Today I continue with Congressman Doug Lamborn, Republican, representative of Colorado's 5th Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Lamborn,
I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. As a state legislator in Colorado you fought for a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, and have carried that agenda forward onto the national stage with your election to Congress. In the past you have spoken of the threat posed by those who would "force homosexual values on Colorado" and "completely redefine the meaning of marriage." These are fallacious principles on which to structure your actions as a legislator.
The demand that one's family enjoy the same basic legal protections extended to others is not a "homosexual value," it is a question of basic fairness. As Jews my wife and I were married by a rabbi. Did this make our desire to hold property in common, share health benefits, file joint tax returns, or enjoy any of the other 1,138 federally guaranteed benefits and protections of marriage a "Jewish" value? Of course not. We simply expected that the "equal protection of the law" that is promised by the 14th amendment would accord our union the same legal force of that performed by a priest or a minister. That is no more a "Jewish value" than Mildred and Richard Loving's expectation of marriage equality was an "interracial value." Marriage equality is, in fact, an American value, one which is profaned by those like you who would arbitrarily deny rights of marriage equality to millions of Americans.
Nor does recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry "redefine" the meaning of marriage. To insist so is to confuse the separate institutions of civil and religious marriage. As a legislator your concern is only for marriage as a legal, not a spiritual entity. Your faith might dictate that my rabbinically sanctioned union is not a "true" marriage, but would refusing my wife and I married status on that basis be anything short of un-American? The definition of "true marriage" will always remain disputed between the diverse confessional communities that inhabit our Republic. As a civil society our only obligation is to decide what legal definition of marriage will extend protection to all citizens fairly and equitably.
Unfortunately, your discriminatory attitudes are widespread in this country, resulting in profound and chronic injustice. For that reason I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would correct the state of marital apartheid that prevails through most of the country. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."
I hope that eventually you will see the error of your ways and cease your campaign against the rights of fellow Americans. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Monday, March 30, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Colorado (VI) Congresswoman Betsy Markey
Today I continue with Congresswoman Betsy Markey, Democrat, representative of Colorado's 4th Congressional District:
Dear Congresswoman Markey,
I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Conscientious citizens across the nation celebrated your election last year, in which you unseated the stridently homophobic Marilyn Musgrave, one of the chief sponsors of the execrably misnamed "Marriage Protection Amendment." Her claims that so-called "gay marriage" was the single greatest "problem" facing the nation were a stain upon the Congress and a gratuitous assault upon the dignity and well-being of millions of Americans.
You rightly condemned Ms. Musgrave's rhetoric as extremist, and noted that, "People in my district don't want to regulate marriage, they want to improve their economic conditions and provide for national security." Such reasonable views are obviously a vast improvement on the hatred and bigotry that Musgrave represented, but rationality alone does not suffice to redress the problem that Musgrave embodies. Tragically, Musgrave is symptomatic of a broad movement for discrimination and intolerance that is on the march throughout the U.S. The passage of Proposition 8 in California in the midst of progressive victories like yours and that of President Obama demonstrate how well-funded and well-disciplined these illiberal forces are.
Marriage to the partner of one's choice is an inalienable right, one that can not be deprived to any citizen even by a vote of the majority. In the face of discriminatory forces like those represented by Marilyn Musgrave, rights of marriage equality require robust protection. The surest and most durable guarantee of these rights would be to amend the United States constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."
Critics might claim that this position is as extreme as that propounded by Marilyn Musgrave. Such an assertion is false. There is no such thing as "gay marriage" or "straight marriage," only marriage, a civil institution that affords those who enter into it 1,138 legal benefits and protections under federal law. Removing the barriers that prevent millions of Americans from enjoying those benefits and protections is not extremism, it is simple justice and right.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking sponsorship of the above Marriage Equality Amendment. As a newly elected representative you no doubt feel a sense of caution in choosing those causes to which you will commit your public advocacy. I hope, however, that you may be persuaded of the urgency and justness of this campaign and lend it your evident energy and intellectual force. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my congratulations on your election.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congresswoman Markey,
I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Conscientious citizens across the nation celebrated your election last year, in which you unseated the stridently homophobic Marilyn Musgrave, one of the chief sponsors of the execrably misnamed "Marriage Protection Amendment." Her claims that so-called "gay marriage" was the single greatest "problem" facing the nation were a stain upon the Congress and a gratuitous assault upon the dignity and well-being of millions of Americans.
You rightly condemned Ms. Musgrave's rhetoric as extremist, and noted that, "People in my district don't want to regulate marriage, they want to improve their economic conditions and provide for national security." Such reasonable views are obviously a vast improvement on the hatred and bigotry that Musgrave represented, but rationality alone does not suffice to redress the problem that Musgrave embodies. Tragically, Musgrave is symptomatic of a broad movement for discrimination and intolerance that is on the march throughout the U.S. The passage of Proposition 8 in California in the midst of progressive victories like yours and that of President Obama demonstrate how well-funded and well-disciplined these illiberal forces are.
