letter to the president.

[oh21]

This morning, after hearing the president's remarks on his proposed constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage, I sent the following letter to the Whitehorse.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. President,

I strongly urge you to reconsider your position on same sex marriage. If we pass an amendment, banning same sex couples from getting married, it would be the first time in our history as a nation that our constitution has been amended to deny rights to a specific group of persons.

While I understand not everyone agrees that same sex couples should be allowed to marry, our country was founded on principles of tolerance and religious freedom respecting the rights of all persons. That should, by extension, include the right of same sex couples to marry and lead happy peaceful lives if it is their choice to do so. Allowing same sex couples to marry would not force any church or religious organization to recognize those marriages. I am certainly not saying that the Methodist church or the Baptist church must start performing same sex weddings. What I am saying is that same sex couples should have the option of choosing a partner for life and enjoying the same protected legal status that married heterosexual couples receive.

What we are talking about Mr. President is a basic human rights issue and I believe that, as we are a nation that highly prizes freedom and personal liberty, it would disgrace us to come back and say to the world that not all people are equal, and that only people who fit into the definition of our religious ideals should be allowed the protections of marriage.

Sincerely,
Oh21 (real name was used in the letter but withheld here for obvious reasons)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I urge you all to study the issue carefully, and perhaps send your own letter to the Whitehorse. Just try to keep it civil and rational as they most likely will not read hostile letters. The President can be emailed using the address: president@whitehouse.gov

 

[HammerFan]

Well said, oh21!

But then, what else should we expect from this man? He won't address pressing issues such as US manufacturing and white collar job losses, balance of trade with China, the dismal failure of NAFTA and other global economic initiatives, not to mention the rousing success of our Iraqi invasion which has killed over 500 Americans and maimed at least 2000.

Vote the bastard out of office!

 

[Pookie]

A way to voice your opinion through the ACLU's website ...

Stop the Radical Religious Right from Amending the U.S. Constitution

Spurred by the recent Massachusetts State Supreme Court decision against discrimination, some members of the radical religious right are aggressively campaigning to amend the U.S. Constitution to deny the right to marry to same-sex couples in committed relationships. The proposed amendment (H.J. Res 56/S.J. Res 26) would also invalidate all state and local domestic partnership laws and nullify civil rights protections based on marital status.

Today we look back, almost disbelieving, on the time when many Americans did not tolerate marriage between Catholics and Protestants and between people of different races. Unfortunately, our laws continue to deny a basic right to marry to two adults simply because they are gay or lesbian. Now, some want to write that discrimination into the U.S. Constitution.

Gay Americans serve in the military, keep our communities safe as firefighters and police officers, staff our hospitals, build our cities, and pay taxes. Denying gay couples the right to marry takes away legal rights in pensions, health insurance, hospital visitations and inheritance that other committed couples enjoy.

Oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment!

- Amending the Constitution is an extreme act.
The proposed amendment would deny the right to marry to gay and lesbian couples and in doing so obliterate the family rights that many same-sex couples -- and unmarried heterosexual couples -- and their families now have. Revising the Constitution to ensure discrimination against anyone in America is wrong and should be rejected.

- The Federal Marriage Amendment is unnecessary.
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.

- The Federal Marriage Amendment rejects American traditions of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 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. The proposed amendment, by contrast, would deny all protection for the most personal decisions made by millions of people in committed long-term relationships.

TAKE ACTION!

Send a Free FAX in 2 Clicks!

You can go to this page if you would like to send a free fax ...

http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=9977&c=101

The above link takes you to the page that I quoted above. You can then choose to send a free fax or not from there.

 

[Queersetti]

Well done, Oh!

 

[College_geek]

After reading your letter, I have inspiration to write my own. It's so tempting to want to write a vicious hate letter, but I know that it won't do any good to make it that way. Thanks, Oh, and let's hope that others will do the same.

