality Amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." This change to our basic law is the surest and most enduring way to bring our institutions into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens.

I hope that you will have a change of heart and cease your opposition to marriage equality. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (XLVI) Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack

2009-03-04T06:11:00.000-08:00

Today I continue with Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack, Republican, representative of California's 45th Congressional District:

Dear Congresswoman Bono Mack,

I write as a concerned citizen to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the rights of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. The text of such an amendment to our federal constitution would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a change to our basic law would be the surest and most durable way to end the discriminatory and unjust conditions that currently prevail throughout most of the nation.

You have admirably crossed party lines twice in past years to vote against the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage comprehensively throughout the United States. In general you have shown yourself responsive to the rights and concerns of LGBT citizens, earning ratings of higher than 50% for each of the last three Congresses from the Human Rights Campaign. These aspects of your record as a legislator make me hopeful that you will be responsive to a plea for total support of marriage equality.

You have in the past, however, registered your opposition to same-sex marriage, declaring that your objection is to the word "marriage" itself, but that you "[believe] in domestic partnerships, very strongly. I believe there ought to be two different terms." I hope I may persuade you that the principles that compel your support for domestic partnership ultimately demand an embrace of marriage equality.

Like so many people of conscience, you recognize that same-sex couples deserve all the rights of marriage. But the experience of the past two decades has shown that with marriage, as with other civil institutions, "separate but equal" does not work. "Domestic partnerships" and "civil unions," where they have been instituted, have failed to secure for their participants all of the 1,138 benefits and protections that derive from married status under federal law. Moreover, one of the enduring strengths of marriage as an institution has always been that if one is married in one state one remains married in the other 49 (indeed, one is recognized as married in virtually every country on earth). Because the various states that have instituted "unions" and "partnerships" have adopted diverse formulas and terminology, such unions are not and will never be perfectly and universally portable, thus consigning their participants to second-class citizenship. The only way to ensure American citizens all of the rights of marriage is to allow them full and legal entrance into the marital bond.

I have set out to write every member of Congress pleading support for this proposed change to our basic law. As a very visible member of the House and a leader whose conscience has drawn her across party lines, you could speak with great moral authority on this issue. Would you take up the cause of a Marriage Equality Amendment among your fellow legislators? I hope that on reflection you will lend this cause your proven energy and integrity. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (XLV) Congressman Ken Calvert

2009-03-02T14:56:00.000-08:00

Today I continue with Congressman Ken Calvert, Republican, representative of California's 44th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Calvert,

I write to urge you to change your stance on the issue of marriage equality. On May 16th of last year you issued a press release opposing the wise and just ruling of California's Supreme Court that recognized the right of marriage equality for all Californians. That statement read, in part:

"I do not think that an issue as important as gay marriage should be made by nine unelected judges...I support the people’s right to define ‘marriage’ as only between a man and a woman through a constitutional amendment....I believe that we can practice tolerance while still holding true to cultural values that protect the institution of marriage as a union between only a man and a woman."

Your words betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the question at hand, Congressman. "Gay marriage" is not an issue, because same-sex couples do not want a special institution created for them. They seek entry into the same marital bond that all of their heterosexual compatriots take for granted, that affords 1, 138 benefits and protections to those who elect to undertake it. Because marriage is such a personally powerful social act, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that it is a fundamental right that cannot be denied by the state to any citizen, even to imprisoned felons. In the United States one cannot purport to "tolerate" the rights of other citizens. Rights demand recognition and respect, they are the foundation upon which the law is built and thus cannot be truly denied even by the will of the majority.

The passage of Proposition 8 was no doubt welcome news to you, Congressman, though it violates the basic spirit of our democracy. Because it is so antithetical to the founding principles of our Republic, I and others feel that radical measures must be taken to counter this concerted campaign of discrimination. The surest and most durable protection against such injustice would be to amend the U.S. Constitution in precisely the opposite manner to that of Proposition 8, so as to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law.

The lives, love, and families of your fellow citizens are at stake, Congressman. It is unseemly of you to use the office you hold under sacred trust to impede recognition of their rights. I hope on reflection you will see the justice of this cause and desist your opposition to marriage equality in California and elsewhere. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (XLIV) Congressman Joe Baca

2009-03-01T08:53:00.000-08:00

Today I continue with Congressman Joe Baca, Democrat, representative of California's 43 Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Baca,

I write as a concerned citizen seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. As a long-serving member of the Democratic caucus, you have been a strong advocate for civil rights in the House, fighting for the rights of Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, and veterans, to name only a few groups that have benefited from your concern. Your record with regard to the rights of LGBT citizens has likewise been largely exemplary. You twice voted against a federal amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage nationally.

