California (XLIX) Congressman John Campbell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.