Legal rants about DOMA...
I wanted to share a letter I got in the mail yesterday from Senator John Ensign of Nevada. He wrote me back one of his generic response letters to my email letter I wrote him about a few weeks ago regarding the Defense of Marriage Act and it's possible amendment to the Constitution to ban same-sex marriages unilaterally.
For sake of clarity, I'll post his letter, and then post my response yet again to his letter. Also for sake of briety, I'll place them both behind LJ cuts. ;)
Dear Curtis:
Thank you for contacting me about the issue of same-sex marriages and the recent proposal of a "Federal Marriage Amendment." I value the opinions of every Nevadan and am always grateful to those who take the time to inform me of their views.
As you may know, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which I supported during my serice in the House of Representatives, was passed by the 104th Congress and signed into law by President Clinton on September 21, 1996. DOMA reaffirmed each state's individual ability to recognize or refuse same-sex marriages within its borders. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry in the state of Massachusetts. If this court ruling has the effect of nullifying the Defense of Marriage Act, I would feel compelled to support a Constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman. I hold the Constitution in the highest regard and do not take amending it lightly. As you know, Nevadans moved to ban same-sex unions through a 2000 statewide referendum; that ban became law after being approved by the voters a second time in 2002.
I firmly believe that all Americans should be free to live their lives as long as they don't harm others, and each state must choose the best course to take on this important issue.
Once again, thank you for contacting me on this very important issue. Should you have any other questions or comments or would like to contact me in the future regarding another issue, please do not hesitate to either write or e-mail me via my website at http://ensign.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
John Ensign
United States Senator
Dear Mr. Ensign:
Thank you for responding to my email to your office regarding my opinion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In my previous letter I expressed my view of opposition to any such legal action, which intentionally seeks to deny one particular group of rights, while promoting those rights with another group.
It is my distinct belief that blocking the rights of some, while granting them to others, is not an acceptable action, and works against the very spirit of the Constitution. Yet my belief in this right is not based simply on a personal belief, but of a tangible right held within the Constitution itself. Since the Constitution is one of the keepers of my rights, I hold the Constitution in the highest regard.
While I’m pleased to hear you also hold the Constitution in the highest regard, I remind you of your oath to defend the Constitution. Article 6, Clause 3 of the Constitution states that, "the Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."
Furthermore, let me remind you that Amendment 14, Section 1, states that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
From these two statements alone, it becomes obvious that your support of the Defense of Marriage Act, is in opposition to your oath to support the Constitution. While you may be promoting the wish of the majority of Nevadans who seek a ban on same-sex unions, you are openly defying your Constitutional obligations to defend the citizen’s rights’ to life, and liberty.
I do take some comfort in knowing you "firmly believe that all Americans should be free to live their lives as long as they don't harm others," however; your support of the Defense of Marriage Act simply contradicts this affirmation, as it intentionally blocks the rights of same-sex couples who do not seek to harm others, but simply asks for the same privileges others have been liberally granted.
Given this information, I would strongly implore you re-examine your position on this issue and determine where your ultimate priority lies: in the bigoted opinion of the masses, or with the Constitution itself, which you have been entrusted and obligated to defend.
It is my strong hope that you will seek the latter. My very right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is at stake with the passing of the Defense of Marriage Act. If you do feel compelled to support a bill of this nature, you do so without the support of the Constitution, as it clearly delineates your inability to do so.
Nevertheless, I appreciate you taking the time and effort to read my correspondence. I hope my information and persuasion will compel you to move in the proper steps supported by the great founding documents of this country.
I hope you hear from you soon regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Curtis
I kudos goes to Lewis for having a grain of knowledge regarding the Amendments, specifically Amendment number 14, which does openly state that The State will not make or enforce laws which will abridge, or otherwise curtail the rights of citizens. I found the quote regarding his Oath to the constitution, and used it thusly.
Overall it simply baffles me that all these Senators are seriously considering amending the Constitution with such blatent, and obvious disregard to the spirit that of entire document. Frankly, it pisses me off, and despite my urge just to write him a fuck off letter, I sought to write a reasonably intelligent, and poised letter instead.
Both Senator Reid and Senator Ensign fully endorse these proposals, and are completely willing to deface our cornerstone document, all for the likelihood they will earn yet another volley of votes at election time. If either of them actually follow through with such votes, I promise you they'll not have my vote; nor will anyone else who isn't open about defending the rights of others.
Anyone willing to vote against a minority, with the hope of retaining the comfort of the majority deserves neither pleasure nor comfort. A true democracy is willing to go against the beliefs of the masss, so that the rights of all groups are protected regardless of its popularity--especially when that right is so openly given to others without question or cost.
I warn you, tho: If our Constitution is amended with the sole intent of holding back same-sex unions, while promoting mixed-sex unions, the gay and lesbian community will begin to take adverse and dangerous actions; they will not hold lightly their captivity or restriction of rights with finesse--they will strike out with a vengence unseen, and they'd be perfectly in their right to do so. A group who can lose nothing cares little about the comforts of those who have much more to lose.
I hope he gets my letter. I hope that he looks up his own Constitution and reads the Amendment from 1868 and recognizes his egrigious error in supporting a bill which is virtually illegal fom the get-go. Yet being honest of this, I doubt he will. I'm sure he has plans of doing what he has plans to do regardless of what logic or law I present.
Should he seek to do so, however; I would be happy to engage him yet again. As a matter of fact, I demand it.
For sake of clarity, I'll post his letter, and then post my response yet again to his letter. Also for sake of briety, I'll place them both behind LJ cuts. ;)
Dear Curtis:
Thank you for contacting me about the issue of same-sex marriages and the recent proposal of a "Federal Marriage Amendment." I value the opinions of every Nevadan and am always grateful to those who take the time to inform me of their views.
As you may know, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which I supported during my serice in the House of Representatives, was passed by the 104th Congress and signed into law by President Clinton on September 21, 1996. DOMA reaffirmed each state's individual ability to recognize or refuse same-sex marriages within its borders. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry in the state of Massachusetts. If this court ruling has the effect of nullifying the Defense of Marriage Act, I would feel compelled to support a Constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman. I hold the Constitution in the highest regard and do not take amending it lightly. As you know, Nevadans moved to ban same-sex unions through a 2000 statewide referendum; that ban became law after being approved by the voters a second time in 2002.
I firmly believe that all Americans should be free to live their lives as long as they don't harm others, and each state must choose the best course to take on this important issue.
Once again, thank you for contacting me on this very important issue. Should you have any other questions or comments or would like to contact me in the future regarding another issue, please do not hesitate to either write or e-mail me via my website at http://ensign.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
John Ensign
United States Senator
Dear Mr. Ensign:
Thank you for responding to my email to your office regarding my opinion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In my previous letter I expressed my view of opposition to any such legal action, which intentionally seeks to deny one particular group of rights, while promoting those rights with another group.
It is my distinct belief that blocking the rights of some, while granting them to others, is not an acceptable action, and works against the very spirit of the Constitution. Yet my belief in this right is not based simply on a personal belief, but of a tangible right held within the Constitution itself. Since the Constitution is one of the keepers of my rights, I hold the Constitution in the highest regard.
While I’m pleased to hear you also hold the Constitution in the highest regard, I remind you of your oath to defend the Constitution. Article 6, Clause 3 of the Constitution states that, "the Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."
Furthermore, let me remind you that Amendment 14, Section 1, states that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
From these two statements alone, it becomes obvious that your support of the Defense of Marriage Act, is in opposition to your oath to support the Constitution. While you may be promoting the wish of the majority of Nevadans who seek a ban on same-sex unions, you are openly defying your Constitutional obligations to defend the citizen’s rights’ to life, and liberty.
I do take some comfort in knowing you "firmly believe that all Americans should be free to live their lives as long as they don't harm others," however; your support of the Defense of Marriage Act simply contradicts this affirmation, as it intentionally blocks the rights of same-sex couples who do not seek to harm others, but simply asks for the same privileges others have been liberally granted.
Given this information, I would strongly implore you re-examine your position on this issue and determine where your ultimate priority lies: in the bigoted opinion of the masses, or with the Constitution itself, which you have been entrusted and obligated to defend.
It is my strong hope that you will seek the latter. My very right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is at stake with the passing of the Defense of Marriage Act. If you do feel compelled to support a bill of this nature, you do so without the support of the Constitution, as it clearly delineates your inability to do so.
Nevertheless, I appreciate you taking the time and effort to read my correspondence. I hope my information and persuasion will compel you to move in the proper steps supported by the great founding documents of this country.
I hope you hear from you soon regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Curtis
I kudos goes to Lewis for having a grain of knowledge regarding the Amendments, specifically Amendment number 14, which does openly state that The State will not make or enforce laws which will abridge, or otherwise curtail the rights of citizens. I found the quote regarding his Oath to the constitution, and used it thusly.
Overall it simply baffles me that all these Senators are seriously considering amending the Constitution with such blatent, and obvious disregard to the spirit that of entire document. Frankly, it pisses me off, and despite my urge just to write him a fuck off letter, I sought to write a reasonably intelligent, and poised letter instead.
Both Senator Reid and Senator Ensign fully endorse these proposals, and are completely willing to deface our cornerstone document, all for the likelihood they will earn yet another volley of votes at election time. If either of them actually follow through with such votes, I promise you they'll not have my vote; nor will anyone else who isn't open about defending the rights of others.
Anyone willing to vote against a minority, with the hope of retaining the comfort of the majority deserves neither pleasure nor comfort. A true democracy is willing to go against the beliefs of the masss, so that the rights of all groups are protected regardless of its popularity--especially when that right is so openly given to others without question or cost.
I warn you, tho: If our Constitution is amended with the sole intent of holding back same-sex unions, while promoting mixed-sex unions, the gay and lesbian community will begin to take adverse and dangerous actions; they will not hold lightly their captivity or restriction of rights with finesse--they will strike out with a vengence unseen, and they'd be perfectly in their right to do so. A group who can lose nothing cares little about the comforts of those who have much more to lose.
I hope he gets my letter. I hope that he looks up his own Constitution and reads the Amendment from 1868 and recognizes his egrigious error in supporting a bill which is virtually illegal fom the get-go. Yet being honest of this, I doubt he will. I'm sure he has plans of doing what he has plans to do regardless of what logic or law I present.
Should he seek to do so, however; I would be happy to engage him yet again. As a matter of fact, I demand it.