In the 109th Congress, however, you voted against a repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that continues to discriminate against LGBT soldiers in our military. You also voted against a bill that would have granted recognition of same-sex partnerships among immigrants to the United States. Your son, former California State Assemblyman Joe Baca, Jr., voted against a bill that would have instituted marriage equality at the state level.

These signs of ambivalence toward marriage equality make me fear that you are not prepared to fight aggressively against the forces of discrimination that have been so tragically effective in recent months. The passage of Proposition 8 in California is an enormous setback in the nation's collective struggle for civil rights; it stands as one of the few instances in our history in which recognition of rights already won by a whole class of citizens was nullified. This type of regression is not true to fundamental spirit of America, and must be met with direct and determined action.

The Government Accountability Office lists 1,138 benefits and protections that accrue to a couple from married status under federal law. Moreover, marriage to the partner of one's choice is among the most powerfully transformative social acts a citizen can undertake. It is the foundation of lifelong companionship, family, and community: many of the personal goods most essential to the enjoyment of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It is for this reason that the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled, in cases such as Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley, that marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man."

The surest defense against the kind of bigotry embodied by Proposition 8 would thus be to amend the U.S. constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Only in the shelter of such unequivocal guarantees will the basic and inalienable rights of all citizens be protected from those who would oppress them. Would you lend your voice to this reform, Congressman? I have set out to write every member of the 111th Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law. I hope that my entreaties will appeal to your proven sense of fairness and civic duty.

Please consider acting upon my request. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter, and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Thanks to Thomas C. Waters

2009-03-01T08:45:00.001-08:00

Thomas C. Waters, a fellow blogger and activist over at thomascwaters.com, ran a series of posts including an interview with me and a letter he asked me to write to his readers. Thank you, Thomas, for your encouragement and for introducing me to your readers. Keep up the good fight. Here's looking forward toward the day when all American marriages are truly equal.

California (XLIII) Congressman Gary Miller

2009-02-28T09:21:00.000-08:00

Today I continue with Congressman Gary Miller, Republican, representative of California's 42nd Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Miller,

I write to urge you to change your stance on marriage equality. You have twice voted in favor of a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage throughout the U.S. Moreover, you have shown yourself hostile to the rights of LGBT citizens generally, receiving a rating of 0% from the Human Rights Campaign for each of the last three Congresses.

Exclusion of same-sex couples from the marital bond is fundamentally unjust. The Government Accountability Office lists 1, 138 benefits and protections that accrue to citizens from married status under federal law. Denying these to two adults who commit to love, honor, and protect one-another merely because they are of the same gender is arbitrary and discriminatory. As Loving v. Virginia and other Supreme Court cases have established, marriage to the partner of one's choice is an inalienable right, one that cannot be denied to any citizen even by a vote of the majority. Most outrageous is the harm done by our current state of marital apartheid to the thousands of children in the care of same-sex couples, who are cruelly denied the security that other children take for granted because the state will not sanction their guardians' union. To punish the child on account of the parents is sheer barbarism.

Although the 14th amendment already guarantees citizens "equal protection of the law," travesties such as Proposition 8 demonstrate that social prejudice profoundly impedes the recognition of marriage equality rights. The surest means by which to bring our laws and institutions into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens is thus to amend the U.S. constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."

I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law. Please know that millions of Americans consider the rights of marriage equality to be sacred and universal, and will fight on until they are realized for all citizens of our great Republic. I hope that on reflection you will have a change of heart and lend your support to this just cause. In any case I thank you for your attention and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (XLII) Congressman Jerry Lewis

2009-02-27T06:59:00.000-08:00

Today I continue with Congressman Jerry Lewis, Republican, representative of California's 41st Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Lewis,

I write as a concerned citizen to urge you to change your stance on marriage equality. You have twice voted in favor of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and consistently receive low marks from the Human Rights Campaign (15, 0, and 11% respectively for the last three Congresses) for your record on LGBT rights. Such antipathy toward the rights of millions of your fellow citizens violates the fundamental spirit of our Republic.

