Today I correspond with Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat, junior senator of Connecticut:
To the Honorable Senator Richard Blumenthal,
Since your recent election to the Senate, you have been an outspoken opponent of marital discrimination, co-sponsoring the "Respect for Marriage Act" that would repeal DOMA and secure the rights of same-sex couples at the federal level. Though this is a courageous and necessary step, full civil rights will not be extended to eveyone until rights of marriage equality are secured for all Americans living in all states of the union. To that end, I would like to see the federal constitution amended to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." If you would propose such an amendment to Congress, it would broadcast to the world the sincerity and commitment of those of us on the right side of this issue. Proponents of atrocities like DOMA and Proposition 8 wrap themselves in the cloak of tradition and piety. The time is right to let the world know that those of us who believe in marriage equality do so on the basis of principles and values that we hold no less sacred, and that we would see these values enshrined in our nation's basic law.
Please give some thought to this idea, and consider acting on it in due course. In any case, I hope this communication finds you well, and thank you for your attention on this matter.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Arizon (II, redux) Senator John Boozman
After a long hiatus, I correspond with Senator John Boozman, who defeated Blanche Lincoln to become Arkansas' junior Senator in 2010.
To the Honorable Senator John Boozman,
I write to you in protest of your opposition to marriage equality for all Americans. In response to President Obama's recent support of marriage equality, you objected, declaring that discrimination in favor of heterosexual couples is "the way it has been for centuries and I don’t think we need to change that.” You also provided the excuse of your status as a representative, asserting that "the vast majority of [Arkansas] feels like [marriage] should be between a man and a woman."
Both of these arguments are specious, and beneath the dignity of your office. Centuries ago marriage was a vastly different institution than it is today. Wives were considered the chattel of their husbands, couples of different races could not marry, individuals could be forced into marriage against their will. All of these practices, despite having been supported by large majorities, were recognized as being incommensurate with basic civil rights and reformed, just as discrimination against same-sex couples will end in our lifetime.
I urge you to consider your legacy and to cross over to the right side of history. Future generations will remember those who stood for discrimination as the enemies of progress. Rather than voting to amend the U.S. constitution to strip citizens of their rights, as you have done, you should support the amendment of the constitution to end discrimination and to secure the 1,138 rights and benefits of marriage under federal law for all citizens: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Enshrining this principle in our basic law will advance the fulfillment of the founding principle of our Republic.
Thank you for your attention on this matter. I hope this communication finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
To the Honorable Senator John Boozman,
I write to you in protest of your opposition to marriage equality for all Americans. In response to President Obama's recent support of marriage equality, you objected, declaring that discrimination in favor of heterosexual couples is "the way it has been for centuries and I don’t think we need to change that.” You also provided the excuse of your status as a representative, asserting that "the vast majority of [Arkansas] feels like [marriage] should be between a man and a woman."
Both of these arguments are specious, and beneath the dignity of your office. Centuries ago marriage was a vastly different institution than it is today. Wives were considered the chattel of their husbands, couples of different races could not marry, individuals could be forced into marriage against their will. All of these practices, despite having been supported by large majorities, were recognized as being incommensurate with basic civil rights and reformed, just as discrimination against same-sex couples will end in our lifetime.
I urge you to consider your legacy and to cross over to the right side of history. Future generations will remember those who stood for discrimination as the enemies of progress. Rather than voting to amend the U.S. constitution to strip citizens of their rights, as you have done, you should support the amendment of the constitution to end discrimination and to secure the 1,138 rights and benefits of marriage under federal law for all citizens: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Enshrining this principle in our basic law will advance the fulfillment of the founding principle of our Republic.
Thank you for your attention on this matter. I hope this communication finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Cut the Glitter
Though it has been a shamefully long time since I posted on this blog, a recent event compels me to speak up. On Tuesday, May 17, activist Nick Espinosa dumped a box of glitter on GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, in protest of Gingrich's opposition to marriage equality. Though I would agree that, "Anyone telling people who [sic] they can and cannot love is offensive, especially coming from a serial adulterer like Newt," I cannot approve of Espinosa's actions. Condemning and even embarrassing those who would discriminate against their fellow Americans is legitimate, but no political protest is acceptable that actually trespasses upon the physical person of the target.
