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.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.png)