As one of the longest-serving members of the GOP caucus, I would hope that you would spare some thought for your legacy, Congressman. Marriage equality is the civil rights issue of our generation. In years to come civic leaders will be judged by whether they took the side of right or wrong in this struggle, as is so today when we look back upon past leaders' conduct with respect to similar battles for freedom and equality. Those who today work to deny the 1, 138 legal benefits and protections of marriage to millions of Americans on arbitrary and discriminatory grounds will be severely condemned by posterity.

With the passage of Proposition 8 in your home state, moreover, battle lines are hardening. When discrimination and bigotry become so powerful that rights already won by citizens may actually be taken away, there remains no room for forbearance or compromise. In that spirit I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for the following amendment to our federal constitution: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a clear and unequivocal break with the discriminatory past is the surest way to bring our laws and institutions into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens.

In this decisive moment every American must step forward and be counted. Will you resolve to be part of the solution, Congressman, or remain a part of the problem? I hope that on reflection you will experience a change of heart, and undo some of the damage to your future reputation that past actions entail. In any case you can be sure that generations to come will take note of your choices.

I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (XLI) Congressman Ed Royce

2009-02-25T06:09:00.000-08:00

Today I continue with Congressman Ed Royce, Republican, representative of California's 40th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Royce,

I write as a concerned citizen to urge you to change your stance on marriage equality. You have twice voted in favor of a federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Indeed, you have a consistent record of opposing any recognition of the rights of LGBT citizens. The Human Rights Campaign has given you a rating of 0% for each of the last three Congresses.

This record is bizarrely out of step with political principles that you have expressed and embodied in other realms, Congressman. Your activism in support of human rights abroad, especially in China and Vietnam, is well known. It is quite strange that you would be so empathetic to the rights of people overseas yet so unfeeling with regard to the rights of your compatriots.

What right is more human than that of marriage to the partner of one's choice? The Government Accountability Office lists 1,138 benefits and protections that accrue to a couple from married status under federal law. It is grossly arbitrary an unfair to withhold those protections from two citizens merely because they are the same gender.

Marriage equality is an inalienable right, one that is already guaranteed by the 14th Amendment's promise of "equal protection of the law." Unfortunately, events like the passage of Proposition 8 in your own state make clear that the forces mobilized to obstruct the practical achievement of marriage equality are well-organized, well-funded and implacable. It will thus be necessary to establish more explicit safeguards before the rights of all Americans are secure. To this end, I have set out to write every member of Congress, promoting that the U.S. constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a reform is the surest means to guarantee that our laws and institutions are brought into alignment with the natural rights of our citizens.

I hope that on reflection you will have a change of heart and see the justice of this cause. In any case I thank you for your attention on his matter, and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (XL) Congresswoman Linda Sanchez

2009-02-23T15:32:00.000-08:00

Today I continue with Congresswoman Linda Sanchez, , representative of California's 39th Congressional District:

Dear Congresswoman Sanchez,

I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. As a co-founder of the LGBT Equality Caucus you are one of the most outspoken advocates for the rights of gay, lesbian, and transgender citizens in the Congress. On the announcement of the founding of the caucus, you signaled your support for the California Supreme Court's ruling in favor of marriage equality, declaring:

“If we truly believe in the nation’s founding documents then lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered individuals deserve equal rights. Every American knows, deep down, that to deny another citizen the rights promised by our constitution is wrong.”

Like I and millions of others you were no doubt deeply disappointed and distressed by the passage of Proposition 8 last November. That assault upon civil rights should be met with an aggressive and unequivocal response. The surest and most durable way to protect American citizens' rights from travesties like Proposition 8 would be to amend the U.S. constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."

Advocacy of this reform would no doubt draw a firestorm of criticism. You, however, Congresswoman, have never been daunted by the prospects of such political heat. Would you take up the cause of this change to our basic law in the House? Someone with your acuity and energy could give this idea profound force, perhaps enough to reshape the way the country thinks and talks about the issue of marriage equality.

Please consider promoting this amendment to your colleagues in the LGBT Equality Caucus and the House more generally. In any case, I thank you for your service and your attention on this matter, and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (XXXIX) Congresswoman Grace Napolitano

2009-02-22T05:19:00.000-08:00

Today I continue with Congresswoman Grace Napolitano, Democrat, representative of California's 38th Congressional District:

Dear Congresswoman Napolitano,

I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. As co-chair of the Congressional Mental Health Caucus you have built an outstanding record of advocacy for the rights of mental health patients. This concern for civil liberties extends into all aspects of your work as an elected leader: you earned positive ratings of 100% from both the ACLU and the Human Rights Campaign for the 110th Congress.

