Political Activism at Work...

[shadowkat]

I thought I'd share a little good news, after reading superplin entry on the sexuality.

A while back - when the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages was first proposed, I joined others online and wrote my Congressmen and Women, as well as Senators - stating my opposition on this measure.

A week or so later I received a letter from my Congress Woman, informing me that she agreed with my stance and was working hard to protect the rights of gays and lesbians in our country. First off, I'm as straight as you can get. Sexuality is a personal and private thing to me, which I rarely talk about here for that reason. Who you choose to love is your business. Who you choose to marry is yours. Anyone who decides to dictate this - is blatantly and fundamentally wrong. It's not a gray issue. They are wrong. By the way did you know that the first people to have their rights stripped from them, and be put to death in Nazi Germany were homosexuals? And the reason given was pretty much the same one organized religions give now. Think about that one for a moment.

At any rate, that correspondence originally took place way back in February I think. On October 3, I received an update from my Congress Woman, informing me that the ban, otherwise known as HJ Res 106 was defeated by a vote of 227-186, well short of the two-thirds majority necessary to adopt the measure. With the letter, she enclosed a copy of the short statement she made in opposition to the bill which I've reproduced in part below...

Her letter and this statement gave me hope. Just like the under-dog, cursed Red Sox winning this week oddly gave me hope. I think things are changing.



Mr. Speaker: Today we are voting on a consititutional amendment to ban gay marriages. And there are many reasons to oppose this bill:

That it is a diversion from the urgent issues facing our nation. That today's vote is a cheap election-year tactic of the Republican leadership to rally its right-wing base. That we should respect state rights and the principles of federalism - which Republicans continue to conveniently ignore to suit their political purposes.

Mr. Speaker, each of these concerns is a compelling reason to oppose this measure. But I want to make this perfectly clear - this bill should be defeated because it is wrong, it is discriminatory, and it is unamerican.

Our democracy was founded on the fundamental priniciples of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not the right to a full life depending on with whom you wish to build a family. Not liberty for all - unless the religious right disapproves. Not the pursuit of happiness - as long as it doesn't cost Members of Congress some political capital.

Mr. Speaker, how can we export democracy across the globe, when we are abandoning its fundamental principles here at home?

Writing discrimination into our constitution will do nothing to protect marriage. But it will taint this sacred document and sacrifice state rights based on certain ideological beliefs - which are changing and becoming more tolerant with each passing day.

America is at its strongest when the rights and well-being of all families are protected. Lesbian and Gay Americans deserve the same opportunities, benefits, and responsibilities as all America families - including the right to marry.

I urge my colleagues oppose this misguided, mean-spirited bill, and yeild back the balance of my time.




Ignore my words above, she says it better in some ways than I did.

Comments

glad the bill was defeated, but...

[anomster.livejournal.com]

...I have problems w/a couple of the arguments.

First I want to make it clear that I'm in favor of the right to marry for same-sex couples. I can't understand the idea that this is somehow a "threat" to heterosexual marriage.

But I'm always suspicious of comparisons w/Nazi Germany. They can be used by both sides of many issues far too easily, & they rouse an emotional reaction without really being evidence of anything. I don't think this country is really on the way to mass executions of homosexuals. There've been too many court cases establishing that the state has no right to arrest people for what they do in the bedroom (or wherever) & who they do it with.

And respecting states' rights? Several states have referenda on their ballots to explicitly define marriage as being only between a man & a woman, & this issue is even expected to give a boost to Bush on election day by drawing more conservatives to the polls who might not have bothered to vote otherwise. Two states have already passed such measures--at the ballot box, not in the legislature--although it's been overturned by the courts in 1 of them. A lot of commentators think the Constitutional amendment was never intended to pass, but was proposed so Bush et al. could tell the right wing, "See? We tried, but the liberals wouldn't let us pass it. But you know where we stand."

Too bad the right to the pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independence & not in the Constitution. That might make it harder to deny gays & lesbians the right to marry who they choose.

Re: glad the bill was defeated, but...

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

But I'm always suspicious of comparisons w/Nazi Germany. They can be used by both sides of many issues far too easily, & they rouse an emotional reaction without really being evidence of anything. I don't think this country is really on the way to mass executions of homosexuals. There've been too many court cases establishing that the state has no right to arrest people for what they do in the bedroom (or wherever) & who they do it with.

Ah, reading me far too literally, here. Of course I don't think the US is going to start killing people, don't be absurd. (smile)

The comparison was with a "facist" regime. Or rather it was an analogy regarding how facism starts - which is invariably with some righteous individual thinking they have the "religious" right to dictate someone else's actions. Or "thy eye offends me" so I will pluck it out. What these individuals forget is that leads to evil. The Nazi's, after all, aren't the only ones to arrest and hurt people and kill them, because they do not fit their perfect profile. This is, if you think about it, a recurring theme in our history. The Puritans burned people at the stake. The Inquistion killed people who did not follow their dictates. Bloody Mary - killed non-believers. The Khamer Rouge. Cambodia. Stalin. And yes, Ancient Rome sending the Christians to the Lions. We keep making the same mistakes over and over again, because we have no tolerance for people who do not think and act like we do.

The comparison was pointing out that if you start abridging someone else's individual rights, do not be surprised if yours are next.

In Germany, it didn't start with death camps. It started with something as simple as a ban against same-sex marriages.