More (OK, old) Activism
So, back in June, after a long discussion with my sister and her partner, I decided to get involved. It appals me that there are plans afoot to ammend our Constituion at all, especially to limit the rights of only some individuals. So, here is a letter that I wrote to one of my senators (I actually wrote to both of my senators and my representative), but he was the only one to respond.
Jun 30, 2005
Senator Saxby Chambliss
United States Senate
416 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-0001
Dear Senator Chambliss,
As your constituent, I urge you to oppose any language amending the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman, as well as invalidate all the protections that many families currently enjoy.
I believe that amending the Constitution is an extreme act. I have read, and I believe, that the proposed amendment would deny the right to marry to gay and lesbian couples and also obliterate the family rights that many same-sex couples - and unmarried heterosexual couples -- and their families now have. Revising the Constitution to incorporate discrimination against anyone in America is wrong and should be rejected.
I also believe that these proposed reforms are unnecessary and wrong. Even though the country has periodically struggled with the question of marriage -- the last law prohibiting people of different races from marrying was overturned only 35 years ago -- we have never taken the step of amending the Constitution to define marriage. Now is not the time to begin to use the Constitution as a tool for discrimination. Congress certainly has more important issues to consider.
Attempts to amend the Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman rejects American traditions of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I have read that it would reverse the constitutional tradition of protecting individual freedoms. None of our constitutional amendments restrict individual freedoms. In fact, the amendments to the Constitution have been the source of most of the Constitution's protections for individual liberty rights. I understand that the proposed amendment, by contrast, would deny all protection for the most personal decisions made by millions of people in committed long-term relationships.
Again, I urge you to oppose such dangerous amendment proposals.
I look forward to hearing your views on this matter.
Sincerely,
ME
As I said, I sent that to both of my senators, and my representative. And I waited. And waited. Finally, I recieved a response from Senator Chamblis.
July 11, 2005
Dear Ms. W:
Thank you for contacting my office to share your views on same-sex marriages and the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment. It is good to hear from you.
In 1996, I co-sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which provided that each state could determine whether or not to recognize same-sex marriages, and that states were not bound by the decisions made by other states on this issue. The DOMA overwhelmingly passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate and was signed into law by President Clinton.
However, recent rulings by activist courts are forcing Congress to take another look at this issue. To make sure that the courts understand and enforce the fundamental principles set forth in the DOMA, I support a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The Marriage Protection Amendment was introduced on January 25, 2005, and has been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Please be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind when any further legislation to strengthen the DOMA comes before the United States Senate.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. As always, I appreciate hearing from you. In the meantime, if you would like to receive timely e-mail alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my web site at: www.chambliss.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Saxby Chambliss
United States Senate
So then, not only did he not really read what I wrote, he sent me a form letter back, clearly not addressing my concerns. Needless to say, I sat down and composed the following in reply.
Senator Chambliss:
While I am glad you are open and honest in your correspondence with one of your constituents (indeed, you are the only one to reply to my correspondence), I am sorry to hear about your stance on the Marriage Protection Amendment. This amendment does nothing to protect marriage. Instead, it singles out a group of people for discrimination in the United States Constitution, which has always been used to guarantee rights and freedoms, not to take them away.
Civil rights should not be trampled by religious beliefs, especially in our country. Our Constitution guarantees us that the state will never tell us how to believe, because we will never have a state established church. Ensuring civil rights does not deny churches the right to carry on as they see fit regarding their recognition of marriages, or any of their other beliefs. That reasoning, vital to protecting the rights of small groups from the will of larger ones, is increasingly absent from debates and decisions on gay marriage in our country.
If you believe that marriage is the binding of two people in a committed loving relationship, with the possibility of creating a family, how can you say that same sex marriage does anything but add to the institution? Same sex marriage does not discourage or belittle marriage, it just expands it, requiring that these couples have the same responsibilities to their partner and to their children as any other married couple.
Churches have every right to tell their clergy what kind of marriages to conduct, just as the state has the right to instruct civil officials what marriages they must honor. Protect the rights of individuals, the church, and the state by opposing the Marriage Amendment. The Constitution has been amended just 27 times, and never before has it been amended to limit rights.
Educated people are less distracted by name calling, jingoism, and flag waving ... and they know the really important thing that makes the US different isn't cloth but paper. Protect the Constitution!
Rest assured knowing that, should you vote in favor of this amendment, not only will you *not* receive my vote the next time you come up for election, but I will work towards the end of your tenure as my senator.
Regards---
ME
Now, to be honest, I don't write that purty. Some (ok, most) of those words were borrowed from the many articles I read surrounding the issue, and even a few from Duchess E (who definately has a way with words....). :-)
Anyway, if the thought of limiting the rights of individuals through a Constitutional ammendment bothers you, I urge you to go to the ACLU website http://www.aclu.org/getequal/ffm/index.html and get involved.