Given your record I am sure you would agree that marriage equality is among the most pressing civil rights issues of our generation. The Government Accountability Office lists 1, 138 benefits, privileges, and protections that accrue to citizens as a result of married status. These are systematically denied to same-sex couples in forty-eight states of the Union. Most dispiriting to contemplate is the situation in California, in which same-sex couples were granted recognition of their natural rights by the wise ruling of the state Supreme Court, only to be oppressed anew by the discriminatory and unjust machinations of Proposition 8.

The current state of marital apartheid in this country is both impractical and immoral, it cannot abide. The surest way to bring our institutions into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens would be to amend the U.S. constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law.

The campaign for marriage equality will no doubt be long and hard and fraught with political risks. It cannot succeed without leaders like you who have shown the courage to stand up for the rights of people that society habitually ignores or abuses. Would you lend your voice to the call for a Marriage Equality Amendment, Congresswoman? I appeal to your proven sense of fairness and civic duty. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter, and hope that this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (XXXVIII) Congresswoman Laura Richardson

2009-02-21T07:18:00.000-08:00

Today I continue with Congresswoman Laura Richardson, Democrat, representative of California's 37th Congressional District:

Dear Congresswoman Richardson,

I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment to the federal constitution would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Given the current state of discrimination that prevails in most of the nation, such a change to our basic law would the be surest and most durable way to safeguard the rights of all citizens.

Marriage equality became an issue during your initial run for the Congress in 2007, when it was widely broadcast that you had expressed opposition to same-sex marriage in past electoral contests. Since entering the House, however, you have established a record of consistent support for the rights of LGBT citizens, earning a 100% positive rating from the Human Rights Campaign for the 11Oth Congress. In campaign speeches and on your website you note your family's experience of the Civil Rights struggle of the 1960's, and you have compared the struggle for marriage equality with earlier campaigns for basic civil rights.

If these are truly your views, Congresswoman, then advocacy of a Marriage Equality Amendment would be a natural choice. The passage of Proposition 8 in California has caused retrograde motion in the national movement for marriage equality. Few times in our history have we seen rights won through hard struggle taken away from an entire class of people. Though caution is always warranted at the prospect of amending our basic law, this situation is so dire as to justify robust action.

Campaign staffers in 2007 asserted that you had "atoned" for past support of discriminatory policies, Congresswoman. True atonement is expressed in deed, not word, however. Though support for a Marriage Equality Amendment would entail political risk, precisely for that reason it would demonstrate your full resolve to redeem past mistakes. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this reform. I hope that you will consider lending it your voice in the House. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (XXXVII) Congresswoman Jane Harman

2009-02-20T12:16:00.000-08:00

Today I continue with Congresswoman Jane Harman, Democrat, representative of California's 36th Congressional District:

Dear Congresswoman Harman,

I write you to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. You have been an opponent of efforts to use the power of the federal government to block marriage equality since the days of the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)." In 2006, during then President Bush's second campaign to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, you wrote a letter to Joe Solmonese, President of the Human Rights Campaign, in which you said, in part:

"Congress has traditionally amended the Constitution to grant a broader range of rights to Americans, not narrow them. I believe the Constitution should be amended rarely, dispassionately, and only in the interest of expanding and codifying our rights and liberties.

Efforts to make gay marriage a federal issue and in so doing limit the rights of one group of Americans constitute nothing less than government-sanctioned discrimination. It is demeaning to gay Americans, tramples on the rights of states to define community values, and is wholly unworthy of our consideration."

As you so wisely observe, Congresswoman, the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" rebelled against the very founding spirit of our Republic, and was thus intrinsically un-American. Though in this and other statements you have expressed a concern for state's rights, I hope that you may be persuaded that any "dispassionate" assessment of "our rights and liberties" as Americans compels the conclusion that the U.S. constitution should be amended in precisely the opposite manner than President Bush proposed. The same principle that made the federal ban on same-sex marriage so heinously discriminatory and un-American makes a Marriage Equality Amendment the next logical step in our nation's ongoing search for a "more perfect Union."