 

[Rhys]

I think you all see why I love this man. Well done!

 

[MzChrista]

While you are writing here are the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee where the first battle will likely be fought.

Some of these guys like Hatch and Sessions are flat out queer haters. Leahy, Kennedy and Feingold are probably the most likely to oppose the amendment.

If your Senator is on the list, be sure to write to them. I also think that writing to Specter is a good idea, he is one of the few Republicans who mind vote against the amendment.

Orrin G. Hatch
CHAIRMAN, UTAH

Patrick J. Leahy
RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER, VERMONT

Charles E. Grassley
IOWA

Edward M. Kennedy
MASSACHUSETTS

Arlen Specter
PENNSYLVANIA

Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
DELAWARE

Jon Kyl
ARIZONA

Herbert Kohl
WISCONSIN

Mike DeWine
OHIO

Dianne Feinstein
CALIFORNIA

Jeff Sessions
ALABAMA

Russell D. Feingold
WISCONSIN

Lindsey Graham
SOUTH CAROLINA

Charles E. Schumer
NEW YORK

Larry Craig
IDAHO

Richard J. Durbin
ILLINOIS

Saxby Chambliss
GEORGIA

JohnEdwards
NORTH CAROLINA





John Cornyn
TEXAS

 

[Ms_Lilith]

Mr. President,

My boyfriend told me today that you are planning to back an ammendment that denies marriage to gay people. My first reaction, a knee-jerk reaction, was anger. My second reaction runs as follows:

Like it or not, gay people are here today, and they (we, though I am not gay, but bi, and a supporter of gay rights), are here to stay. We serve in the military, we protect our communities by participating as firefighters, police officers, nurses and doctors. We hold other jobs, without which some system would not function as it should. We pay taxes. We are participating members of our communities, and of the country. So why is it that we are denied something that is so easily attainable by people just like us, with only one minor difference: sexual orientation.

Once upon a time, African Americans were made to sit at the back of the bus. Marriages between African Americans and white folks were not allowed, between different religions were not allowed, etc. But the USA has come past all of that. It has evolved to a more understanding state of being. Denying marriage rights to a minority of the population is like making Ms Rosa Parks sit at the back of that bus again. It is drawing a line between what YOU are comfortable with, and what equal rights promotes.

Pierre Trudeau was a great man.. It was he who said that what happens in the bedrooms of the nation is not the business of the state. I understand that gay marriage is not a bedroom issue. I understand that it is a state issue. But it is a state issue that depends on what goes on in the bedroom. Why is it that employers are not allowed to discriminate against employees based on age, race, creed, or sexuality, but that the state can?

Finally, I would like to point out that there is a distinction between religion and state. And that distinction exists for a reason: because relgion has no business in the state, and state has no business in religion. Each governs its own sphere. Your backing of legislation against homosexual marriage is spurred on by your religious affiliation. You are the PRESIDENT. You must do first what is best for your COUNTRY, and then what is best for you. It is best for your country to allow homosexual marriage, because homosexuals make up a part of your country. We are not asking for you to elevate us beyond straight people, or to give us special rewards for anything.. we ask only the same freedoms that our straight family, friends, etc are allowed by law.

How is it that you can 'fight for the sanctity of marriage', when divorce is legal? How is it that abortion is legal, when you are against gay marriage for religious purposes? Abortion is a sin, Sir, according to religion. And yet, it is legal. You view homosexuality as something unequal with heterosexuality. Why? I would much like to hear your thoughts on this.

I am a Canadian woman. My opinion of you is not going to change your status as President. However, Mr. President, gay people, though they make up such a small percentage of the population, have friends and family who support them. Suddenly that chunk of the population that will work against you, has gotten larger.

I encourage you to pull your support against gay marriages for all of the reasons outlined above.. but most of all, because by denying a part of the American people a right and freedom granted to everyone else, you make yourself look like even more of an ass than the world sees you as, and you tarnish the name and image of your country.

