An open letter to President Bush and Congress

Traceroute · Post by **Traceroute** » 2003-07-31 06:24pm

Hey everybody, I'd like your input on the this letter I've composed, and I'd encourage all US citizens that read this to compose similar messages for their congressional representatives and the President.

Any input is appreciated, I'm not going to send this until Saturday.

acesand8s · Post by **acesand8s** » 2003-07-31 06:51pm

I assume you can get more attention with a written letter than an e-mail, right?

Traceroute · Post by **Traceroute** » 2003-07-31 06:52pm

Most likely. That and most of the representatives cited don't post an email address. I'd rather print it out 4 times.

In the final draft, I'll print out the text of the news articles I cited.

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2003-07-31 06:54pm

Want us to mass mail it?

~Jason

Traceroute · Post by **Traceroute** » 2003-07-31 07:01pm

Soontir wrote:Want us to mass mail it? ~Jason

That would be pretty cool, but I'd prefer original compositions, ya know? But feel free to copy and paste. Just make sure to send it to your representatives, not mine

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-07-31 09:04pm

Didnt they recently change the way you email the president. You cant just fire it off to president@usa.gov or whatever.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-07-31 09:19pm

we love you...

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-07-31 09:34pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:we love you...

and send flowers. . .

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-07-31 09:35pm

I'd strike the last part of the last paragraph. I'm in favor of homosexual marriage, but the Federal government has no right to dictate marriage laws to the states.

Crazy Goji · Post by **Crazy Goji** » 2003-07-31 11:17pm

I would encourage eveyone to deeply examine their beliefs on the sanctity of marriage. Reality TV such as The Bachelor, The Bachelorette, Race to the Altar and Joe Millionaire cheapen the sanctity of marriage in a far more egregious manner than two men or two women seeking legal acknowledgement of their union and commitment.

That right there is gold.

Traceroute · Post by **Traceroute** » 2003-08-01 12:03am

RedImperator wrote:I'd strike the last part of the last paragraph. I'm in favor of homosexual marriage, but the Federal government has no right to dictate marriage laws to the states.

If it was done as a constitutional amendment, it would. The Federal constitution supercedes state law. Granted, it shouldn't require a constitutional amendment, but since the right wants to make it a constitutional amendment to limit marriage to a man and a woman ...

I think it would be appropriate for the Federal government to pass a bill indicating that marriage is open to everybody, seeing as they already passed a bill limiting marriage to a man and a woman. (Which I wasn't previously aware of, but was apparently signed into law in 1996.)

CNN wrote:The Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law in 1996 by President Clinton, prevents federal recognition of same-sex marriage, and allows states to ignore same-sex licenses from outside their borders.

I think the Federal government needs to repeal that law, and open up Federal benefits (Social Security death benefits, Federal tax breaks, etc.) to same sex marriages.

California needs to as well, Prop 22 still pisses me off. Passed the same year as the Defense of Marriage Act, as I recall, for the same purpose.

Traceroute · Post by **Traceroute** » 2003-08-01 12:07am

Wow! I just realized there's a News & Politics forum.

I apologize for my silliness there. Could a mod move this thread for me?

I guess it kind of crosses between the two, but this does seem like more than a News & Politics thing.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-08-01 12:21am

I'd strike it out, since the best argument against the entire thing from the standpoint of the President, really, is that creating a federal law on the issue--one way OR the other--is just increasing the size of federal government, which conservatives are supposed to be against in principle. It's hypocritical as a conservative for Bush to support increasing the size of federal government. That would be a good thing to point out.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-08-01 12:28am

Traceroute wrote:If it was done as a constitutional amendment, it would. The Federal constitution supercedes state law. Granted, it shouldn't require a constitutional amendment, but since the right wants to make it a constitutional amendment to limit marriage to a man and a woman ...

I am, believe it or not, familiar with the supremacy of the Federal Constitution over state laws. At any rate, such an amendment would be entirely unnecessary and impossible to pass anyway--I'd bet my right nut 13 states would refuse to ratify it, and that's all you'd need to kill it. Ditto this proposed ammendment defining marriage as a union between man and woman. There have been 10,000 proposed Amendments to the Constitution since 1787, and 27 have passed. I'm not worried about this one.

I think it would be appropriate for the Federal government to pass a bill indicating that marriage is open to everybody, seeing as they already passed a bill limiting marriage to a man and a woman. (Which I wasn't previously aware of, but was apparently signed into law in 1996.)

CNN wrote:The Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law in 1996 by President Clinton, prevents federal recognition of same-sex marriage, and allows states to ignore same-sex licenses from outside their borders.
I think the Federal government needs to repeal that law, and open up Federal benefits (Social Security death benefits, Federal tax breaks, etc.) to same sex marriages.

I agree. However, the DoMA does NOT define the marriage laws of individual states. It prevents Federal agencies from recognizing gay marriages and exempts the state from the "Full faith and credit clause" that normally requires them to honor out-of-state contracts in the specific case of homosexual unions, both of which are within the Federal government's power. Forcing the states to recognize gay marriage is an entirely different issue, and on a practical level, is begging for a backlash. Ending the states' exemption from the full faith and credit clause and recognizing ALL marriages made legally under their respective state's law is more than enough.

California needs to as well, Prop 22 still pisses me off. Passed the same year as the Defense of Marriage Act, as I recall, for the same purpose.

California needs to do a number of things.

Traceroute · Post by **Traceroute** » 2003-08-01 02:45am

California DOES need to do a lot of things (budget reform for one, the past few years have been pretty silly), Prop 22 is the one in relation to the topic, though.

I recognize that repealing the DoMA wouldn't change state laws, only a constitutional amendment would. Those are two separate points, I apologize for not being clearer initially.