A constitutional amendment is not the only way that marriage equality might be achieved for same-sex couples seeking their basic rights. But the recent debacle in your own state, with the passage of Proposition 8, demonstrates the cruel vulnerability to which same-sex couples are exposed if their welfare is left to the tender mercies of the states. As Loving v. Virginia demonstrated, the rights of the states reach clear limits when their powers begin to impinge upon the basic freedoms of their citizens.

Though the 14th Amendment guarantees all Americans "equal protection of the laws," same-sex couples throughout the nation (and the children in their care) are clearly not enjoying the security promised by this basic tenet. This injustice would be best rectified by amending the U.S. Constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a change to our basic law would most dependably and durably bring the operation of our institutions into alignment with the basic rights of our citizens.

I hope that on reflection you will lend this reform your voice and your efforts, Congresswoman. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend to you my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (XXXVI) Congresswoman Maxine Waters

2009-02-18T15:22:00.000-08:00

Today I continue with Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Democrat, representative of California's 35th Congressional District:

Dear Congresswoman Waters,

I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the U.S. constitution, one that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. You have been a staunch champion of civil rights in the House and have a solid record of advocacy for the rights of LGBT citizens (the Human Rights Campaign gave you a positive rating of 90% for the most recent Congress). You were ambivalent, however, in your stance toward California's recently passed Proposition 8, telling a film crew from southern California's station KCET that you were not focused on Proposition 8, but were devoting your energies to the economic crisis.

This was most unfortunate, Congresswoman. The passage of Proposition 8 was a civil rights disaster- one of the rare instances in our nation's history in which recognition of a right that had already been won was withdrawn from citizens already enjoying it. The fact that this perfidy was achieved through the ballot box makes it no less reprehensible.

The promotion and protection of citizens' rights can wait for no other issues to "take priority," as I am sure you would agree on reflection, Congresswoman. What would Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. have said if told that the struggle for enfranchisement would have to wait for the passing of an economic downturn? Moreover, economic difficulties only add urgency to the struggle for rights, as few rights transcend the economic realities of people's lives. Among the 1,138 protections and benefits of marriage that are denied to same-sex couples are many that would materially improve their economic circumstances, such as the right to file joint tax returns or to extend work benefits to one-another (or their partner's children). In times such as these, when any economic advantage can mean the difference between subsistence and deprivation, such discrimination becomes doubly cruel.

Marriage to the partner of one's choice is an inalienable right, one that can not be taken away from any citizen, even by a vote of the majority. Such was the finding of the Supreme Court when it struck down so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws in Loving v. Virginia, and such is the case now despite all the money and rhetoric behind obscenities like Proposition 8. The best and surest way to safeguard rights of marriage equality for all Americans would be to amend the U.S. constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."

Please consider lending your authority to the promotion of this reform in the House, Congresswoman. Such a change would obviously take long struggle and great effort to achieve, but this is only an argument for why the work can not be deferred until the moment is optimal. There will always be other problems that need dealing with, but none of those contingencies will make the state of marital apartheid that prevails in this country any less unjust, or the need for change any less urgent. I hope that you will join the ranks of those of us fighting for marriage equality, Congresswoman. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend you my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (XXXV) Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard

2009-02-16T11:25:00.000-08:00

Today I continue with Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard, Democrat, representative of California's 34th Congressional District:

Dear Congresswoman Roybal-Allard,

I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. Since 1992 you have been an outspoken champion of civil rights in the House, carrying on the family tradition started by your father, 30-year Congressman Edward Roybal. You have been a consistent supporter of the rights of LGBT citizens, earning a 100% positive rating from the Human Rights Campaign. Before last year's election you were among a handful of Californian Congressional reprepresentatives to come out publicly against Proposition 8.

As someone who has stood up in support of marriage equality you must recognize the dire aspect of this moment. The passage of Proposition 8 demonstrates that even small victories on the state level may be rolled back given enough ruthlessness and skillful exploitation of social prejudice. Not since Reconstruction have we seen a more intense and focused campaign to deprive American citizens of their rights than we witness now with the movement against marriage equality. Under such conditions, the surest way to safeguard the rights of all Americans is to amend the U.S. Constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."