Good Day, Mr. President,

Vixenshe (real name included in the email, but excluded here for obvious reasons)

 

[College_geek]

Good Day, Mr. President,

That was a really good letter, Vixenshe, but after reading that closing line above, all I could think of was Dustin Hoffman saying "I said good day!" as Tootsie. Good movie.

Okay, I'll stop thread hijacking now.

 

[Ms_Lilith]

That was a really good letter, Vixenshe, but after reading that closing line above, all I could think of was Dustin Hoffman saying "I said good day!" as Tootsie. Good movie.

Okay, I'll stop thread hijacking now.

I hardly ever say "Good Day"... only when I'm feeling really snippy and disrespectful. *snicker*

 

[deezire1900]

I wrote, thank you Oh.

Even thought I will go to my grave protecting myself and my fellow tribe...I know that he is just a front man for so many other players in this game.

and i just have to say...

I LOVED MR. BILL CLINTON

 

[Bitchslapper]

Well said, oh21!

But then, what else should we expect from this man? He won't address pressing issues such as US manufacturing and white collar job losses, balance of trade with China, the dismal failure of NAFTA and other global economic initiatives, not to mention the rousing success of our Iraqi invasion which has killed over 500 Americans and maimed at least 2000.

One is too many of course, but as wars go, 500 casualties is relatively light, possibly the fewest losses we've ever taken in one conflict of this magnitude. And what about the thousands of Iraqis that are dead as a direct result of Saddam Hussein's rule?

 

[Zergplex]

Zergplex Says

One is too many of course, but as wars go, 500 casualties is relatively light, possibly the fewest losses we've ever taken in one conflict of this magnitude. And what about the thousands of Iraqis that are dead as a direct result of Saddam Hussein's rule?

No hijacking this into a war thread Bitchslapper, we have enough of those anyways.

And I loved Bill too Deezire. He had problems, but I would have much perfered him to Bush.

-Zergplex

 

[Ms_Lilith]

Did anyone else receive a response from the Whitehouse yet? I did, this morning.. it's only an 'autoreply' thing, but still, weird to see stuff from the whitehouse in my inbox...

 

[Queersetti]

I read a survey on another site that said more than 34 Senators have publicly stated that they would vote against any amendment restricting same-sex marriage. If that is the case, the amendment will not pass the Senate, as it requires a two thirds vote to pass.

 

[Pookie]

I read a survey on another site that said more than 34 Senators have publicly stated that they would vote against any amendment restricting same-sex marriage. If that is the case, the amendment will not pass the Senate, as it requires a two thirds vote to pass.

I expect that number will rise too. There are some that are opposed to it just based on issues related to federalism.

 

[Queersetti]

I expect that number will rise too. There are some that are opposed to it just based on issues related to federalism.

Importantly, there are several Republican senators who have spoken up against it, which will make it easier for wavering Democrats to stand strong.

 

[webber1998]

I will write the letters, because I believe in this. But further to that, the best thing that I can say or do is

VOTE

I vote against any elected official that openly takes away from our civil liberties. I'm glad that the president at least opened his mouth and is standing up for what he believes in. At least I know to vote against him. Its all these other shmucks that will side step the issue..... because they don't want to take a stand for anything. I'll just follow their voting records....

 

[College_geek]

Importantly, there are several Republican senators who have spoken up against it, which will make it easier for wavering Democrats to stand strong.

Everytime I've read about a Republican being against it, it was basically because they feel Bush is stupid for rushing it and doing it right before the election. I think a lot of them feel that it will hurt him, and they believe he should've waited to be re-elected (the day when hell freezes over) before he does something hugely controversial such as this.
I have yet to actually see a Republican politican...or even Democrat for that matter...actually stand up and say that they believe that the government should allow same-sex marriages and give out marriage licenses. Then again, I've only been reading the stuff they put on MSN, I haven't been looking up articles, so they may be jaded.

