![[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.