This principle has become especially urgent in the wake of the shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords, and does not apply only in the movement for marriage equality but for all Americans of any political persuasion. Though glitter may seem harmless and "fun," Espinosa's use of it exposed vulnerabilities in Gingrich's security that might be exploited by those who mean him actual harm. Security personnel are acutely aware of this fact, and will adjust the public profile of Gingrich and other similar public figures to close off these vulnerabilities in future. Even if incidents like Espinosa's don't open the door to further violence, the sum effect of such actions will be to radically curtail the accessibility of all figures across the entire political spectrum, bleeding our civic life and politics of much of its dynamism and openness.
As a society we must adopt a "zero tolerance" policy to any and all physical assaults on public officials and politicians. Either the persons of our officials and politicians are sacrosanct, or we condemn ourselves to living in a police state in which the "political class" is forever insulated from the public it serves. To pranksters like Espinosa, I say: cut the crap. Speaking truth to power with humor is all fine and good, but physical comedy is not a funny matter when it comes to politics.
This principle has become especially urgent in the wake of the shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords, and does not apply only in the movement for marriage equality but for all Americans of any political persuasion. Though glitter may seem harmless and "fun," Espinosa's use of it exposed vulnerabilities in Gingrich's security that might be exploited by those who mean him actual harm. Security personnel are acutely aware of this fact, and will adjust the public profile of Gingrich and other similar public figures to close off these vulnerabilities in future. Even if incidents like Espinosa's don't open the door to further violence, the sum effect of such actions will be to radically curtail the accessibility of all figures across the entire political spectrum, bleeding our civic life and politics of much of its dynamism and openness.
As a society we must adopt a "zero tolerance" policy to any and all physical assaults on public officials and politicians. Either the persons of our officials and politicians are sacrosanct, or we condemn ourselves to living in a police state in which the "political class" is forever insulated from the public it serves. To pranksters like Espinosa, I say: cut the crap. Speaking truth to power with humor is all fine and good, but physical comedy is not a funny matter when it comes to politics.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Illinois (II) Senator Richard Durbin
Today I resume my correspondence with Senator Richard Durbin, Democrat, senior senator from Illinois:
To the Honorable Senator Richard Durbin,
I write to you seeking your support for a constitutional amendment that would end the discriminatory practice of marriage in our country. Such a Marriage Equality Amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."
During the Bush administration, you repeatedly voted against proposed amendments that would have permanently institutionalized marital discrimination in the United States. That defense of basic civil rights was laudatory, but it is not enough to defend against travesties such as the so-called "marriage protection amendment," for the status quo as it stands in most of the Union is an intolerable breach of the rights of millions of Americans. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees "equal protection of the laws" to all citizens, yet thousands of couples and their children are denied the 1,138 protections and benefits deriving from married status under federal law in deference to the social prejudices of a portion of the population. The constitution must be newly amended, therefore, to clarify the scope of the "equal protection" clause and secure the basic rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for all Americans.
You have been an outstanding leader in the cause of promoting American support for human rights abroad, please consider joining this fight to promote civil rights here at home. I thank you for your attention and hope that this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
To the Honorable Senator Richard Durbin,
I write to you seeking your support for a constitutional amendment that would end the discriminatory practice of marriage in our country. Such a Marriage Equality Amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation."
During the Bush administration, you repeatedly voted against proposed amendments that would have permanently institutionalized marital discrimination in the United States. That defense of basic civil rights was laudatory, but it is not enough to defend against travesties such as the so-called "marriage protection amendment," for the status quo as it stands in most of the Union is an intolerable breach of the rights of millions of Americans. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees "equal protection of the laws" to all citizens, yet thousands of couples and their children are denied the 1,138 protections and benefits deriving from married status under federal law in deference to the social prejudices of a portion of the population. The constitution must be newly amended, therefore, to clarify the scope of the "equal protection" clause and secure the basic rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for all Americans.
You have been an outstanding leader in the cause of promoting American support for human rights abroad, please consider joining this fight to promote civil rights here at home. I thank you for your attention and hope that this message finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Don't Ask Don't Tell
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen based his opposition to the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on a fallacy. DADT does not require Jewish soldiers to "lie about who they are," it only requires that they serve with discretion. Jews are free to serve in the military as long as they keep their private business to themselves.
If openly Jewish soldiers were allowed to serve in the military, this would have an irreparably harmful effect on unit cohesion. The bonds of trust that are key to military life would be unsustainable if soldiers knew that their fellow soldiers were Jews. Can we reasonably ask a young recruit to trust the comrade he shares a foxhole with if he knows he is a Jew?
Moreover, one can not help but fear that the repeal of DADT is only the prelude of a further expansion of the Jewish agenda. Next we will no doubt be asked to allow a Jewish soldier to bring his or her Jewish spouse and Jewish children to live on base, so that they may make public display of their Jewish lifestyle for other military families to see. One can only wonder what offenses to good taste and decency will result then.