Such a reform would obviously require long struggle and much sacrifice. But if leaders like you would lend it your support we might see marriage equality secured for all Americans in this generation. Please consider giving your voice and your efforts to this campaign. In any case, I thank you for your attentin on this matter and I hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (XXXIV) Congresswoman Diane Watson

2009-02-15T07:55:00.000-08:00

Because the representative of California's 32nd district, Congresswoman Hilda Solis, Democrat, is departing the House to join President Obama's cabinet as his Labor Secretary, today I continue with Congresswoman Diane E. Watson, Democrat, representative of California's 33rd Congressional District:

Dear Congresswoman Watson,

I write to you as a concerned citizen to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the U.S. constitution, one that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. As a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, you have been a strong advocate for civil rights in the House. For that reason it was vey distressing for me to hear these remarks you made at a CBC Panel Forum held at Williams College on November 17 of last year:

Question: The panelists have been discussing about how they believe in the humanity of the American people, how then do we accept the crushing blow that was dealt to the gay rights movement [on November 4, 2008]?

Congresswoman Watson: I come from California. Proposition 8 was on the ballot, and Proposition 8 would be a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. As you know, it was a highly contentious battle, and put on the ballot by a group of people who felt that their moral and religious beliefs were offended by the decisions of the [California] Supreme Court some time ago. I believe in civil rights, but I don't think you can equate the battle of the sixties, the battles for civil rights, with the battle for the rights of homosexuals to marry. That's one of the things that I think get confused in this election. But I believe that people who believe certain ways ought to keep trying to convince others that what they are proposing is fair and just. The battle goes on.

I am very disappointed by the attitude you express here, Congresswoman. The battle for marriage equality is indubitably a civil rights struggle. Your sensitivity to the "moral and religious beliefs" of the proponents of Proposition 8 is all well and good, but with respect to the legal dimensions of marriage we must keep in mind that we are discussing a civil, not a religious institution. Surely if someone attempted to amend the constitution to prevent Jews or Muslims from marrying you would not deny that this was an assault on those citizens' civil rights, despite the fact that one's identity as a Jew or Muslim is more a matter of personal choice than one's race. Conversely, interracial marriage was once banned in many states on the basis of certain "moral and religious beliefs," albeit ones that you and I would no doubt find reprehensible. In Loving v. Virginia the Supreme Court wisely found that such "moral and religious beliefs," no matter how widely or passionately held, were not a fair basis upon which to exclude two consenting adults from the institution of marriage. The same principle holds true today with regard to the rights of same-sex couples to marry. The struggle of the Lovings in 1967 and that of same-sex couples today are all part of the same battle for marriage equality, as Mildred Loving herself declared before her passing in 2007:

"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights."

Exclusion from the civil marriage bond has real and dire consequences for those against whom such discrimination is targeted. The Government Accountability Office lists 1, 138 benefits, privileges and protections that flow to a couple under federal law from married status. Lacking those protections couples are vulnerable to many forms of economic and social harm. Even more unfortunate and unjust is the plight of the thousands of children in the care of same-sex couples, who are unfairly deprived of the protections and security that most children enjoy from the legal sanction of their guardians' union.

To those of us who understand the urgency of the fight for marriage equality, Proposition 8 was a tragedy of monumental proportions, a low point in the proud history of our Republic. The amendment of a basic law to strip citizens of rights that have been legally recognized rebelled against the founding spirit of our democracy. The surest way to safeguard the rights of marriage equality for all Americans would be to amend the U.S. Constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Until such a reform is enacted, all Americans will be vulnerable to illiberal assaults like that of Proposition 8. Today the "moral and religious beliefs" of a particular group deprived same-sex couples of their rights. Whose rights will next be denied due to such views?

I hope that I have helped persuade you that the change I and others propose is "fair and just," Congresswoman. You speak with a moral authority earned by principled service to our nation, please consider lending it to this endeavor. I thank you for your service and for your attention on this matter. Please accept my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (XXXIII) Congressman Xavier Becerra

2009-02-13T07:38:00.000-08:00

Today I continue with Congressman Xavier Becerra, Vice-Chair of the Democratic Caucus, representative of California's 31st Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Becerra,

I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the rights of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. In 2004 you took an outspoken stance against the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment," declaring:

"The President is proposing that we use the Constitution to limit the rights of a specific group of Americans in pursuit of a political agenda that abandons moral common sense, is counterproductive, and shuns both state's rights and the very liberties that this document grants all Americans as well. This policy may be conservative, but it most certainly is not compassionate (PR Newswire 5/12/04."

You articulate the principles underlying the movement for marriage equality most eloquently, Congressman. I would only add that then President Bush had not only assaulted both state's and individual rights, but had inverted the role that the federal government should play in the safeguarding of basic liberties. Washington should not be pressing states to grant individual citizens fewer rights, but should be standing watchdog to assure that the states are not denying recognition of rights that citizens should properly enjoy.