Marriage to the partner of one's choice is an inalienable right, one that can not be deprived to any citizen even by a vote of the majority. In the face of discriminatory forces like those represented by Marilyn Musgrave, rights of marriage equality require robust protection. The surest and most durable guarantee of these rights would be to amend the United States constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."
Critics might claim that this position is as extreme as that propounded by Marilyn Musgrave. Such an assertion is false. There is no such thing as "gay marriage" or "straight marriage," only marriage, a civil institution that affords those who enter into it 1,138 legal benefits and protections under federal law. Removing the barriers that prevent millions of Americans from enjoying those benefits and protections is not extremism, it is simple justice and right.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking sponsorship of the above Marriage Equality Amendment. As a newly elected representative you no doubt feel a sense of caution in choosing those causes to which you will commit your public advocacy. I hope, however, that you may be persuaded of the urgency and justness of this campaign and lend it your evident energy and intellectual force. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my congratulations on your election.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Colorado (V) Congressman John T. Salazar
Today I continue with Congressman John T. Salazar, Democrat, representative of Colorado's 3rd Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Salazar,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. As you may be aware, married status conveys 1,138 discrete benefits and protections to citizens under federal law. Additional safeguards devolve upon children thanks to the legal recognition of their parents' union. Marriage to the partner of one's choice is thus a basic and inalienable right, one that should be (and is, for heterosexual couples) federally protected. Exclusion of tens of thousands of same-sex couples and their children from the protections of marriage is arbitrary and discriminatory. The surest and most durable way to redress this injustice would be to amend the U.S. Constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."
You have had a relatively strong voting record in support of LGBT rights, earning ratings of 80% and 63%, respectively, for the last two Congresses from the Human Rights Campaign. More importantly, you have shown yourself in sympathy with the cause of marriage equality by voting against the execrably misnamed "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have comprehensively banned same-sex marriage. Marriage equality is the civil rights struggle of our generation. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a change to our basic law to combat discriminatory measures like the amendment against which you voted and the regrettably passed Proposition 8 in California.
I hope you can be persuaded to lend your proven sense of civic duty to this cause, Congressman. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Salazar,
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. As you may be aware, married status conveys 1,138 discrete benefits and protections to citizens under federal law. Additional safeguards devolve upon children thanks to the legal recognition of their parents' union. Marriage to the partner of one's choice is thus a basic and inalienable right, one that should be (and is, for heterosexual couples) federally protected. Exclusion of tens of thousands of same-sex couples and their children from the protections of marriage is arbitrary and discriminatory. The surest and most durable way to redress this injustice would be to amend the U.S. Constitution to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."
You have had a relatively strong voting record in support of LGBT rights, earning ratings of 80% and 63%, respectively, for the last two Congresses from the Human Rights Campaign. More importantly, you have shown yourself in sympathy with the cause of marriage equality by voting against the execrably misnamed "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would have comprehensively banned same-sex marriage. Marriage equality is the civil rights struggle of our generation. I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a change to our basic law to combat discriminatory measures like the amendment against which you voted and the regrettably passed Proposition 8 in California.
I hope you can be persuaded to lend your proven sense of civic duty to this cause, Congressman. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Colorado (IV) Congressman Jared Polis
Today I continue with Congressman Jared Polis, Democrat, representative of Colorado's 2nd Congressional District:
Dear Congressman Polis,
I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. The text of such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a reform would be the most certain and durable means to aligning our laws with the basic and inalienable rights of our citizens.
As the first openly gay candidate for Congress from the state of Colorado you made history upon winning election last November. You made support for LGBT rights and a pledge to fight for marriage equality a cornerstone of your campaign. Support for a Marriage Equality Amendment would thoroughly and unequivocally fulfill those campaign promises.
As a newly elected Representative you are no doubt cautious about choosing the issues to which you will commit your public advocacy. Some might advise you that an amendment to the federal constitution is an overly aggressive and politically untimely remedy, but I would urge you to think otherwise. On the one hand, the expansion of marriage equality rights in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and elsewhere demonstrates that a sea change in social attitudes is underway across our nation, especially among young voters that came out in such large numbers last November. On the other hand, the passage of travesties like Proposition 8 in California demonstrate that the forces of bigotry and discrimination are well-funded and highly motivated, and must be met with equivalently unwavering determination. Now is assuredly the time to take an unambiguous and principled stand in support of what is right and just.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment. My letters are being collected on a weblog at: http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/. The fight for a Marriage Equality Amendment would no doubt be long, difficult, and politically perilous. I hope, however, that you can be persuaded to lend your proven energy and ingenuity to this cause. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my congratulations on your election.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congressman Polis,
I write to solicit your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. The text of such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a reform would be the most certain and durable means to aligning our laws with the basic and inalienable rights of our citizens.