 

[Queersetti]

Everytime I've read about a Republican being against it, it was basically because they feel Bush is stupid for rushing it and doing it right before the election. I think a lot of them feel that it will hurt him, and they believe he should've waited to be re-elected (the day when hell freezes over) before he does something hugely controversial such as this.
I have yet to actually see a Republican politican...or even Democrat for that matter...actually stand up and say that they believe that the government should allow same-sex marriages and give out marriage licenses. Then again, I've only been reading the stuff they put on MSN, I haven't been looking up articles, so they may be jaded.

I think that the issue is not going to be framed as a matter of whether or not same sex marriage should be allowed, but in terms of whether or not it is a matter that should be left to the states to decide for themselves.

The problem is the Full Faith and Credits clause of the Constitution, which says that every state must honor the acts of the others. This is why you don't need a driver's license for each state, for example. Proponents of the amendment will argue that that clause necessitates a uniform federal solution. Opponents will point out that the clause also gives to Congress the power to interpret, and presumably, limit how the clause is applied.

I do believe that there are politicians on both sides of the aisle who do not believe in tampering with the Constitution, no matter where they might stand on the issue itself.

 

[Queersetti]

BTW, I thought it was interesting that Bush said that amending the Constitution was not something to be undertaken lightly, when he has announced his support for at least five amendments : Banning same sex marriage, allowing prayer in public schools, banning flag burning, codifying the pledge of allegiance and enumerating victim's rights.

 

[Bitchslapper]

Re: Zergplex Says

No hijacking this into a war thread Bitchslapper, we have enough of those anyways.

And I loved Bill too Deezire. He had problems, but I would have much perfered him to Bush.

Firstly, I don't know what is involved in "hijacking a thread", but in any case I'm not the one who brought it up.

And would you please explain to me why an Anti-Bush thread should not refer to the War at least once? That seems to be the main issue most of the time.

 

[Zergplex]

Zergplex Says

Firstly, I don't know what is involved in "hijacking a thread", but in any case I'm not the one who brought it up.

And would you please explain to me why an Anti-Bush thread should not refer to the War at least once? That seems to be the main issue most of the time.

I was actually telling you to stop hijacking the thread mainly in jest. As for why my avoidence of the war.... it's been done to death in many threads other then this, this thread is about another issue entirely and unless mentioing the war is used as support for something in this thread I don't see why it needs to be here.

Thats just me though ^_^

-Zergplex

 

[Bitchslapper]

Re: Zergplex Says

I was actually telling you to stop hijacking the thread mainly in jest. As for why my avoidence of the war.... it's been done to death in many threads other then this, this thread is about another issue entirely and unless mentioing the war is used as support for something in this thread I don't see why it needs to be here.

Thats just me though ^_^

-Zergplex

Well, the issue if I'm not mistaken is Bush-bashing (there are plenty of those threads too), so the War was bound to come up sooner or later.

In any case, like I said, I didn't bring it up, I just responded.

 

[ReBeLBeLLe]

I think that the issue is not going to be framed as a matter of whether or not same sex marriage should be allowed, but in terms of whether or not it is a matter that should be left to the states to decide for themselves.

The problem is the Full Faith and Credits clause of the Constitution, which says that every state must honor the acts of the others. This is why you don't need a driver's license for each state, for example. Proponents of the amendment will argue that that clause necessitates a uniform federal solution. Opponents will point out that the clause also gives to Congress the power to interpret, and presumably, limit how the clause is applied.

I do believe that there are politicians on both sides of the aisle who do not believe in tampering with the Constitution, no matter where they might stand on the issue itself.

Here's one of our own politicians opinions....

"We know what works: freedom works. We know what's right: freedom is right. We know how to secure a more and just and prosperous life for man on earth: through free markets, free speech, free elections and the exercise of free will unhampered by the state." (January 20, 1989) George H.W. Bush