It is to this latter end that a Marriage Equality Amendment is necessary. Though the determination of marital law has traditionally been the purview of the states, that power stops at the point that the states engage in unjust discrimination. Such was the case in Loving v. Virginia, where the Supreme Court found that the states had exceeded their authority in denying marriage equality to interracial couples. And such is the case now, in which 48 states effectively exclude same-sex couples from the marital bond.

The surest way to redress this injustice would be to amend the U.S. Constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a change in our basic law would restore our nation back to a condition, to borrow your words, of "moral common sense." I have set out to write every member of Congress asking support for this reform.

As vice-chair of the Democratic caucus your endorsement would carry much weight in promoting this amendment, Congressman. Would you take up its case among your colleagues? I appeal to your proven sense of fairness, decency, and patriotism. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (XXXII) Congressman Henry Waxman

2009-02-12T08:35:00.000-08:00

Today I continue with Congressman Henry Waxman, Democrat, representative of California's 30th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Waxman,

I write soliciting your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. You have been a consistent proponent of civil rights in the House, and have been especially forthright and eloquent in your championship of marriage equality. In defiance of the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" you made a statement on the House floor which included the following:

"Our Constitution has guided our nation for 200 years. During that time, it has been amended to guarantee religious liberty, equal protection, and the right to vote. Not once has it been amended to take away rights from a specific group of people. Yet that is what this legislation would do...

Mr. Speaker, our fellow citizens deserve better. Same-sex couples are trying to raise families, pay the bills, get health care for their partners, and put their kids through college. Instead of working to help them, we are debating whether to permanently deny them over 1,000 rights and benefits given to married heterosexual couples. We should be striving for fairness and equality, not singling them out for discrimination...."

Your words were unquestionably true then and remain so now, Congressman. Your statement of fact underscores an urgent imperative, however. If we acknowledge that same-sex couples already have the right to marry, we must also acknowledge that they are systematically denied the enjoyment of that right throughout most of the United States. This is the very epitome of the kind of problem that our federal system was designed to redress: the protection of minority rights against discrimination, even discrimination sanctioned by the majority. On this principle the Supreme Court upheld the principle of marriage equality against racial discrimination in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, and analogous action must be taken now to end discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation. Though state initiatives have made some progress in advancing marriage equality, they will obviously not be enough. Discriminatory forces are well organized, well funded, and determined to use all methods at both the state and federal levels to not only preserve but expand and deepen the current condition of marital apartheid.

The surest and most durable way to secure the rights of all Americans would be to amend the U.S. Constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." As your floor statement implies, such a reform would be consistent with the great tradition that has guided the evolution of our Constitution throughout the nation's history. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law.

Will you take up the cause of this amendment among your colleagues in the House and Senate, Congressman? Such advocacy would be a fitting continuation of your long work in defense of civil rights and the welfare of Americans more generally. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter, and I hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (XXXI) Congressman Adam Schiff

2009-02-11T08:28:00.000-08:00

Today I continue with Congressman Adam Schiff, Democrat, representative of California's 29th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Schiff,

I write as a concerned citizen to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the U.S Constitution. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." This change to our basic law is the surest way to end the unjust and discriminatory state of family law that prevails in most of our Republic today.

Your record shows you extremely supportive of the rights of LGBT citizens (you have consistently earned perfect or high positive ratings from the Human Rights Campaign) and civil rights more generally. As a Californian you must be aware of the extremely aggressive and effective efforts being made by those who oppose marriage equality, of which Proposition 8 is only the most recent and shocking example. Our last President had the temerity to propose profaning our Constitution by using it to permanently sanction discrimination. It is long past time for those of us who see justice to stand up and declare what we know to be true: that marriage equality is an inalienable right, one that must be recognized for every American.

