Dear Ms. Davis,
I write to you as a fellow citizen concerned for the welfare of our shared Republic. Your recent protest suggests a conflict between two sacrosanct rights enshrined in the Constitution, the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion, and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. I hope I may persuade you that the Supreme Court's long overdue ruling recognizing rights of marriage equality for same-sex couples creates no such conflict in essential terms.
The arguments against your protest are not narrowly legalistic or academic in nature, but may be grounded in the tenets of your own faith. You claim that awarding marriage licenses to same-sex couples would violate the creed of your Apostolic Church, but if that is so then it becomes logically difficult to fathom how your religious commitments would allow you to perform the duties of your office in any regard.
Perhaps you would assert that the issuance of a marriage license to a same-sex couple implicates you in a violation of the sanctity of the marital bond itself. But would this not be true for any couple applying for a license that did not plan to have their union sanctified under the proper auspices of your church? How could you, in good conscience, issue a license to a Jewish couple planning to be married by a rabbi, or a pair of atheists planning to be married in a civil ceremony? Why do these unions constitute a lesser violation of the sacred institution?
Similar arguments apply if you would assert that issuing a marriage license to a same-sex couple would implicate you in facilitating the "sin" of same-sex love. Why would this be more of a transgression than facilitating the "sin" of unsanctioned love between Jews or atheists, or the (by the dictates of your church) adulterous union of those who had previously been divorced?
You might insist that the case of same-sex love is different, in that you can not avoid knowledge of a same-sex couple's "sin" where that of a Jewish or atheist heterosexual couple is not immediately apparent. But does this make logical or moral sense as a rule by which to live and work? Not if we consult the creed of your church, which allows that its members may serve in "non-combatant roles" in the U.S. military, surely knowledgeable of the fact that their work will facilitate the combatant function of others whose conscientious choices differ. If your church believed that its members could never knowingly facilitate the "sin" of others surely its doctrine about military service would be different. Moreover, if facilitating same-sex love is a graver offense than facilitating the taking of human life, one can only conclude that the doctrine of your church (or your understanding of it) is distressingly eccentric.
You have overlooked the call of your church to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," and fundamentally misunderstood the role of your office as county clerk. The marriage licenses issued by your office are not the sacral instruments of a religious ritual, they are the legal documents of a civil institution. As a state employee your authority, purview, and responsibility do not extend to citizens' souls, but only to their rights of property and legal status. Same sex couples do not want or need you to approve of their love. But they do require and are entitled to the equal protection of the laws, and the dutiful exercise of your office in that interest does not impinge upon any religious commitments, either yours or theirs.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Thursday, September 3, 2015
Monday, June 29, 2015
Han Chinese Marriage: A Lesson for Chief Justice John Roberts
In his dissent from the Supreme Court's ruling acknowledging rights of marriage equality throughout the Union, Chief Justice John Roberts protested that the decision was an overreach on the part of the Court. He complained that the ruling “orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the
basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the
Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we
are?” As many have noted, this passage expresses an understanding of social history that is simplistic at best. Rosemary Joyce has explained the absurdity of invoking Aztec marriage as a foundational precedent (hat tip to my friend and colleague Susan Tratner).
As a historian of China I was likewise shocked to see the Han (206 B.C.E.-220 C.E.) Chinese on Roberts's list. A document that I have frequently used in class to discuss gender history with my students well exemplifies the problem with Roberts's reasoning. It is a letter from a Han dynasty official, Feng Yan, to his brother-in-law, explaining why he is forced to seek a divorce from his wife. In its opening lines, Feng declared:
"According to the rules of society that have been set down by the sages, a gentleman should have a primary wife and a concubine as well (translated in Ebrey, Chinese Civilization: A Soucebook)."
Feng goes on to explain that since his wife (the addressee's sister) has sought to change the age-old definition of marriage by denying him a concubine, Feng has no choice but to jettison the mother of his four children in search of someone more reasonable. It is interesting to note that this is precisely the same logic deployed by Chief Justice Roberts two millenia later.
As has been frequently stated, what opponents of marriage equality fail to understand is the high degree to which the institution of marriage has changed and evolved over the course of human history. The reality of same-sex love was understood by the Han Chinese as it was by the ancient Greeks and other early peoples. The reason that an acknowledgment of same-sex love did not translate into an embrace of same-sex marriage is that, as Feng Yan's letter demonstrates, marriage was (in theory, at least) understood to be a hierarchical relationship between master (husband) and servant (wife). This marital hierarchy was assumed to grow spontaneously from the natural gender order written into the framework of the cosmos. Two persons of the same gender thus could not marry, as it would be impossible to determine who was superior and who subordinate.
Marriage has evolved (much more recently than most people imagine) to become a relationship between equals, thus there is no justification to exclude same-gender couples from the marital bond. In this respect, Chief Justice Roberts is utterly wrong- in upholding marriage equality the court did not legislate from the bench, it merely enforced the natural imperative of the 14th amendment's guarantee to all citizens of "the equal protection of the law." Federal law grants 1,138 rights and benefits to married couples. Anyone arbitrarily disallowed from marrying the individual that they love thus can not possibly be said to enjoy "the equal protection of the law." This ruling is not a thunderbolt from the blue. It is a consummation that has been due since the passage of the 14th amendment in 1868.
As a historian of China I was likewise shocked to see the Han (206 B.C.E.-220 C.E.) Chinese on Roberts's list. A document that I have frequently used in class to discuss gender history with my students well exemplifies the problem with Roberts's reasoning. It is a letter from a Han dynasty official, Feng Yan, to his brother-in-law, explaining why he is forced to seek a divorce from his wife. In its opening lines, Feng declared:
"According to the rules of society that have been set down by the sages, a gentleman should have a primary wife and a concubine as well (translated in Ebrey, Chinese Civilization: A Soucebook)."
Feng goes on to explain that since his wife (the addressee's sister) has sought to change the age-old definition of marriage by denying him a concubine, Feng has no choice but to jettison the mother of his four children in search of someone more reasonable. It is interesting to note that this is precisely the same logic deployed by Chief Justice Roberts two millenia later.
As has been frequently stated, what opponents of marriage equality fail to understand is the high degree to which the institution of marriage has changed and evolved over the course of human history. The reality of same-sex love was understood by the Han Chinese as it was by the ancient Greeks and other early peoples. The reason that an acknowledgment of same-sex love did not translate into an embrace of same-sex marriage is that, as Feng Yan's letter demonstrates, marriage was (in theory, at least) understood to be a hierarchical relationship between master (husband) and servant (wife). This marital hierarchy was assumed to grow spontaneously from the natural gender order written into the framework of the cosmos. Two persons of the same gender thus could not marry, as it would be impossible to determine who was superior and who subordinate.
Marriage has evolved (much more recently than most people imagine) to become a relationship between equals, thus there is no justification to exclude same-gender couples from the marital bond. In this respect, Chief Justice Roberts is utterly wrong- in upholding marriage equality the court did not legislate from the bench, it merely enforced the natural imperative of the 14th amendment's guarantee to all citizens of "the equal protection of the law." Federal law grants 1,138 rights and benefits to married couples. Anyone arbitrarily disallowed from marrying the individual that they love thus can not possibly be said to enjoy "the equal protection of the law." This ruling is not a thunderbolt from the blue. It is a consummation that has been due since the passage of the 14th amendment in 1868.
Friday, June 26, 2015
Monday, April 1, 2013
Answering Scalia's Question
During oral arguments over the repeal of Proposition 8, Justice Antonin Scalia asked the following question of Ted Olson, one of the attorneys arguing for the repeal: "I’m curious, when—when did—when did it become unconstitutional to
exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the
Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?" Mr. Olson's answer was rather labored and tentative. To paraphrase his reply, he asserted that this change had happened at some indeterminable point when society realized that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. Not being a lawyer, I am not aware of the possible legal reasons behind Mr. Olson's evasiveness. Still, I can not help expressing dissatisfaction with this answer.
From my perspective, the answer to Justice Scalia's question is quite clear: denial of marriage equality became unconstitutional with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and its guarantee to all citizens of "the equal protection of the laws." There is no network of legal obligations in which a citizen is enmeshed so binding or significant as the family, and there is no familial relationship more intimate than with one's spouse. This latter fact is a function of U.S. law, and may be deemed a hallmark and prime achievement of our American Revolution. In the Old World the obligations borne to one's natal family trumped that to one's spouse (blood was, as they said, thicker than water). In America, one's spouse became one's next-of-kin, because we recognized that weight should be given to the one family relationship that was entered into freely and of one's own volition. In a democracy, choice trumps birth.
