![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
annathepiperI 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![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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. Atsolarbird'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
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