I have set out to contact every member of Congress asking their support for this reform. In turn I appeal to your proven sense of fairness and commitment to the public good, Congressman. Would you lend this cause your voice among your colleagues in the House and Senate? To do so would be a fitting continuation of the good work you have done in promoting and defending civil rights. In any case I trust you to act conscientiously and thank you for your attention on this matter. I hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (XXX) Congressman Howard Berman

2009-02-09T12:00:00.000-08:00

Today I continue with Congressman Howard Berman, Democrat, representative of California's 28th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Berman,

I write as a concerned citizen to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Your record shows you supportive of the cause of marriage equality. In 2006, after the second attempt to initiate ratification of the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment," you made the following statement:

"As much as extreme, anti-gay individuals would like to convince us that this is a pressing national issue, the facts say otherwise. Wasting time debating a constitutional amendment to permanently deny the protections of marriage to same-sex couples isn't a priority -- it isn't in our country's interest at all. The Federal Marriage Amendment would have written discrimination into our founding document. The fact that there are even more votes against the amendment this time around goes to show that more and more people have come to understand this (State News Service, 7/19/06)."

As you so rightly declared, denial of the protections of marriage to same-sex couples is discrimination, of a kind that millions of Americans live with on a daily basis. Preventing the inscription of such obscenity into our basic law was an important victory. The recent passage of Proposition 8 in California, however, demonstrates that the forces of bigotry and intolerance are determined to maintain and expand the unjust state of marital apartheid that prevails in most of the U.S. today. If civil rights are ever to prevail in our nation an aggressive counter-campaign in support of marriage equality must be undertaken.

To that end, I have set out to write every member of Congress, seeking support for the following amendment to the U.S. constitution: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." This is the surest way to secure and defend the rights of all Americans against discriminatory measures such as Proposition 8.

Will you take up the cause of this amendment in the House, Congressman? Such efforts would be a worthy continuation of your long work in support of civil liberties and individual rights. I hope that you will lend this issue your voice. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (XXIX) Congressman Brad Sherman

2009-02-08T06:16:00.000-08:00

Today I continue with Congressman Brad Sherman, Democrat, representative of California's 27th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Sherman,

I write soliciting your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. You have long been a steady supporter of LGBT rights in the Congress, earning a positive rating of 100% from the Human Rights Campaign. Moreover, you have demonstrated your willingness to support constitutional reform in defense of civil rights, joining your colleagues in the House and Senate in an effort to re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment for ratification in the last Congress.

Given your history, Congressman, I hope you may be persuaded that urgent action is needed on the issue of marriage equality. Though some progress has been made on the state level, California's Proposition 8 demonstrates that the forces of intolerance and discrimination are energized and well-coordinated. If an aggressive campaign is not mounted in opposition, coming years will not only see recent progress erased, but a worsening of the already intolerable state of marital apartheid that now generally prevails throughout the Union.

The best assurance of the rights of all Americans would be an amendment to the U.S. Constitution which reads: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this change to our basic law. I hope that you will lend your energy and efforts to this cause.

I appeal to your proven sense of fairness and patriotism, Congressman. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and hope this message finds you well.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

California (XXVIII) Congressman David Dreier

2009-02-07T07:35:00.000-08:00

Today I continue with Congressman David Dreier, Republican, representative of California's 26th Congressional District:

Dear Congressman Dreier,

I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the Union. You took an independent stand with regard to President George W. Bush's campaign to inscribe the denial of marriage equality into the U.S. Constitution, saying: "I'm not supportive of amending the Constitution on this issue. I believe that this should go through the courts, and I think that we're at a point where it's not necessary (USA Today, February 25, 2004, p. 6A)."

That last qualifier, and your fluctuating record with regard to general issues of LGBT rights (the Human Rights Campaign gave you a rating of 22, 38, and 10, respectively, for the last three Congresses) do not augur well for your support of a Marriage Equality Amendment. The fact that you broke with the majority of your party gives me hope that you might be persuadable, however. Indeed, I hope to convince you that not only was the profanity proposed by President Bush "not necessary," but its polar opposite is in fact urgently required.

Marriage is undeniably one of the most important civil institutions in our nation. It is for good reason that we grant 1, 138 distinct benefits, privileges, and protections to married couples under federal law. Denying these to same-sex couples is grossly unfair, a clear breach of our constitutional obligation to grant all citizens "equal protection of the law." Leaving these millions of citizens to the arbitrary whims of the individual states is not only cruel to them, it injures the thousands of children who are in the care of same-sex couples and who enjoy none of the stable safeguards that would flow from state sanction of their guardians' marriages.

The surest remedy of this unjust situation would be to amend the U.S. Constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." I have set out to write every member of Congress appealing their support for this change to our basic law. My letters are collected on a weblog online (http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/). As a long time leader of the Republican caucus you could give this cause much impetus if you lent it your endorsement.

On reflection I hope that you will support this needed reform. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and I extend you my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer