?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Speak out for same sex marriage. Marriage Amendment Vote is this week! - One person's lack of compassion does not equal another's comfort.
One person's lack of comprehension does not equal another's consent.
fixx
fixx
Speak out for same sex marriage. Marriage Amendment Vote is this week!
The following document is my letter to my representatives in the house and senate speaking out against the Federal Marriage Amendment which would essentially ban same sex marriage in the entire United States.

Despite the great amount of time and effort I put into this letter, it would be my wish that you, my friends, write ANYTHING AT ALL in opposition to this legislation, long or short, eloquent or otherwise. I realize the odds are that our letters of opposition will be counted, but our words never actually read anyway. Please visit this website and speak out as I have done.

[This is the ACTUAL version I finally sent at 9:10am this morning. The previous copy which had been below has since been edited with the kind help of the friend who commented below, according to an earlier request of mine to please proof read it for me.]

Neither government nor religious groups have the moral right to dictate who among the free adult citizens of this country may or may not be involved in a state of "legal marriage". I specify "legal marriage", in the sense that it will never actually be possible to outlaw any two people from carrying out a private ceremony; So what is actually being decided is whether the government should acknowledge same sex marriage or not.

There was a time in this nation's history when racial segregation was the norm, when women did not have the vote and members of minority religions had to tolerate being treated as second class citizens. We have come a very long way in battling such forms of discrimination. To deny homosexuals the same rights and freedoms as heterosexuals is simply another form of discrimination against a largely unpopular and yet completely deserving subset of America.

In the past, the homosexual condition itself was outlawed. This is no longer the case and as these people are no longer considered criminals. As free men and women, they should have the same right as anyone else to marry if that is what is necessary for them to pursue happiness. It is my belief that it is the role of government simply to acknowledge the vows made between those being so partnered.

When the founding fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence they chose to refer to a higher power, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Our founding fathers chose not to define the nature or identity of "our creator." The Constitution emphasizes the importance of the separation of church and state. The precepts of one religion, regardless of how "popular" that religion may be, must not be made into law to override the rights of the citizens.

Just as it is not the role of government to show favoritism for one religion over another, it is also not the role of government to decide for all of the people which form of marriage is correct for everyone based on the wishes of the few, or even the many. To decide for everyone who may be permitted to be married, even by a vote of the majority, would simply be another unwelcome step toward the national theocracy which America was never intended to be, but unfortunately seems to be drifting toward.

Choosing to oppose the Marriage Amendment may not be the "popular" thing to do, but it is the right thing to do. Opposing the marriage amendment it is to stand for freedom and equality for all.

Tags:

5 Rubber Duckies or Leave a Rubber Ducky
Comments
From: (Anonymous) Date: June 5th, 2006 12:41 pm (UTC) (Link)
Paragraph 1, sentence 2: you may want to put a semicolon between 'ceremony' and 'so' "

Paragraph 2, sentence 2: you want to put 'way' between 'very' and 'long'. ". . .a very long way in . . ."

Paragraph 3, sentence 3: you may want to put a comma between 'women' and 'they' ". . . and women, they should . . ."
fixx From: fixx Date: June 5th, 2006 01:39 pm (UTC) (Link)
Thank you very much for your prompt feedback. I had not yet mailed that letter when I received this and integrated these edits into the final product now corrected above.
silvergoldberry From: silvergoldberry Date: June 5th, 2006 01:06 pm (UTC) (Link)
Thanks for putting this out reminder.

I sent a note through the link you posted as well as Santorum and Specter's sites. Of course, IMO partly it's all a ruse to help Bush's bleeding numbers, but this still needs to be spoken against.
hourglassfull From: hourglassfull Date: June 5th, 2006 01:29 pm (UTC) (Link)
*claps*
browneyedgirl65 From: browneyedgirl65 Date: June 5th, 2006 04:13 pm (UTC) (Link)
What makes me crabby about this is that I put together a letter and everything, went thru the steps, but it seems to have done a switcheroo to "Extra Impact (pay now!!(tm)) at the end. I've double checked and I only selected friggin' EMAIL. Nothing seems to have been sent. I'll try again, but this ticks me off, this kind of bait'n'switch...

My message, if I ever get it thru:

I am very strongly opposed to this amendment for the following reaons. Above and beyond any philosophical ones of "hey, if any two (or more) people want to create a family arrangement, by all means let them", there are some very practical ones. In states that have already enacted such shortsighted measures, there's been a number of disturbing side effects.

Anyone in a relationship that is like marriage, that is Power of Attorney over your partner, Wills, Joint Adoptions, are no longer be recognized legally. This affects untold numbers of people, including senior citizens, like my grandmother who might choose to live with a man, but not get married so as to not lose Social Security or Federal Pension benefits.

Furthermore, Ohio passed a similar marriage protection amendment, which lead the state's Supreme Court to find Order of Protections against abusive partners to be unconsitutional if the couple wasn't married. So, the unintended consequences of this bill are futher reaching than just bigotry. They prevent protecting women from abusive partners.

It has been long recognized that even if a person walks down a deserted alley in the middle of the night, it gives no right to the person who subsequently mugs them. That person is still held fully accountable for the robbery. The marriage amendment effectively turns that assumption on its head. If you didn't marry the person (whether or not you even could have), you deserve everything you got while living with that person? This is a staggering miscarriage of justice.

I urge you, in the strongest terms possible, to vote against this constitutional amendment. Let's keep the seperation between church and state intact. Let's continue to be champion and protector of those unable to defend themselves.

5 Rubber Duckies or Leave a Rubber Ducky