Anyone excluded from the marital compact is deprived of this ability- the power to choose one's closest relative. Given that under federal law alone, marital status conveys 1,138 rights and benefits, anyone barred from the institution of marriage can not possibly be said to enjoy "the equal protection of the law." Unless one is willing to completely discount the role of love in family life, there is no way to square the denial of marriage equality with the imperative of the equal protection clause.
Putting a date on this change is less paradoxical that it may sound. We should not confuse the time when a law became unconstitutional with the point at which it "became" wrong. It was always wrong to deny human beings the equal protection of the law on the basis of race. The fact that it only became unconstitutional and illegal in 1868 did not make it any less wrong in 1791. On the same principle, the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage always denied them the equal protection of the law. The fact that we are only realizing it now did not make it any less unconstitutional in 1868. The constitution is not a guide to right or wrong, it is a set of rules by which the organs of our government are bound. As our understanding advances, the implications of those rules change. Now that we know that marriage discrimination deprives millions of our citizens the equal protection of the law, we are bound by our own constitution to the establishment of marriage equality.
From my perspective, the answer to Justice Scalia's question is quite clear: denial of marriage equality became unconstitutional with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and its guarantee to all citizens of "the equal protection of the laws." There is no network of legal obligations in which a citizen is enmeshed so binding or significant as the family, and there is no familial relationship more intimate than with one's spouse. This latter fact is a function of U.S. law, and may be deemed a hallmark and prime achievement of our American Revolution. In the Old World the obligations borne to one's natal family trumped that to one's spouse (blood was, as they said, thicker than water). In America, one's spouse became one's next-of-kin, because we recognized that weight should be given to the one family relationship that was entered into freely and of one's own volition. In a democracy, choice trumps birth.
Anyone excluded from the marital compact is deprived of this ability- the power to choose one's closest relative. Given that under federal law alone, marital status conveys 1,138 rights and benefits, anyone barred from the institution of marriage can not possibly be said to enjoy "the equal protection of the law." Unless one is willing to completely discount the role of love in family life, there is no way to square the denial of marriage equality with the imperative of the equal protection clause.
Putting a date on this change is less paradoxical that it may sound. We should not confuse the time when a law became unconstitutional with the point at which it "became" wrong. It was always wrong to deny human beings the equal protection of the law on the basis of race. The fact that it only became unconstitutional and illegal in 1868 did not make it any less wrong in 1791. On the same principle, the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage always denied them the equal protection of the law. The fact that we are only realizing it now did not make it any less unconstitutional in 1868. The constitution is not a guide to right or wrong, it is a set of rules by which the organs of our government are bound. As our understanding advances, the implications of those rules change. Now that we know that marriage discrimination deprives millions of our citizens the equal protection of the law, we are bound by our own constitution to the establishment of marriage equality.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Connecticut (II, redux) Senator Richard Blumenthal
Today I correspond with Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat, junior senator of Connecticut:
To the Honorable Senator Richard Blumenthal,
Since your recent election to the Senate, you have been an outspoken opponent of marital discrimination, co-sponsoring the "Respect for Marriage Act" that would repeal DOMA and secure the rights of same-sex couples at the federal level. Though this is a courageous and necessary step, full civil rights will not be extended to eveyone until rights of marriage equality are secured for all Americans living in all states of the union. To that end, I would like to see the federal constitution 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." If you would propose such an amendment to Congress, it would broadcast to the world the sincerity and commitment of those of us on the right side of this issue. Proponents of atrocities like DOMA and Proposition 8 wrap themselves in the cloak of tradition and piety. The time is right to let the world know that those of us who believe in marriage equality do so on the basis of principles and values that we hold no less sacred, and that we would see these values enshrined in our nation's basic law.