If openly Jewish soldiers were allowed to serve in the military, this would have an irreparably harmful effect on unit cohesion. The bonds of trust that are key to military life would be unsustainable if soldiers knew that their fellow soldiers were Jews. Can we reasonably ask a young recruit to trust the comrade he shares a foxhole with if he knows he is a Jew?
Moreover, one can not help but fear that the repeal of DADT is only the prelude of a further expansion of the Jewish agenda. Next we will no doubt be asked to allow a Jewish soldier to bring his or her Jewish spouse and Jewish children to live on base, so that they may make public display of their Jewish lifestyle for other military families to see. One can only wonder what offenses to good taste and decency will result then.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Illinois (I) Senator Roland Burris
Today I continue with Senator Roland Burris, Democrat, junior senator from Illinois:
To the Honorable Roland W. Burris,
I write to you soliciting your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the federal constitution that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a change to our basic law is necessary to bring our institutions into alignment with the natural rights of all of our citizens.
You have been eloquent in exalting the cause of civil rights, declaring: "America's story is a story of ever greater equality- of expanding inclusiveness. Thanks to all those who came before us, this nation is more free, more fair, and more equal than the nation of our forefathers. We are all a part of this story- in fact, it is up to us to write the next chapter." These words are resoundingly true, and it is with the issue of marriage equality that the "next chapter" in the great struggle for civil rights begins.
Though our nation is more fair than it once was, our marriage laws arbitrarily discriminate against tens of thousands of families, with cruel effect. Children are impoverished or subjected to insecurity because their parents' union is unrecognized. Couples that have been together for decades are kept apart or prevented from giving one-another vital assistance because their love does not meet the test of social prejudice. In 1967, in the case of Loving versus Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that to deny citizens' the right to marry on the basis of race was a violation of the fundamental principles at the core of human happiness and fulfillment. That same violation continues today for millions of Americans, because society deems it acceptable to discriminate on the basis of gender where it does not on the basis of race. This is not justice. It is, rather, a call to action- to write our portion of the story of which, as you say, we are all a part.
Though the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all citizens "the equal protection of the law," that safeguard has obviously failed to prevent millions from being deprived of rights of marriage equality. A Marriage Equality Amendment is thus necessary to redress the moral injustice perpetuated by the current state of our laws. Your post in the senate gives you a powerful platform from which to address this issue, Senator. Would you be the voice that speaks up in support of the right? Such an act would inspire millions, and would perfectly embody the principles you so eloquently espoused. Whatever your decision, I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for the new year. I hope this letter finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
To the Honorable Roland W. Burris,
I write to you soliciting your support for a Marriage Equality Amendment to the federal constitution that would recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the United States. Such an amendment would read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Such a change to our basic law is necessary to bring our institutions into alignment with the natural rights of all of our citizens.
You have been eloquent in exalting the cause of civil rights, declaring: "America's story is a story of ever greater equality- of expanding inclusiveness. Thanks to all those who came before us, this nation is more free, more fair, and more equal than the nation of our forefathers. We are all a part of this story- in fact, it is up to us to write the next chapter." These words are resoundingly true, and it is with the issue of marriage equality that the "next chapter" in the great struggle for civil rights begins.
Though our nation is more fair than it once was, our marriage laws arbitrarily discriminate against tens of thousands of families, with cruel effect. Children are impoverished or subjected to insecurity because their parents' union is unrecognized. Couples that have been together for decades are kept apart or prevented from giving one-another vital assistance because their love does not meet the test of social prejudice. In 1967, in the case of Loving versus Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that to deny citizens' the right to marry on the basis of race was a violation of the fundamental principles at the core of human happiness and fulfillment. That same violation continues today for millions of Americans, because society deems it acceptable to discriminate on the basis of gender where it does not on the basis of race. This is not justice. It is, rather, a call to action- to write our portion of the story of which, as you say, we are all a part.
Though the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all citizens "the equal protection of the law," that safeguard has obviously failed to prevent millions from being deprived of rights of marriage equality. A Marriage Equality Amendment is thus necessary to redress the moral injustice perpetuated by the current state of our laws. Your post in the senate gives you a powerful platform from which to address this issue, Senator. Would you be the voice that speaks up in support of the right? Such an act would inspire millions, and would perfectly embody the principles you so eloquently espoused. Whatever your decision, I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for the new year. I hope this letter finds you well.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Friday, December 25, 2009
Idaho (II) Senator Mike Crapo
Seasons greetings to all who read this blog. Today I continue my correspondence with the Senate with Idaho's junior senator, Mike Crapo, Republican:
To the Honorable Senator Mike Crapo:
I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. You have been a consistent supporter of discriminatory legislation denying the right of same-sex couples to marry, going so far as to advocate the amendment of the U.S. Constitution to establish discrimination as part of our basic law. Your website decries recent "judicial activism" that threatens the "sanctity of marriage." Those same charges were made in opposition to the Supreme Court's ruling in Loving vs. Virginia, which overturned so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws popularly enforced throughout much of the Union. The same principles upheld by the Supreme Court with respect to marriage between blacks and whites in 1967 hold force with respect to marriage between two persons of the same gender today: neither does or ever did pose a threat to the "sanctity of marriage."
The sanctity of marriage is something that must be upheld by each married couple, through their mutual love, care, and fidelity. Marriage is thus sadly profaned daily by myriad Americans, many of them our leaders whose tawdry affairs are broadcast to the world by the every-growing media juggernaut. These people needed to pass no moral qualifying exam to enter into the institution of marriage, they were free to marry anyone at all, provided their partner of choice was the right gender. Where was the government's resolve to defend the sanctity of marriage then? How can the government claim a special mandate to protect the sanctity of marriage with respect to gender, in which only the bigotry of a few perceives a threat, when it abdicates any responsibility to safeguard the sanctity of all other dimensions of matrimonial life? Such sanctity is no sanctity at all. Rather, the government profanes marriage by grounding it in bias and inequity when it would be best sanctified by being fair for all.
Our Republic is founded on the principle that each citizen should have the opportunity to live the life of his or her greatest potential, and that is only possible when all are free to choose their own place in this world. The choice of one's spouse is among the most significant an individual can make, and any limitation of the freedom to make that choice is a betrayal of the founding promise of our nation. For this reason, I and others propose that the U.S. Constitution must be amended in precisely the opposite manner to that attempted by you and your colleagues, to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Only when our basic law is thus changed will it be brought into proper alignment with the natural rights of all our citizens.
Perhaps on further reflection you will see the error of your past position and lend your support to this necessary Marriage Equality Amendment. In any case please know that millions of Americans cherish this goal, and will continue to fight until its principles are realized. I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
To the Honorable Senator Mike Crapo:
I write in protest of your opposition to marriage equality. You have been a consistent supporter of discriminatory legislation denying the right of same-sex couples to marry, going so far as to advocate the amendment of the U.S. Constitution to establish discrimination as part of our basic law. Your website decries recent "judicial activism" that threatens the "sanctity of marriage." Those same charges were made in opposition to the Supreme Court's ruling in Loving vs. Virginia, which overturned so-called "anti-miscegenation" laws popularly enforced throughout much of the Union. The same principles upheld by the Supreme Court with respect to marriage between blacks and whites in 1967 hold force with respect to marriage between two persons of the same gender today: neither does or ever did pose a threat to the "sanctity of marriage."
The sanctity of marriage is something that must be upheld by each married couple, through their mutual love, care, and fidelity. Marriage is thus sadly profaned daily by myriad Americans, many of them our leaders whose tawdry affairs are broadcast to the world by the every-growing media juggernaut. These people needed to pass no moral qualifying exam to enter into the institution of marriage, they were free to marry anyone at all, provided their partner of choice was the right gender. Where was the government's resolve to defend the sanctity of marriage then? How can the government claim a special mandate to protect the sanctity of marriage with respect to gender, in which only the bigotry of a few perceives a threat, when it abdicates any responsibility to safeguard the sanctity of all other dimensions of matrimonial life? Such sanctity is no sanctity at all. Rather, the government profanes marriage by grounding it in bias and inequity when it would be best sanctified by being fair for all.
Our Republic is founded on the principle that each citizen should have the opportunity to live the life of his or her greatest potential, and that is only possible when all are free to choose their own place in this world. The choice of one's spouse is among the most significant an individual can make, and any limitation of the freedom to make that choice is a betrayal of the founding promise of our nation. For this reason, I and others propose that the U.S. Constitution must be amended in precisely the opposite manner to that attempted by you and your colleagues, to read: "The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation." Only when our basic law is thus changed will it be brought into proper alignment with the natural rights of all our citizens.
Perhaps on further reflection you will see the error of your past position and lend your support to this necessary Marriage Equality Amendment. In any case please know that millions of Americans cherish this goal, and will continue to fight until its principles are realized. I thank you for your attention on this matter and extend my best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.png)
