Today I continue with Senator Michael Bennet, junior senator for Colorado:
Dear Senator Bennet,
I write as a concerned citizen to enlist your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Marriage equality is the civil rights issue of our generation. The recognition of full marriage equality rights in Massachusetts and Connecticut and the unfortunate passage of Proposition 8 in California demonstrate that our nation is at a crossroads. All Americans must take a side and be counted, either among the proponents of discrimination and injustice or among the supporters of human dignity and liberty.
As someone newly arrived upon the national stage you are no doubt cautious about choosing the issues to which you will commit your public advocacy. I appeal, however, to your personal conscience in urging you to declare for marriage equality. Your website describes your good fortune in marrying your wife, Susan, and your pride in raising your three children. As a married man myself I understand your sense of happiness and fulfillment. I cannot help but feel some responsibility, however, for entering into an institution from which millions of my fellow citizens are arbitrarily excluded. What if my wife and daughter could not be enrolled on my health benefits at work because our union was not legally recognized? What if my daughter could not count on clear determination of her inheritance and next of kin in the event of her parents' deaths? These conditions and other hardships are ones with which thousands of Americans must cope because of the state of marital apartheid that prevails in this nation.
The Government Accountability Office lists 1,138 protections and benefits that you and I derive from being legally married. Denial of these guarantees to same-sex couples is arbitrary and discriminatory, and must not stand in a Republic committed to the preservation of individual liberties. Though the fight for a Marriage Equality Amendment would obviously be difficult, long, and fraught with political peril, it is the surest and most durable means to bringing our institutions into alignment with the inalienable rights of our citizens.
I hope that you will be persuaded by the justness and urgency of this cause. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my congratulations for your elevation to your new office.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
Colorado (I) Senator Mark Udall
Today I begin my correspondence with Colorado's Congressional delegation with Senator Mark Udall, senior senator of that state:
Dear Senator Udall,
I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the United States constitution that would legalize same-sex marriage throughout the Union. As a member of the House of Representatives you established a long record of support for the rights of LGBT citizens, and spoke candidly of this stance during the campaign for your current Senate seat last year. Your campaign web site included the following position statement:
"At Colorado Outward Bound, I insisted on outreach to include the GLBT community. I have always opposed discrimination based on sexual orientation, and I have been proud that key members of my staff have included GLBT Americans. I support the establishmen of civil unions and domestic partnership legislation to ensure that the rights of all couples - including inheritance decisions and hospital visitation rights - are protected, regardless of sexual orientation. I have consistently opposed efforts to amend the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Our Constitution is a solemn compact that is the foundation for the freedoms that we enjoy as Americans, and historically has been amended to expand rights, not restrict them. I do not think our Constitution should be used to discriminate against any American, including gay and lesbian Americans. The issue of marriage has always been left to the authority of the states, rather than the federal government, and it should stay that way. "
Your open opposition to discrimination is progressive and commendable, Senator, but you stop short of advocacy of full marriage equality. Though compromise solutions like civil unions and domestic partnerships may be well intentioned, long experience shows that separate is never equal. Such unions do not afford couples all of the 1,138 benefits and protections that flow from marriage under federal law, nor are they universally portable and legally recognized in the manner of marriage, effectively relegating same-sex couples to second-class citizenship. Moreover the institution of marriage itself is ill served through being diluted by the confused patchwork of conflicting and incoherent legal arrangements created by the states operating individually.
The issue of marriage has not always been left entirely to the states, nor should it be. In 1967 the Supreme Court ruled, in Loving v. Virginia, that marriage to the partner of one's choice was such a basic human right that two people could not be denied recognition of such a bond due to race, thus striking down so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws in 17 states. The same principle of marriage equality that underpinned the rights of the Lovings remains true in the case of same-sex couples today. The issue does not stop at concern for the couples themselves, moreover, but extends to the thousands of children in the care of same-sex guardians. Those children are denied the basic security that the children of heterosexual guardians may take for granted, effectively punishing the child for the lifestyle choices of the parents.
You are right that the Constitution has historically been amended to expand rights, and the time has come for another such expansion. A Marriage Equality Amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a reform is the surest and most durable way to end the injustices that daily arise from our current system of marital apartheid.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this amendment. I hope that you will see the justness and urgency of this cause and lend it your proven integrity and sense of civic duty. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for success in your new office.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Senator Udall,
I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the United States constitution that would legalize same-sex marriage throughout the Union. As a member of the House of Representatives you established a long record of support for the rights of LGBT citizens, and spoke candidly of this stance during the campaign for your current Senate seat last year. Your campaign web site included the following position statement:
"At Colorado Outward Bound, I insisted on outreach to include the GLBT community. I have always opposed discrimination based on sexual orientation, and I have been proud that key members of my staff have included GLBT Americans. I support the establishmen of civil unions and domestic partnership legislation to ensure that the rights of all couples - including inheritance decisions and hospital visitation rights - are protected, regardless of sexual orientation. I have consistently opposed efforts to amend the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Our Constitution is a solemn compact that is the foundation for the freedoms that we enjoy as Americans, and historically has been amended to expand rights, not restrict them. I do not think our Constitution should be used to discriminate against any American, including gay and lesbian Americans. The issue of marriage has always been left to the authority of the states, rather than the federal government, and it should stay that way. "
Your open opposition to discrimination is progressive and commendable, Senator, but you stop short of advocacy of full marriage equality. Though compromise solutions like civil unions and domestic partnerships may be well intentioned, long experience shows that separate is never equal. Such unions do not afford couples all of the 1,138 benefits and protections that flow from marriage under federal law, nor are they universally portable and legally recognized in the manner of marriage, effectively relegating same-sex couples to second-class citizenship. Moreover the institution of marriage itself is ill served through being diluted by the confused patchwork of conflicting and incoherent legal arrangements created by the states operating individually.
The issue of marriage has not always been left entirely to the states, nor should it be. In 1967 the Supreme Court ruled, in Loving v. Virginia, that marriage to the partner of one's choice was such a basic human right that two people could not be denied recognition of such a bond due to race, thus striking down so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws in 17 states. The same principle of marriage equality that underpinned the rights of the Lovings remains true in the case of same-sex couples today. The issue does not stop at concern for the couples themselves, moreover, but extends to the thousands of children in the care of same-sex guardians. Those children are denied the basic security that the children of heterosexual guardians may take for granted, effectively punishing the child for the lifestyle choices of the parents.
You are right that the Constitution has historically been amended to expand rights, and the time has come for another such expansion. A Marriage Equality Amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a reform is the surest and most durable way to end the injustices that daily arise from our current system of marital apartheid.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this amendment. I hope that you will see the justness and urgency of this cause and lend it your proven integrity and sense of civic duty. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for success in your new office.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Thursday, March 19, 2009
California (LIV) Congresswoman Susan Davis
Today I conclude my correspondence with California's Congressional delegation (until the vacancy created by the departure of Congresswoman Hilda Solis from the seat representing the 32nd District is filled) with Congresswoman Susan Davis, Democrat, representative of California's 53rd Congressional District:
Dear Congresswoman Davis,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would guarantee the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. The text of such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Though great strides have been made in the fight for marriage equality in recent years, tragic setbacks like the recent passage of Proposition 8 are a reminder of how well-funded and determined are the forces of discrimination and injustice. The time has come to make an unequivocal and principled stand, and to seek a permanent and universal redress for the injuries that those deprived rights of marriage equality have been made to suffer.
As a founding member of the LGBT Equality Caucus you have been a staunch champion for the rights of LGBT citizens. Support of a Marriage Equality Amendment would be a fitting extension of your already admirable record. Though the fight for a constitutional amendment would obviously be long, difficult, and fraught with political peril, with the backing of a well-respected public servant such as yourself it could change the public discourse in this country long before its goal was practically achieved.
I have set out to write every member of Congress enlisting support for this campaign. The letters are all being gathered at a weblog online: http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/. I hope that you will lend this amendment your proven energy and integrity. In any case I thank you for your service to our nation and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congresswoman Davis,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would guarantee the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. The text of such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Though great strides have been made in the fight for marriage equality in recent years, tragic setbacks like the recent passage of Proposition 8 are a reminder of how well-funded and determined are the forces of discrimination and injustice. The time has come to make an unequivocal and principled stand, and to seek a permanent and universal redress for the injuries that those deprived rights of marriage equality have been made to suffer.
As a founding member of the LGBT Equality Caucus you have been a staunch champion for the rights of LGBT citizens. Support of a Marriage Equality Amendment would be a fitting extension of your already admirable record. Though the fight for a constitutional amendment would obviously be long, difficult, and fraught with political peril, with the backing of a well-respected public servant such as yourself it could change the public discourse in this country long before its goal was practically achieved.
I have set out to write every member of Congress enlisting support for this campaign. The letters are all being gathered at a weblog online: http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/. I hope that you will lend this amendment your proven energy and integrity. In any case I thank you for your service to our nation and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
California (LIII) Congressman Duncan D. Hunter
Today I continue with Congressman Duncan D. Hunter, Republican, representative of California's 52nd Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Hunter,
I write as a concerned citizen to urge you to change your position on marriage equality. As a newly elected congressman you have yet to establish your voting record with regard to this issue. You succeed your father, Congressman Duncan L. Hunter, however, who twice voted for the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage throughout the United States. On your website you also declare your commitment to "protecting traditional marriage."
If the amendment for which your father twice voted is your notion of how best to "protect" marriage then the people of your district and this nation will be poorly served. Religious and civil marriage are two separate institutions that share a common name. As a legislator it is not your place to "protect" the religious sacrament of marriage, that is an issue of conscience for Americans to decide within the precincts of their communal faiths. Your duty is to attend to the civil institution of marriage, and to see that it is constructed and adjudicated in a way that is fair and just to all citizens.
Any objective view of American civil marriage today can determine that it is not instituted fairly and equitably. Couples that have lived with and cared for one-another for decades, many of which have raised or are raising children, are denied the basic safeguards and protections that the majority of their fellow citizens may take entirely for granted. The Government Accountability Office lists 1,138 rights and benefits that flow to a couple from marital status. As a government official, do you really feel justified in denying same-sex couples those rights simply because you give no credence to their mutual love and commitment? Are you that complacently certain of your own opinion, Congressman?
As a soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan you fought to defend the freedoms that are guaranteed to all Americans in our Constitution, among which is the 14th Amendment's assurance of "equal protection of the laws." When the law arbitrarily excludes millions of citizens from the enjoyment of 1,138 discrete protections, that promise of equal treatment is breached. The current state of marital apartheid in this nation is thus an abrogation of the principles for which you yourself risked your life.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." This reform is the surest and most durable means to protecting both the rights of our citizens and the institution of marriage itself, which is threatened not by the legalization of same-sex marriage but by the confusing patchwork of differing legalities created by the individual states. Marriage to the partner of one's choice is a civil right and thus should be federally protected. Such was the ruling of the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down the so-called "anti-miscegenation laws" barring interracial marriage in many states, and such is the case with respect to the rights of same-sex couples today.
I hope that on reflection you will see the justness of this cause and lend your support to the struggle for marriage equality. In any case I thank you for your attention to this matter and for your service to our country, and wish you success in your new office.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Hunter,
I write as a concerned citizen to urge you to change your position on marriage equality. As a newly elected congressman you have yet to establish your voting record with regard to this issue. You succeed your father, Congressman Duncan L. Hunter, however, who twice voted for the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage throughout the United States. On your website you also declare your commitment to "protecting traditional marriage."
