![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
yes, Virginia, there is a Constitution
edited to add: back-dating this as well, in a while, to appear second from the top of my own journal. it's actually 13feb2004, 14:57 EST.
so, first off,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
sowilo alerted us to the nonsense going on in the VA house of delegates, and i owe the last point in what follows entirely to her. secondly, i'm aware that the house of delegates is not the US congress and is therefore not actually bound by the bits of the constitution that begin "congress shall make no law ...". s'ok. the title was right there, and i couldn't pass it up.
behind the cut is a letter i'm about to send to my state-level representatives. i'm not too displeased with it, but if anyone has any suggestions, particularly with regard to (a) coherence/succinctness/etc. (you try writing a screed to your congressman in ninety-second increments at work), and (b) trying not to sound like there's going to be Inspirational Music playing any second, i'm listening.
Dear [fox's delegate/senator]:
I'm writing about the ongoing debate over marriage and the current legislation banning recognition of civil unions, domestic partnerships, and so forth performed in other states. I'm trying to school my thoughts to make the tone of my letter appropriate for correspondence with an elected official, but I'd like you and your colleagues in the House of Delegates to know I'm so angry I can barely remain standing, and I'm certainly not the only one.
I'm not going to try to argue with anyone on the basis of religious beliefs. If people believe that a marriage isn't a marriage unless it includes exactly one woman and exactly one man, that's their prerogative. Everyone who cares to is free to consider marriage a sacred institution. That's not actually the point at issue.
The point at issue is this: whether an institution is or is not considered sacred should have no bearing on the law.
Surely we can all agree by now that all individuals should have the same rights under the law. The fact that we have not yet achieved this goal is disappointing; the fact that some are seeking actively to prevent it is a disgrace. That the perceived sanctity of anything can be used as a block to allowing all citizens the civil rights we all deserve is nothing short of – well, of uncivilized.
Many people do believe that marriage must have some religious aspect to it. This is why they go to houses of worship and have religious officials perform the ceremonies. But many others have no such belief; and they have judges and other public officials, people empowered by law but not by any God, declare them to be legally married. These marriages are every bit as legal as ones performed by clergy, and are available even to couples whose clergy may have refused to marry them on religious grounds. Any argument invoking the sanctity of marriage is a religious one, and has nothing to do with the law.
Our country was founded on the idea of equality. The rights available to any citizen must be available to every citizen. Arbitrary misapplication of religious standards on secular proceedings is destructive of the purpose of our country. Marriage – irrespective of religious involvement – is a legal contract conferring responsibilities and rights on participants that are not available outside such a contract. Every citizen legally able to enter contracts must be permitted to enter a contract of marriage, and the law must not seek to specify with whom such contracts may be made. It's that simple. "Sacred" is for religion. "Legal" is for law. There should not be a dependent relationship between them.
Del. Marshall of Prince William County said, "We're Virginia. We support one kind of marriage and only one kind." I'm forced to assume he means to refer to the one-man, one-woman, church-sanctioned kind.
I do not support "only one kind" of marriage. My friends and neighbors do not support "only one kind" of marriage. My co-workers and fellow taxpayers do not support "only one kind" of marriage. We support every "kind" of marriage that involves adults entering willingly into a legal contract, and we vote, and we are Virginia.
so, first off,
sowilo alerted us to the nonsense going on in the VA house of delegates, and i owe the last point in what follows entirely to her. secondly, i'm aware that the house of delegates is not the US congress and is therefore not actually bound by the bits of the constitution that begin "congress shall make no law ...". s'ok. the title was right there, and i couldn't pass it up.behind the cut is a letter i'm about to send to my state-level representatives. i'm not too displeased with it, but if anyone has any suggestions, particularly with regard to (a) coherence/succinctness/etc. (you try writing a screed to your congressman in ninety-second increments at work), and (b) trying not to sound like there's going to be Inspirational Music playing any second, i'm listening.
Dear [fox's delegate/senator]:
I'm writing about the ongoing debate over marriage and the current legislation banning recognition of civil unions, domestic partnerships, and so forth performed in other states. I'm trying to school my thoughts to make the tone of my letter appropriate for correspondence with an elected official, but I'd like you and your colleagues in the House of Delegates to know I'm so angry I can barely remain standing, and I'm certainly not the only one.
I'm not going to try to argue with anyone on the basis of religious beliefs. If people believe that a marriage isn't a marriage unless it includes exactly one woman and exactly one man, that's their prerogative. Everyone who cares to is free to consider marriage a sacred institution. That's not actually the point at issue.
The point at issue is this: whether an institution is or is not considered sacred should have no bearing on the law.
Surely we can all agree by now that all individuals should have the same rights under the law. The fact that we have not yet achieved this goal is disappointing; the fact that some are seeking actively to prevent it is a disgrace. That the perceived sanctity of anything can be used as a block to allowing all citizens the civil rights we all deserve is nothing short of – well, of uncivilized.
Many people do believe that marriage must have some religious aspect to it. This is why they go to houses of worship and have religious officials perform the ceremonies. But many others have no such belief; and they have judges and other public officials, people empowered by law but not by any God, declare them to be legally married. These marriages are every bit as legal as ones performed by clergy, and are available even to couples whose clergy may have refused to marry them on religious grounds. Any argument invoking the sanctity of marriage is a religious one, and has nothing to do with the law.
Our country was founded on the idea of equality. The rights available to any citizen must be available to every citizen. Arbitrary misapplication of religious standards on secular proceedings is destructive of the purpose of our country. Marriage – irrespective of religious involvement – is a legal contract conferring responsibilities and rights on participants that are not available outside such a contract. Every citizen legally able to enter contracts must be permitted to enter a contract of marriage, and the law must not seek to specify with whom such contracts may be made. It's that simple. "Sacred" is for religion. "Legal" is for law. There should not be a dependent relationship between them.
Del. Marshall of Prince William County said, "We're Virginia. We support one kind of marriage and only one kind." I'm forced to assume he means to refer to the one-man, one-woman, church-sanctioned kind.
I do not support "only one kind" of marriage. My friends and neighbors do not support "only one kind" of marriage. My co-workers and fellow taxpayers do not support "only one kind" of marriage. We support every "kind" of marriage that involves adults entering willingly into a legal contract, and we vote, and we are Virginia.
no subject
If this comes up in Oregon, may I borrow your letter?
what I want to know - how is same-sex marriage harming hetero-sexual marriage? I've yet to see a definitive answer to that.
no subject
>Every citizen legally able to enter contracts must be permitted to enter a contract of marriage, and the law must not seek to specify with whom such contracts may be made.
This sentence contradicts itself. You say that every citizen legally able to enter into a contract must be allowed, and that the law can't specify with whom. Except that the law defines which citizens are able to enter contracts legally, by definition. I think you need to narrow the second half, some, saying, perhaps: "and the law must not seek to specify with whom such marriage contracts may be made, as long as both parties are legally competent."
It takes away some of the power of the sentence, I admit. There is certainly a better way of wording it, but I'm on a sugar high and can't think very clearly. But it makes the sentence more legally correct.
Re:
Re:
I read it the same way you do, knowing what Fox means. And I think her intent is clear. I just don't think the sentence passes muster.
no subject
no subject
That's a decent approximation of what I would have scrawled across the top of it had I been working at Biden's office still...
The tone is fine, the wording is fine (although I concur with Nick about the contradictions in that one sentence).
My only addition is to make sure that you sign it, and below your typed Name, place your full address otherwise without the full address (even if it's on the envelope) most places just send it to the circular file since they can't tell it's from a constituent. Also, I would cc: your Congressional Rep. on it as well.
Good
The only thing I'd suggest is to take out the references to other people who share your anger. I believe it weakens your argument. It's akin to "the lurkers support me in email!" *G*
... I'd like you and your colleagues in the House of Delegates to know I'm so angry I can barely remain standing, and I'm certainly not the only one.
Hyperbole also makes this weak. How about: "... I'd like you and your colleagues in the House of Delegates to know how very angry I am that you would presume to force all people of this state to adhere to a certain faction's religious beliefs whether they agree with those beliefs or not."
I do not support "only one kind" of marriage. My friends and neighbors do not support "only one kind" of marriage. My co-workers and fellow taxpayers do not support "only one kind" of marriage. We support every "kind" of marriage that involves adults entering willingly into a legal contract, and we vote, and we are Virginia.
I don't like this argument because you can't support it. It's more likely IMHO that the majority of the people in your area might actually believe in the "only one kind" of marriage, regardless of what your personal circle believes. Instead, I think your argument should be that it doesn't matter *who* or *how many* people agree with you. In this country, *no one* has the right to enforce their religious beliefs on anyone else, regardless of whether or not they are in the majority. This is not a matter of garnering votes by pandering to whichever group howls the loudest. This is a matter of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law, not to mention the establishment clause of the Bill of Rights.
I also agree you should recast that problem sentence about legal contracts.
FWIW. *G*
no subject