As the first openly gay candidate for Congress from the state of Colorado you made history upon winning election last November. You made support for LGBT rights and a pledge to fight for marriage equality a cornerstone of your campaign. Support for a Marriage Equality Amendment would thoroughly and unequivocally fulfill those campaign promises.
As a newly elected Representative you are no doubt cautious about choosing the issues to which you will commit your public advocacy. Some might advise you that an amendment to the federal constitution is an overly aggressive and politically untimely remedy, but I would urge you to think otherwise. On the one hand, the expansion of marriage equality rights in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and elsewhere demonstrates that a sea change in social attitudes is underway across our nation, especially among young voters that came out in such large numbers last November. On the other hand, the passage of travesties like Proposition 8 in California demonstrate that the forces of bigotry and discrimination are well-funded and highly motivated, and must be met with equivalently unwavering determination. Now is assuredly the time to take an unambiguous and principled stand in support of what is right and just.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for a Marriage Equality Amendment. My letters are being collected on a weblog at: http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/. The fight for a Marriage Equality Amendment would no doubt be long, difficult, and politically perilous. I hope, however, that you can be persuaded to lend your proven energy and ingenuity to this cause. In any case I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my congratulations on your election.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Monday, March 23, 2009
Colorado (III) Congresswoman Diana Degette
Today I continue with Congresswoman Diana Degette, representative of Colorado's 1st Congressional District:
Dear Congresswoman Degette:
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. You have been admirably outspoken about your support for marriage equality. At a rally in Denver in 2004 opposing the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" you delivered the following prepared remarks:
"This is fundamentally a question of whether two people in a committed relationship should have the same rights as every other American couple. It is unconscionable that any politicians should seek to prevent other Americans from the ability to see their loved ones in the hospital, from sharing health insurance or health decisions, from sharing survivor and inheritance benefits. But that is exactly what supporters of the amendment seek to do.
Travesties like Proposition 8 in California demonstrate that progress will not be made on this issue without aggressive and sustained action. That is why I propose that the U.S. constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a change to our basic law is the surest and most durable way to bring our institutions into alignment with the fundamental rights of our citizens.
The fight for a Marriage Equality Amendment would no doubt be long, difficult, and fraught with uncertainty. With the support of a conscientious public servant like yourself, however, it could change the discourse in our country, demonstrating to both opponents and supporters of marriage equality the seriousness and urgency of this issue.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this amendment. My letters are collected on a weblog at: http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/. I hope that you will lend your proven energy and integrity to this cause. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Dear Congresswoman Degette:
I write seeking your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. You have been admirably outspoken about your support for marriage equality. At a rally in Denver in 2004 opposing the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" you delivered the following prepared remarks:
"This is fundamentally a question of whether two people in a committed relationship should have the same rights as every other American couple. It is unconscionable that any politicians should seek to prevent other Americans from the ability to see their loved ones in the hospital, from sharing health insurance or health decisions, from sharing survivor and inheritance benefits. But that is exactly what supporters of the amendment seek to do.
Our opponents will claim that this not about discrimination, but about protecting the sanctity of marriage. Well, I have been married for more than fifteen years. Allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry will not impact the sanctity of my marriage one bit. Any married couple that thinks legalizing gay marriage will hurt their relationship needs a marriage counselor, not a Constitutional amendment.
In fact, we are seeing the power and sanctity of marriage in the hundreds of gay and lesbian couples who have lined up at City Hall in San Francisco this weekend to get married. Their weddings have only strengthened the institution of marriage.
All of us stand with them today and with the hundreds of thousands of Colorado families who oppose enshrining intolerance and discrimination of the right in our Constitution. Together, we will make sure that our founding document continues to protect the rights of all Americans, gay or straight, married or not. "
Like you I feel that marriage equality "is fundamentally a question of whether two people in a committed relationship should have the same rights as every other American couple." As you suggest, everything about our nation's history and traditional values dictate that the answer to this question is a resounding "yes." Marriage to the partner of one's choice is an inalienable right, one that is systematically denied to millions of citizens and should be federally protected.Travesties like Proposition 8 in California demonstrate that progress will not be made on this issue without aggressive and sustained action. That is why I propose that the U.S. constitution be amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a change to our basic law is the surest and most durable way to bring our institutions into alignment with the fundamental rights of our citizens.
The fight for a Marriage Equality Amendment would no doubt be long, difficult, and fraught with uncertainty. With the support of a conscientious public servant like yourself, however, it could change the discourse in our country, demonstrating to both opponents and supporters of marriage equality the seriousness and urgency of this issue.
I have set out to write every member of Congress seeking support for this amendment. My letters are collected on a weblog at: http://marriageequalityamendment.blogspot.com/. I hope that you will lend your proven energy and integrity to this cause. In any case, I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for the success of the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Colorado (II) Senator Michael Bennet
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.png)
