Bothered, Betrayed, and Be-deviled
Feb. 24th, 2004 07:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eggwardsI don't know why I feel so wounded by this. I should take this in stride, I knew in the back of my head that President Bush would eventually endorse the Federal Marriage Amendment, still, he waffled and wavered, keeping up with the "one man, one woman" mantra that seems to show that he was not willing, or perhaps incapable of coming up with any other viable argument. Still, when he actually announced his support, and his flimsy argument for it, "oh, we're troubled by the judges..." (because you A. can't seem to control them, darn, and B. just don't like gays, but it would be wrong to say that publicly) it truly shot through my heart. Some man of the people you are, Mr. Bush.
You may know that I voted for Bush in 2000. I've voted for lots of Republicans, mostly on fiscal issues, but leave it to Bush to come in and find he actually likes big government, and then goes and makes it bigger. Did you change your mind somewhere between the 2000 campaign and now? I truly feel betrayed. Sure, I never though of the Republicans as championing gay rights, and maybe I've never really voted on that issue before, but it is important to me. When you blatantly come in and say, you are not equal in my eyes, and you will not be treated equally in this country...I think that you should lose my vote. Unfortunately, I dislike what the Democrats bring to the table, too. I truly feel disenfranchised in my own country, and by god I'm going to tell people about it.
I was enraged all day at work, but I channelled most of the energy into writing a letter, now to be an open letter, to the president. I don't expect he'll ever read it, but I'll feel better for at least trying. I would have gotten home earlier, but a co-worker saw that I was upset and we chatted about the subject for about 45 minutes. He's straight, life-long democrat, and we've debated politics before. I don't think he's ever seen me so troubled, but I truly have lost a spot in the political process, and am truly ashamed of this country today.
February 24th, 2004
Dear President Bush,
Today you endorsed an action to change the Constitution of the United States to deny Americans equal access to benefits offered by the US government to couples. This is a denial of civil rights to gay and lesbian, citizens of this country. The amendment, if passed, would write discrimination into a document that stands to ensure liberty, freedom and equality.
I’m sure the question is, does this action truly represent your principals, or are you just pandering for votes in an increasingly competitive election campaign? If it’s the former, I would hope that you would take a better approach to expressing your desire to keep marriage as is. If it’s the latter, you may want to consider the loss of my vote, and the loss of other votes of gay Americans who supported you last election.
I voted for you in 2000. I still side with you on tax cuts and the war on terror. We differ on such issues as the reasoning to go to war with Iraq, which certainly needs more explanation during the campaign, and the fact that you and the members of the Republican Party in Congress have done little if nothing to curtail government spending while decreasing current revenues. When Republicans state that they should run government like a business, that business should not be Enron.
However, we obviously disagree on social issues, especially those that concern the equality of American citizens. Gay Americans should receive the same treatment, the same benefits, and the same protections that all other citizens of this country enjoy. That all citizens of this country should be considered equal is still a goal of this country, and today, with the President of the United States expressing that a religious view of civil marriage should cause us to consider the removal of civil rights from a group of citizens, the attainment of equality has taken several steps back.
Perhaps you do not know the prejudice that you are proposing here. Maybe you’re not considering the families that you are hurting by supporting this amendment, families of gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered people, and the families created by those people. You are creating an atmosphere in this country that invalidates these family ties and tells them that they, or their sons and daughters are second-class citizens, not eligible to share the full promise of this country.
I don’t agree with your interpretation of civil marriage. The religious definition of marriage is untouched by the opening of civil marriage to any two citizens, regardless of the gender of those two people. Churches and other religious organizations can still marry people using the tenants of their faith. Inclusiveness in civil marriage will allow all Americans to be able to benefit from stable relationships, and committed partners, something you have already stated is an important part of the health of our society. That recognition of stable, loving relationships is not currently provided to gay citizens by the federal government, or by most states.
I fear that my relationship may not be accepted by the courts, may prevent me from visitations if either of us are in the hospital, and may be contested by others when reading our wills when that time comes. Anything that we do as a couple can be easily invalidated by the state, since we are not recognized as an acceptable couple in the eyes of the law. These are things that married couples take for granted, but are unavailable to me since the state has stated that the love I have is invalid. No one should ever be told that their love isn’t up to governmental standards.
There are millions out there waiting to take part in marriage. They want a part of something that you consider sacred, and I consider a civil right. Civil marriage shouldn’t be a goal or a privilege. It should be a right of all citizenry. All this time you state that the status quo should be protected, but for the last 40 plus years marriage has been eroded by access to The Pill, no-fault divorce, and people rejecting the tenants of marriage and just living together. None of this erosion happened because of gays, as they weren’t allowed to participate. It’s an institution that was broken by those already given access to it. Still, the fact that gays and lesbians would want to take part in that institution should attest to it’s endurance, strength and importance to society.
It said that the proposed amendment would still allow states to provide civil unions for same-sex couples. Civil unions are the same as segregation was in our schools. Trying to provide a semblance of the same rights through creation of a wholly separate set of partner benefits is not the same. Those rights can be different in different states, they can be allowed not to mimic all of the benefits and privileges afforded to married couples, and may not be transferable to other states. Full civil marriage rights would assure that all Americans were treated equally and equally protected. Unfortunately, the most discussed wording for the proposed amendment has been designed that even civil unions, referred to by the sentence: “Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.", would be invalidated by the amendment. The language is designed to take away any possibility of gay citizens to have their relationships recognized.
