Not that I think this'll do a damned bit of good, but...

[annathepiper]

I just felt that firing off this email today was appropriate, after hearing secondhand about the President going off on gay marriage. Again.

EDIT: I got the expected auto-responder message off the whitehouse.gov site, just a little bit ago. It included this comment: "Thank you for e-mailing President Bush. Your ideas and comments are very important to him." I wish I could believe that. I'd like to believe that the President of the United States has the slightest bit of concern about what I might happen to say to him. But I don't. And I emailed him anyway.

And just in case anybody cares, consider this blanket permission to quote what I wrote below anywhere you wish, or link to it if you prefer. As I said to mizkit in the comments, if the words get to the right ears, I'm good.



February 24, 2003

Dear Mr. President:

The American people have heard time and again in the news as of late about your stance on the issue of gay marriage, that you are apparently of the ardent opinion that a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as the unique province of 'a man and a woman' is what 'the people' want.

I feel compelled today to write to you today to respectfully point out that one of the most crucial functions of the Constitution in this country is to make certain that the minorities amongst our citizens do not suffer because of what 'the people' want. Not so terribly long ago, 'the people' wanted to discriminate against people of African-American descent; 'separate but equal' is a phrase that you will perhaps remember.

Not so terribly long before that, 'the people' wished to restrict the right to vote to those of the male gender.

And yet, the country chose to do the right thing. We decided eventually that the rights of a citizen should not be restricted based upon his or her race or gender.

Why then should they be restricted based upon the gender of the person with whom that citizen chooses to spend the rest of his or her life?

Mr. President, I submit for your consideration that the situation facing the country in these days--whether to grant the fundamental right of marriage to persons of the same gender--is no different than the decisions America had to face in times past.

I hear much hue and cry these days about how marriage is somehow 'threatened' by the prospect of two men or two women who want nothing more than to live their lives in peace with one another and be accorded the same respect that a mixed-gender couple enjoys in our society. And I am compelled to ask, sir, _why_ is the institution of marriage threatened by this? How will a married man and woman in Texas be threatened by two men in Seattle? How will the loving, committed relationship of a married pair in Kentucky be imperiled by a loving, committed relationship of two women in San Fransico?

Where is your defense of the sanctity of marriage when a famous pop star blithely gets married in Las Vegas because it seems 'fun', and then annuls it less than two days later without public condemnation? Where is your defense of the sanctity of marriage when so many thousands of mixed-gender couples all over this country get divorced every year? How, sir, can you possibly justify calling a same-sex couple a threat to immorality without also condemning mixed-gender couples who do not treat the institution of marriage with the care and honor it deserves?

You see, Mr. President, I too believe that marriage is a sacred institution. I believe that if someone chooses to devote their life to another, that is not a decision to be taken lightly. It is in fact one which should be made with full cognizance of the weight of that promise. I just also happen to believe that there is no difference between a pledge of life devotion between a mixed-gender couple and a same-gender one. What is important is not the outward genders of the involved parties, but the truth of the respect and love they have for one another in their hearts.

And I believe with all of _my_ heart, sir, that to deny a pair of law-abiding, decent American citizens the right to marry just because they are of the same gender is _wrong_.

I do not expect you to agree with me. I do not even expect that you will even read this letter; if you do, I expect I shall be dismissed as just another 'activist'.

Mr. President, if 'activist' is a synonym for 'an American who loves her country and wishes equal rights under the law for all persons regardless of their race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation', then you may label me an 'activist' with my blessing.

But as you do, I ask only that you take a hard, honest look at your positions. If you wish to take up arms against that which threatens the sanctity of marriage, there are a dozen things I could name that are a far direr threat to it than any gay couple ever could be. Spousal abuse, an economy that deprives hardworking citizens of the jobs they need to feed their families, the insane cost of health care in this country making it so difficult for families to care for their ailing children--all things I have seen drive apart marriages in my life. Look at those, Mr. President, before you cast your attacks upon good people.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Angela Korra'ti
Seattle, WA


EDIT #2: This ought to be fun. At solarbird's recommendation, I have whittled this letter down and fired it off to the local paper for the Letters to the Editor column, as an open letter to the President. My beloved suggests that that is actually more effective than trying to even paper-mail the White House--though I am still going to do that, too.


February 24, 2004

Dear Mr. President:

The American people have heard time and again in the news as of late about your stance on the issue of gay marriage, that you are apparently of the ardent opinion that a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as the unique province of 'a man and a woman' is what 'the people' want.

Where is your defense of the sanctity of marriage when a famous pop star blithely gets married in Las Vegas because it seems 'fun', and then annuls it less than two days later without public condemnation? Where is your defense of the sanctity of marriage when so many thousands of mixed-gender couples all over this country get divorced every year? How, sir, can you possibly justify calling a same-sex couple a threat to immorality without also condemning mixed-gender couples who do not treat the institution of marriage with the care and honor it deserves?

You see, Mr. President, I too believe that marriage is a sacred institution. I believe that if someone chooses to devote their life to another, that is not a decision to be taken lightly. It is in fact one which should be made with full cognizance of the weight of that promise. I just also happen to believe that there is no difference between a pledge of life devotion between a mixed-gender couple and a same-gender one. What is important is not the outward genders of the involved parties, but the truth of the respect and love they have for one another in their hearts.

And I believe with all of _my_ heart, sir, that to deny a pair of law-abiding, decent American citizens the right to marry just because they are of the same gender is _wrong_.

Please, sir, take a hard, honest look at your positions. If you wish to take up arms against that which threatens the sanctity of marriage, there are a dozen things I could name that are a far direr threat to it than any gay couple ever could be. Spousal abuse, an economy that deprives hardworking citizens of the jobs they need to feed their families, the insane cost of health care in this country making it so difficult for families to care for their ailing children--all things I have seen drive apart marriages in my life. Look at those, Mr. President, before you cast your attacks upon good people.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Angela Korra'ti
Seattle, WA

Comments

[mnemozine.livejournal.com]

Very well written, Anna. *applause*

[annathepiper]

Thanks hon... I just wish this whole situation didn't make me physically ill. :(

[kitchengrrl.livejournal.com]

Couldn't have said it better myself. Really. :) *clapping and hollering*

[annathepiper]

Thanks hon... and like I said in the letter... I rather doubt it will get read or that if it does, it will actually be given any consideration whatsoever. But I rather had to write it. There's a principle at stake here.

I should probably print it out and mail it by snailmail, too.

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

go you. i'm proud of you for being an activist :)

[annathepiper]

*hugs a l'il orc* Thanks hon. It's lame activism, just firing off an email... but it's something.

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

it's not lame. as gandhi said, what we do may seem insignificant, but it is vitally important that we do it. and you did. *hugs!*

[annathepiper]

Wise old gent, that Gandhi. Thank you for the reminder about those words; they do make me smile a bit more. :)

[mizkit.livejournal.com]

Wow. GOod Lord. Would you mind if I sent basically that letter as a snail-mail to my congresscritters?

[annathepiper]

Please feel free to take my text and alter it as appropriate to your own letter-writing purposes. As long as the concepts get to the ears that need to hear them, I'm good.

[framlingem.livejournal.com]

Will you marry me?

(j/k - don,t know you well enough yet :p Also, unless I misremember, you're already with someone :p)


If I could interview Bush, I would (without mentioning the gay marriage thing) asks if he believes, as the fathers of the United States did, that 'all men are created equal'. Then I would ask him if he believes that the God he worships loves all His children.

Then I'd hit him with the gay marriage thing.

I can guarantee hypocrisy in his answers.

[annathepiper]

I do, in fact, have a partner. But thank you. ;)

And yeah. The level of hyprocrisy here just saddens and sickens me. There are times more and more often these days when Canada is looking really good to me, and not just because y'all have better music up there, either.

[gerimaple.livejournal.com]

There are times more and more often these days when Canada is looking really good to me, and not just because y'all have better music up there, either.

14 more sleeps for you ... {with the living room stereo blaring as i curse the sore throat that's precluding singing along what bits i do know}

[gerimaple.livejournal.com]

damn good letter, btw ... call me "distracted"

[annathepiper]

Thanks hon. *chuckle* Sore throat, though? Fighting something off, or is this an artifact of going to see GBS a few days ago?

[annathepiper]

A fine example of the aforementioned better music! I take some consolation in the knowledge that in two weeks, I shall have shiny new Great Big Sea goodness to soothe my jangled nerves.

(And I say that almost without irony, too.)

[framlingem.livejournal.com]

Bush truly frightens me.

The thing is, from what I'm hearing, the alternative isn't that great. The two-party system really bites the llama's butt.

[annathepiper]

Given that Kerry is the front-runner among the Democrats at this point, I am not very sanguine about him as an alternative to Bush, no. Neither am I assured by Dean, even if he manages to pull ahead of Kerry. :(

[framlingem.livejournal.com]

I think the best option for the Americans is to have someone who isn't from the States be President :P At least for a term. Much less chance of blind patriotism if that happens. Won't fix all the problems, but it might fix the 'Oh look, we're the USA, we have a huge army, number one, do as we say!' thing.

[annathepiper]

I assure you, hon, that there are people all over this country who deplore that attitude just as much as folks in your country and others do. The problem is that to date, we're not the ones with the power to do anything much about it.

[framlingem.livejournal.com]

I know that - I know and like far too many folks south of the border to believe that your gov't is a representative sample.

And it occurs to me to wonder why the idiot stereotypical minority is the majority why it counts the most. *sigh* You can vote, but I'm not convinced that will be impartial, anyway, and I seem to recall the USA (don't remember the stat, sorry) having a really low voter turnout.

Only thing I can hope for, I guess, is that with all the feathers being ruffled (on both sides of the debate, even if I am firmly convinced that one side is morally and ethically wrong), is that people will care enough to vote. Apathy disgusts me. I'd rather people be vehemently opposed to me than have them not care, to be honest. Way I see it, anyone who does not exercise their right to vote has no right to complain about the outcome. Not voting does not indicate displeasure - it indicates not caring.

[annathepiper]

All too often, we have extremely sucky voter turnout, yeah. I pay less attention to my civic duty than I should--I wind up skipping local elections more often than not.

But I do get off my ass when it comes to Congress and the Presidental races.

[framlingem.livejournal.com]

What really makes my stomach turn is that last year in Qu颥c, we had a referendum over whether or not to merge smaller cities into bigger cities. The voter turn out was nearly one hundred percent. The vote was 99% against.

So they did it anyway.

I got a letter in the mail yesterday about voting by post in another referendum on... get this... reversing the mergers.

What a stinking waste of money.

[annathepiper]

Oh maaaaaaan. Now, this, I find really vile--when the people specifically vote on what they want and the powers that be go against it anyway. That happened here in Seattle, too, when we had a vote about whether or not to tear down the Kingdome and build new stadiums for the local sports teams. The people of Seattle voted AGAINST this. We got new stadiums anyway.

I refuse to set foot in Safeco Field as a result.

In all too many cases, it's exactly crap like this that contributes to why so many people don't bother to vote. They just don't believe it'll do any good--and sometimes, when things like this happen, I can't quite bring myself to blame them.

[framlingem.livejournal.com]

The thing about a referendum is it's not binding; more of an opinion poll.

I am SO glad that even if they discounted the overwhelming majority in this case, they at least listened to the bare majority in 1995.

The Québec license plate motto is 'je me souviens' - nearly everyone in the area I come from has bumper stickers or window clings (I did until my car, and with it the window cling, got hit by a truck) that say 'je me souviendrai des fusions forcées' - I will remember the forced mergers.

I truly hate politics. I am a paper socialist - I recognise that complete socialism will not work in present times, human nature being what it is, but in theory I think it's the ideal.

[annathepiper]

Good for the people of Québec doing what they could to make their voices heard, then.

I am honestly not sure how I would properly qualify myself, politically. Somewhere between capitalism and socialism, perhaps. There is too much "go not to the Elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes" in me to really nail myself down to one particular system of political belief or another.

[mizkit.livejournal.com]

Kerry is better than Bush; *anyone* is better than Bush. *Anyone* else will not have the neoconservative fascist handlers that Bush has got. Bush himself is dangerous because he's not very bright. Bush's handlers are dangerous because they are not only bright, but guiding a man who believes he cannot be wrong into a regime that I genuinely believe to be fascist. It doesn't matter *who* ends up in the White House come November; *anyone* who is not Bush is an improvement because he won't have the Bush administration's right-wing agenda. I honestly and truly believe that.

And yes. I have said a number of times that at least in Ireland you know which rights you don't have. I didn't imagine political exile would look like something I'd be willing to accept in my lifetime.

[annathepiper]

I am, unfortunately, with you on this a lot more than I wish I needed to be. Since I have in fact told solarbird that if they do manage to put an anti-gay-marriage amendment into the Constitution--especially if they manage to pull off outlawing 'civil unions', which are NOT an acceptable substitute; don't these people remember why 'separate but equal' is a vile concept?--I just won't want to live here anymore. :(

[cafiorello.livejournal.com]

Beautifully written! Even if he never sees it, we all did, and we feel moved and heartened.

And yes, Kerry is a *lot* better than W., even if he isn't anywhere near perfect.
Cathy

[annathepiper]

Thanks, Cathy--I feel like the proverbial voice crying out in the wilderness, but it helps to know that the wilderness ain't actually that empty.