I Blame the Dutch (mpoetess) wrote,
I Blame the Dutch

  • Mood:

I Am A Plagiarist

Confession is, they say, good for the soul. In this case, the victim is thebratqueen; since we have different congressional representatives, I figure they won't be comparing my paper to hers in the teachers' lounge after school.

As your constituent, I urge you to oppose the "Federal Marriage Amendment" (H.J. Res. 56/S.J. Res. 26). This measure would amend 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 know this isn't a new issue; it's been under discussion in one form or other for quite some time. But now the President has publicly stated that he may be willing to support an amendment such as this, in order to protect the "sanctity of marriage." That is unacceptable behavior from the head of a nation founded on the protection of individual freedoms. Such biased and frankly constitionally-ignorant words from the President make it even more important that legislators *not* support or enable this proposed amendment and its creators' lack of respect for separation of Church and State.

I am one of your constituents. I am also one of the people who would potentially be denied the right to legally marry someone I love, in my own country, if this amendment is passed. I could spend your valuable reading time passionately defending the need for marriage and family groupings to be about love between people -- not about a spiritual tradition that isn't mine, highly skewed child-psychology statistics, and protecting an already overpopulated planet from the nonexistent danger of family units that don't produce their own offspring -- but that's not the issue that involves you as a legislator.

The issue is that any laws which "protect the sanctity of marriage" are laws written on religious grounds, not legal ones. The word "sanctity," meaning sacredness or holiness, is utterly out of place in any governmental document, let alone in the mouth of our head of state when discussing a constitutional amendment. While the proposed amendment itself may not use the word "sanctity," a definition of marriage as consisting only of the union of a man and a woman has no non-spurious basis other than religious tradition.

We already have a mechanism in our Constitution to deal with issues of religion in government: it's called the First Amendment. If I have to follow it, so do straight people, so does the President, and so do the people making the final decisions on the legal definition of marriage. That would be you.

I'm looking forward to hearing your responses, which shall hopefully give me great pride when I point to the people who represent me in Congress. After all, if the President of this country can't be bothered to know its laws and respect its Constitution, then someone should. Here's hoping it's
my legislators.


[MP's real name]

If your opinions are similar, you can fax your own legislators via the ACLU.

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded