A letter from my Congressman

[autographedcat]

Several days ago, I sent a e-mail to my congressman, Rep. Johnny Isaacson (R-GA), via the Human Rights Campaign, protesting the proposed constitutional amendment restricting the definition of marriage. I just received his response:

Dear Rob:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.J. Res. 56, proposing an amendment
to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. I
appreciate your thoughts on this issue and the opportunity to respond.

This resolution, introduced by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (CO-4) on May 25,
2003, would amend the Constitution to declare that marriage in the United
States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. It would
also prohibit the Constitution or any State constitution, or State or
Federal law, from being construed to require that marital status or its
legal incidents be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. I have
signed on as a cosponsor of this resolution.

Please feel free to visit my website at www.house.gov/isakson for more
information on issues that may be of importance to you, as well as to sign
up for my monthly email update. Thank you again for contacting me, and I
hope you will not hesitate to call on me in the future if I can be of
assistance to you.

Notice that the proposed amendment not only attempts to restrict the definition of marriage, but also forbids any federal or state law to create any construction that confers similar rights under another name (At least, that's how I read the penultimate sentence of the second paragraph).

My reply to Rep. Isaacson:

Why? What interest is served in disenfranshising millions of people who want to create stable, family oriented lives for themselves who happen to share the same gender? What interest is served in adding an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that restricts liberty rather than expanding it?

Same-sex marriages pose no threat whatsoever to the sanctity or vailidity of exisiting opposite sex marriages, and I defy anyone who thinks they do to explain to me why they are not a bigot.

I eagerly await a non-form letter response to this issue.

My view on same-sex marriage is fairly straightforward. I see no difference between a same-sex couple and an opposite sex couple. Both relationships are equally valid in my eyes, and therefore I see no compelling reason why a same-sex couple who wants to create a family through marriage should not be allowed to. I applauded the recent Massachusetts Supreme Court decision holding that the state has no compelling interest in restricting who can get married and ordering the legislature of that state to do something about that. And I really think that in 20 years, or 40 at the latest, this will all seem as obvious to us as the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s appears to us now. Meanwhile, it is important to make sure you let your representatives know that our gay and lesbian citizens deserve all the same rights under the law as our heterosexual citizens. No more. No less.

You can find the address of your congressman at http://www.house.gov/ and http://www.senate.gov/, or you can find them via the Human Rights Campaign website.

Comments

[happyfunpaul.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty pessimistic that writing to a Congresscritter has much effect-- I know I never got anything but form letters (although the ones I got at least *attempted* to address the rationale behind the position) when I tried it a few times back in the 1990s. But it's juuuust barely possible that you could take a better tack.

Right now, I think, you're coming across as a liberal who's never going to vote for Isaacson anyway and so can be safely ignored. But the proposed "Federal Marriage Amendment" doesn't just violate liberal principles, it violates principles that conservatives have been trumpeting for the past generation, such as federalism (more power distributed to the states) and limited government. Lots more info is at this website. Your comment on the amendment *restricting* liberty is on the right track; but not only is the Amendment bad in and of itself but it would set a *horrible* precedent. Lots of notable conservatives, like George Will, have written columns along these lines.

(Me, I'm appalled by the proposed amendment for pretty much all the liberal, libertarian, and conservative reasons. But at least for once most liberals, most libertarians, and some conservatives-- or what used to be called conservatives-- are on the same side. And I think that'll be enough to defeat the FMA.)

[autographedcat.livejournal.com]

That's a fair cop. I *am* a liberal, and I find no shame in that. Had I considered it longer and written a longer reply, I probably would have included the federalism angle as well, but I didn't think of it when I dashed off the reply.

Regardless of WHY people oppose it, it needs to be opposed.