My mom always said to write a letter....
My mom always said that the only way to get anything done is to write a letter. I have generally laughed at her and made fun of her for this (and my dad as well, who wrote to the Rold Gold people to express concern about the change in their pretzels). BUT, in recent days, with all of the attention to the issue of gay marriage and a potential amendment to the Constitution, I have been spending an incredible amount of time and energy being angry and needed to say something about it.
My senators, Mikulski and Sarbannes, are significantly liberal that anything I say will simply emphasize what they already know. So, I wrote an email to the President. I'm not expecting an answer -- I know better than to think that all of a sudden he will wise up and stop being such an a** (sorry mom, I know I'm not supposed to use that language, but I can't help myself in this case). Some of you may disagree with me, some of you may not care. But you know me and my bleeding heart liberal ways well enough to suspect how I feel about the issue. So, below is my email.
----------------------------------------------------
Dear President Bush,
Since its initial signing, this country's guiding document, the Constitution, has been responsible for granting rights and privileges to the citizens of this nation. Its founders, in fact, required that a Bill of Rights be attached prior to its ratification. I bring your attention to this fact to underscore that the proposed amendment to ban gay marriage runs counter to both the spirit and letter of the Constitution.
Often, we find ourselves trying to address social issues through legal means. However, only once has the Constitution been used to do so. With the 18th amendment, the federal government attempted to ease a social ill (alcoholism) with an amendment to our Constitution. With the 21st amendment, we addressed this error in judgement with the repeal of the amendment. An amendment to ban gay marriage would similarly attempt to use the extreme of a Constitutional amendment to address something deemed a social concern.
How biased, extremist and even silly it would seem now if a similar amendment were used years ago to ban interracial marriage or any other "unacceptable" union that, years ago, was similarly seen as a threat to our moral fabric. Should this amendment be passed, it is only a matter of time, perhaps months or maybe years, before it is deemed as biased and an unacceptable infringement on civil rights.
I hope that you will consider the implications upon both the long term use of the Constitution to address social concerns and your legacy as a President in favor of proper treatment of all American prior to continuing to support this proposed Amendment.
My senators, Mikulski and Sarbannes, are significantly liberal that anything I say will simply emphasize what they already know. So, I wrote an email to the President. I'm not expecting an answer -- I know better than to think that all of a sudden he will wise up and stop being such an a** (sorry mom, I know I'm not supposed to use that language, but I can't help myself in this case). Some of you may disagree with me, some of you may not care. But you know me and my bleeding heart liberal ways well enough to suspect how I feel about the issue. So, below is my email.
----------------------------------------------------
Dear President Bush,
Since its initial signing, this country's guiding document, the Constitution, has been responsible for granting rights and privileges to the citizens of this nation. Its founders, in fact, required that a Bill of Rights be attached prior to its ratification. I bring your attention to this fact to underscore that the proposed amendment to ban gay marriage runs counter to both the spirit and letter of the Constitution.
Often, we find ourselves trying to address social issues through legal means. However, only once has the Constitution been used to do so. With the 18th amendment, the federal government attempted to ease a social ill (alcoholism) with an amendment to our Constitution. With the 21st amendment, we addressed this error in judgement with the repeal of the amendment. An amendment to ban gay marriage would similarly attempt to use the extreme of a Constitutional amendment to address something deemed a social concern.
How biased, extremist and even silly it would seem now if a similar amendment were used years ago to ban interracial marriage or any other "unacceptable" union that, years ago, was similarly seen as a threat to our moral fabric. Should this amendment be passed, it is only a matter of time, perhaps months or maybe years, before it is deemed as biased and an unacceptable infringement on civil rights.
I hope that you will consider the implications upon both the long term use of the Constitution to address social concerns and your legacy as a President in favor of proper treatment of all American prior to continuing to support this proposed Amendment.