If the amendment for which your father twice voted is your notion of how best to "protect" marriage then the people of your district and this nation will be poorly served. Religious and civil marriage are two separate institutions that share a common name. As a legislator it is not your place to "protect" the religious sacrament of marriage, that is an issue of conscience for Americans to decide within the precincts of their communal faiths. Your duty is to attend to the civil institution of marriage, and to see that it is constructed and adjudicated in a way that is fair and just to all citizens.
Any objective view of American civil marriage today can determine that it is not instituted fairly and equitably. Couples that have lived with and cared for one-another for decades, many of which have raised or are raising children, are denied the basic safeguards and protections that the majority of their fellow citizens may take entirely for granted. The Government Accountability Office lists 1,138 rights and benefits that flow to a couple from marital status. As a government official, do you really feel justified in denying same-sex couples those rights simply because you give no credence to their mutual love and commitment? Are you that complacently certain of your own opinion, Congressman?
As a soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan you fought to defend the freedoms that are guaranteed to all Americans in our Constitution, among which is the 14th Amendment's assurance of "equal protection of the laws." When the law arbitrarily excludes millions of citizens from the enjoyment of 1,138 discrete protections, that promise of equal treatment is breached. The current state of marital apartheid in this nation is thus an abrogation of the principles for which you yourself risked your life.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." This reform is the surest and most durable means to protecting both the rights of our citizens and the institution of marriage itself, which is threatened not by the legalization of same-sex marriage but by the confusing patchwork of differing legalities created by the individual states. Marriage to the partner of one's choice is a civil right and thus should be federally protected. Such was the ruling of the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down the so-called "anti-miscegenation laws" barring interracial marriage in many states, and such is the case with respect to the rights of same-sex couples today.
I hope that on reflection you will see the justness of this cause and lend your support to the struggle for marriage equality. In any case I thank you for your attention to this matter and for your service to our country, and wish you success in your new office.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
California (LII) Congressman Bob Filner
Today I continue with Congressman Bob Filner, Democrat, representative of California's 51st Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Filner,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment to the federal constitution would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Would you take up the cause of this reform among your colleagues in Congress?
Your deeds as a Freedom Rider during the civil rights struggle of the 1960's are well known and rightly celebrated, Congressman. Your inspirational history makes me surprised that you have not been more vocal on the issue of marriage equality, especially given recent distressing developments in your own state. Marriage equality is the civil rights struggle of this generation. At stake are the lives, loves, and families of millions of American citizens. Mildred Loving recognized this when she declared her support for marriage equality in 2007.
Your record in support of the rights of LGBT citizens has been exemplary. You twice voted against the execrable so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" and consistently receive perfect scores from the Human Rights Campaign. Now is a critical juncture in our nation's history, however. All who support civil rights and oppose discrimination must go to extraordinary lengths to stand up and be counted. If you lent your integrity and moral authority to the cause of a Marriage Equality Amendment you could tangibly shift the discourse within our country, placing those who posture about "protecting" marriage on the defensive.
I appeal to your proven sense of civic duty and public service, Congressman. I hope that you will see the wisdom of this campaign and lend it your support. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Filner,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment to the federal constitution would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Would you take up the cause of this reform among your colleagues in Congress?
Your deeds as a Freedom Rider during the civil rights struggle of the 1960's are well known and rightly celebrated, Congressman. Your inspirational history makes me surprised that you have not been more vocal on the issue of marriage equality, especially given recent distressing developments in your own state. Marriage equality is the civil rights struggle of this generation. At stake are the lives, loves, and families of millions of American citizens. Mildred Loving recognized this when she declared her support for marriage equality in 2007.
Your record in support of the rights of LGBT citizens has been exemplary. You twice voted against the execrable so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" and consistently receive perfect scores from the Human Rights Campaign. Now is a critical juncture in our nation's history, however. All who support civil rights and oppose discrimination must go to extraordinary lengths to stand up and be counted. If you lent your integrity and moral authority to the cause of a Marriage Equality Amendment you could tangibly shift the discourse within our country, placing those who posture about "protecting" marriage on the defensive.
I appeal to your proven sense of civic duty and public service, Congressman. I hope that you will see the wisdom of this campaign and lend it your support. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Saturday, March 14, 2009
California (LI) Congressman Brian Bilbray
Today I continue with Congressman Brian Bilbray, Republican, representative of California's 50th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Bilbray,
I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. You were a co-sponsor of the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage throughout the United States, even in those few states where it is now legal. Moreover, your proposed change to our basic law would have closed off the potential for even inadequate "separate but equal" compromises such as domestic partnerships and civil unions.
You thus have the distinction of co-authoring one of the most egregious monstrosities in the constitutional history of our nation. Rarely have lawmakers attempted to use our founding charter as an instrument for depriving citizens of rights they have already won. The basic genius of our Republic has been that rights tend to deepen and broaden over time; our Founders established a historical mandate for liberty that they understood would continue to expand as human understanding unfolded. You and your colleagues bear the shame of trying to stem that progressive tide.
Marriage to the partner of one's choice is undoubtedly among what our Founders identified as humanity's "inalienable rights," a fact that the Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged in Loving v. Virginia and numerous other decisions. Any group which is systematically denied the 1,138 legal benefits and protections that flow from the marital bond cannot be said to enjoy what the 14th Amendment terms "equal protection of the law." Our current state of marital apartheid is thus an injustice that cannot stand within a democracy dedicated to the preservation of individual rights, as ours is.
Because the kind of prejudice and discrimination exemplified by your amendment and other measures like it is obviously rife, the normal safeguards that protect individual liberties are clearly inadequate to securing full rights of marriage equality for all American citizens. For that reason I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking the following amendment to the U.S. constitution: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." You may disagree with the principles underlying such a Marriage Equality Amendment, but please understand that millions of Americans hold these rights to be sacred and inviolable and will fight ceaselessly until they are realized for all people.
I hope that in time you will see the error of your current stance, Congressman. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Bilbray,
I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. You were a co-sponsor of the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage throughout the United States, even in those few states where it is now legal. Moreover, your proposed change to our basic law would have closed off the potential for even inadequate "separate but equal" compromises such as domestic partnerships and civil unions.
You thus have the distinction of co-authoring one of the most egregious monstrosities in the constitutional history of our nation. Rarely have lawmakers attempted to use our founding charter as an instrument for depriving citizens of rights they have already won. The basic genius of our Republic has been that rights tend to deepen and broaden over time; our Founders established a historical mandate for liberty that they understood would continue to expand as human understanding unfolded. You and your colleagues bear the shame of trying to stem that progressive tide.
Marriage to the partner of one's choice is undoubtedly among what our Founders identified as humanity's "inalienable rights," a fact that the Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged in Loving v. Virginia and numerous other decisions. Any group which is systematically denied the 1,138 legal benefits and protections that flow from the marital bond cannot be said to enjoy what the 14th Amendment terms "equal protection of the law." Our current state of marital apartheid is thus an injustice that cannot stand within a democracy dedicated to the preservation of individual rights, as ours is.
Because the kind of prejudice and discrimination exemplified by your amendment and other measures like it is obviously rife, the normal safeguards that protect individual liberties are clearly inadequate to securing full rights of marriage equality for all American citizens. For that reason I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking the following amendment to the U.S. constitution: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." You may disagree with the principles underlying such a Marriage Equality Amendment, but please understand that millions of Americans hold these rights to be sacred and inviolable and will fight ceaselessly until they are realized for all people.
I hope that in time you will see the error of your current stance, Congressman. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
California (L) Congressman Darrell Issa
Today I continue with Congressman Darrell Issa, Republican, representative of California's 49th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Issa,
I write to protest your opposition to marriage equality. You have shown yourself consistently hostile to the rights of LGBT citizens, typically earning a rating of "zero" from the Human Rights Campaign for your voting record. You voted twice for the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage throughout the nation. In 2004 you issued this statement:
"Congressman Darrell Issa has voted to protect the sanctity of marriage and to uphold the right of states to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The House of Representatives voted 233-194 to pass H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act of 2004, which denies federal activist judges jurisdiction to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of the right of states to define marriage as a union between and man and a woman or the Federal statute defining marriage."
Such rhetoric betrays prejudice and insensitivity unworthy of the office you hold in trust, Congressman. Admitting same-sex couples into the marital bond poses no threat to the "sanctity of marriage." Marriage is made sacred by a couple's mutual love, respect, and care for one-another, none of which depend upon their respective genders. Moreover, as a United States legislator the "sanctity" of marriage is not genuinely your concern.
The sanctity of a marriage is a private matter, the legal status of a marriage is a civil concern. As in all legal affairs, the first responsibility of the government and its officials is to see that the law is applied fairly, to ensure that all citizens enjoy what the 14th amendment calls "the equal protection of the law." When two adults make a lifelong commitment to love, honor and protect one-another but are denied the 1,138 legal benefits and protections that the state ordinarily grants to such a union, they can not be said to enjoy the equal protection of the law by any stretch of the imagination.
This is what the Supreme Court found in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, when it struck down the so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws that banned interracial marriage in much of the U.S. Would you call that an act of "judicial activism," Congressman? The same principle of marriage equality that held true in the case of the Lovings holds true for same-sex couples today.
I have set out to write every member of Congress promoting an amendment to the U.S. constitution diametrically opposed to the one for which you twice voted. Such a Marriage Equality Amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." This change to or basic law would be the surest and most durable assurance of the "sanctity of marriage," as it would replace the state of unjust marital apartheid we have today with an institution grounded in basic fairness and equity.
I hope that you will have a change of heart and cease supporting discriminatory and oppressive laws. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Issa,
I write to protest your opposition to marriage equality. You have shown yourself consistently hostile to the rights of LGBT citizens, typically earning a rating of "zero" from the Human Rights Campaign for your voting record. You voted twice for the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have banned same-sex marriage throughout the nation. In 2004 you issued this statement:
"Congressman Darrell Issa has voted to protect the sanctity of marriage and to uphold the right of states to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The House of Representatives voted 233-194 to pass H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act of 2004, which denies federal activist judges jurisdiction to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of the right of states to define marriage as a union between and man and a woman or the Federal statute defining marriage."
Such rhetoric betrays prejudice and insensitivity unworthy of the office you hold in trust, Congressman. Admitting same-sex couples into the marital bond poses no threat to the "sanctity of marriage." Marriage is made sacred by a couple's mutual love, respect, and care for one-another, none of which depend upon their respective genders. Moreover, as a United States legislator the "sanctity" of marriage is not genuinely your concern.
The sanctity of a marriage is a private matter, the legal status of a marriage is a civil concern. As in all legal affairs, the first responsibility of the government and its officials is to see that the law is applied fairly, to ensure that all citizens enjoy what the 14th amendment calls "the equal protection of the law." When two adults make a lifelong commitment to love, honor and protect one-another but are denied the 1,138 legal benefits and protections that the state ordinarily grants to such a union, they can not be said to enjoy the equal protection of the law by any stretch of the imagination.
This is what the Supreme Court found in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, when it struck down the so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws that banned interracial marriage in much of the U.S. Would you call that an act of "judicial activism," Congressman? The same principle of marriage equality that held true in the case of the Lovings holds true for same-sex couples today.
I have set out to write every member of Congress promoting an amendment to the U.S. constitution diametrically opposed to the one for which you twice voted. Such a Marriage Equality Amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." This change to or basic law would be the surest and most durable assurance of the "sanctity of marriage," as it would replace the state of unjust marital apartheid we have today with an institution grounded in basic fairness and equity.
I hope that you will have a change of heart and cease supporting discriminatory and oppressive laws. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.png)