Please give some thought to this idea, and consider acting on it in due course. In any case, I hope this communication finds you well, and thank you for your attention on this matter.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
To the Honorable Senator Richard Blumenthal,
Since your recent election to the Senate, you have been an outspoken opponent of marital discrimination, co-sponsoring the "Respect for Marriage Act" that would repeal DOMA and secure the rights of same-sex couples at the federal level. Though this is a courageous and necessary step, full civil rights will not be extended to eveyone until rights of marriage equality are secured for all Americans living in all states of the union. To that end, I would like to see the federal constitution 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." If you would propose such an amendment to Congress, it would broadcast to the world the sincerity and commitment of those of us on the right side of this issue. Proponents of atrocities like DOMA and Proposition 8 wrap themselves in the cloak of tradition and piety. The time is right to let the world know that those of us who believe in marriage equality do so on the basis of principles and values that we hold no less sacred, and that we would see these values enshrined in our nation's basic law.
Please give some thought to this idea, and consider acting on it in due course. In any case, I hope this communication finds you well, and thank you for your attention on this matter.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Arizon (II, redux) Senator John Boozman
After a long hiatus, I correspond with Senator John Boozman, who defeated Blanche Lincoln to become Arkansas' junior Senator in 2010.
To the Honorable Senator John Boozman,
I write to you in protest of your opposition to marriage equality for all Americans. In response to President Obama's recent support of marriage equality, you objected, declaring that discrimination in favor of heterosexual couples is "the way it has been for centuries and I don’t think we need to change that.” You also provided the excuse of your status as a representative, asserting that "the vast majority of [Arkansas] feels like [marriage] should be between a man and a woman."
Both of these arguments are specious, and beneath the dignity of your office. Centuries ago marriage was a vastly different institution than it is today. Wives were considered the chattel of their husbands, couples of different races could not marry, individuals could be forced into marriage against their will. All of these practices, despite having been supported by large majorities, were recognized as being incommensurate with basic civil rights and reformed, just as discrimination against same-sex couples will end in our lifetime.
I urge you to consider your legacy and to cross over to the right side of history. Future generations will remember those who stood for discrimination as the enemies of progress. Rather than voting to amend the U.S. constitution to strip citizens of their rights, as you have done, you should support the amendment of the constitution to end discrimination and to secure the 1,138 rights and benefits of marriage under federal law for all citizens: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Enshrining this principle in our basic law will advance the fulfillment of the founding principle of our Republic.
Thank you for your attention on this matter. I hope this communication finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
To the Honorable Senator John Boozman,
I write to you in protest of your opposition to marriage equality for all Americans. In response to President Obama's recent support of marriage equality, you objected, declaring that discrimination in favor of heterosexual couples is "the way it has been for centuries and I don’t think we need to change that.” You also provided the excuse of your status as a representative, asserting that "the vast majority of [Arkansas] feels like [marriage] should be between a man and a woman."
Both of these arguments are specious, and beneath the dignity of your office. Centuries ago marriage was a vastly different institution than it is today. Wives were considered the chattel of their husbands, couples of different races could not marry, individuals could be forced into marriage against their will. All of these practices, despite having been supported by large majorities, were recognized as being incommensurate with basic civil rights and reformed, just as discrimination against same-sex couples will end in our lifetime.
I urge you to consider your legacy and to cross over to the right side of history. Future generations will remember those who stood for discrimination as the enemies of progress. Rather than voting to amend the U.S. constitution to strip citizens of their rights, as you have done, you should support the amendment of the constitution to end discrimination and to secure the 1,138 rights and benefits of marriage under federal law for all citizens: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Enshrining this principle in our basic law will advance the fulfillment of the founding principle of our Republic.
Thank you for your attention on this matter. I hope this communication finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Cut the Glitter
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Illinois (II) Senator Richard Durbin
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
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
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Don't Ask Don't Tell
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Illinois (I) Senator Roland Burris
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
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
Friday, December 25, 2009
Idaho (II) Senator Mike Crapo
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
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
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Idaho (I) Senator James E. Risch
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
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
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.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Open Letter to the People of Maine
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
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
Monday, September 21, 2009
Hawaii (III) Congressman Neil Abercrombie
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:
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 18th 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
Monday, July 20, 2009
Hawaii (II) Senator Daniel Akaka
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
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
Friday, July 17, 2009
Hawaii (I) Senator Daniel Inouye
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
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
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Georgia (XV) Congressman David Scott
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
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
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Georgia (XIV) Congressman John Barrow
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
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
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Georgia (XIII) Congressman Phil Gingrey
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:
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.png)