You state that the voice of the people must be heard, but you present a draconian plan to work to stop any state from using their sovereignty to decide this issue, and create true, public discourse of the issue. This amendment would actually trump the checks and balances our society has created to respect both the rights of the individual, and work for the common good, issues that do not always result in the most popular decisions, but have strengthened this nation. You say that the historical meaning of marriage must be preserved, but marriage itself has changed, not only in the last 40 years, but also in the last 200, and the millennia before that. You are trying to stop society in its tracks, making it more difficult to change this issue in the future, as society creates new rules, and finds new ways of thinking. Society, despite what people want, or even sometimes need, progresses.
When you ran in 2000, you stated that you were a uniter, not a divider, but yet you play the same politics of class warfare, intolerance, prejudice and fear that any other candidate does. This is shameful and depressing. One would hope that a politician would rise above such petty tactics as supporting a divisive measure that hurts Americans and drives them to a second class status, trying to sweep them back into the closets, all to pander to a group of voters who support this discrimination.
I am not a one-issue voter. I will weigh many different factors when making my choice this fall, a choice that has been made much more difficult with your announcement today. I cannot, and will not vote for a candidate that so blatantly supports discrimination, whether that discrimination directly affects me or not. This leaves me with one fewer choice than I had yesterday. I’m sure your advisors and your party has said that losing my one vote, or the even the votes of the estimated million or so gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered people who voted for you in 2000 was insignificant to re-asserting yourself to your base voters, those who would support this draconian measure. They told you to try to stop debate in the states before it gets “too far”. I’m sure that the stomping on my rights, and my future was much less important than placating voters who were firmly in your corner already.
I already am a member of a minority that doesn’t share in the same rights and protections that others receive, simply for the gender of whom I love, and that I would wish to have a relationship with him. I have hopes that a president, charged to uphold the constitution, would understand that the Constitution should represent all of the people, not just those that are his voting base, or those that agree with him. Unfortunately, I no longer have that faith in you, and I cannot support you.
When you endorse discrimination, when you decide that people’s loving relationships are invalid, when you deny that all citizens should be able to share the American Dream, America loses.
Sincerely,
Michael Edwards
You may know that I voted for Bush in 2000. I've voted for lots of Republicans, mostly on fiscal issues, but leave it to Bush to come in and find he actually likes big government, and then goes and makes it bigger. Did you change your mind somewhere between the 2000 campaign and now? I truly feel betrayed. Sure, I never though of the Republicans as championing gay rights, and maybe I've never really voted on that issue before, but it is important to me. When you blatantly come in and say, you are not equal in my eyes, and you will not be treated equally in this country...I think that you should lose my vote. Unfortunately, I dislike what the Democrats bring to the table, too. I truly feel disenfranchised in my own country, and by god I'm going to tell people about it.
I was enraged all day at work, but I channelled most of the energy into writing a letter, now to be an open letter, to the president. I don't expect he'll ever read it, but I'll feel better for at least trying. I would have gotten home earlier, but a co-worker saw that I was upset and we chatted about the subject for about 45 minutes. He's straight, life-long democrat, and we've debated politics before. I don't think he's ever seen me so troubled, but I truly have lost a spot in the political process, and am truly ashamed of this country today.
February 24th, 2004
Dear President Bush,
Today you endorsed an action to change the Constitution of the United States to deny Americans equal access to benefits offered by the US government to couples. This is a denial of civil rights to gay and lesbian, citizens of this country. The amendment, if passed, would write discrimination into a document that stands to ensure liberty, freedom and equality.
I’m sure the question is, does this action truly represent your principals, or are you just pandering for votes in an increasingly competitive election campaign? If it’s the former, I would hope that you would take a better approach to expressing your desire to keep marriage as is. If it’s the latter, you may want to consider the loss of my vote, and the loss of other votes of gay Americans who supported you last election.
I voted for you in 2000. I still side with you on tax cuts and the war on terror. We differ on such issues as the reasoning to go to war with Iraq, which certainly needs more explanation during the campaign, and the fact that you and the members of the Republican Party in Congress have done little if nothing to curtail government spending while decreasing current revenues. When Republicans state that they should run government like a business, that business should not be Enron.
However, we obviously disagree on social issues, especially those that concern the equality of American citizens. Gay Americans should receive the same treatment, the same benefits, and the same protections that all other citizens of this country enjoy. That all citizens of this country should be considered equal is still a goal of this country, and today, with the President of the United States expressing that a religious view of civil marriage should cause us to consider the removal of civil rights from a group of citizens, the attainment of equality has taken several steps back.
Perhaps you do not know the prejudice that you are proposing here. Maybe you’re not considering the families that you are hurting by supporting this amendment, families of gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered people, and the families created by those people. You are creating an atmosphere in this country that invalidates these family ties and tells them that they, or their sons and daughters are second-class citizens, not eligible to share the full promise of this country.
I don’t agree with your interpretation of civil marriage. The religious definition of marriage is untouched by the opening of civil marriage to any two citizens, regardless of the gender of those two people. Churches and other religious organizations can still marry people using the tenants of their faith. Inclusiveness in civil marriage will allow all Americans to be able to benefit from stable relationships, and committed partners, something you have already stated is an important part of the health of our society. That recognition of stable, loving relationships is not currently provided to gay citizens by the federal government, or by most states.
I fear that my relationship may not be accepted by the courts, may prevent me from visitations if either of us are in the hospital, and may be contested by others when reading our wills when that time comes. Anything that we do as a couple can be easily invalidated by the state, since we are not recognized as an acceptable couple in the eyes of the law. These are things that married couples take for granted, but are unavailable to me since the state has stated that the love I have is invalid. No one should ever be told that their love isn’t up to governmental standards.
There are millions out there waiting to take part in marriage. They want a part of something that you consider sacred, and I consider a civil right. Civil marriage shouldn’t be a goal or a privilege. It should be a right of all citizenry. All this time you state that the status quo should be protected, but for the last 40 plus years marriage has been eroded by access to The Pill, no-fault divorce, and people rejecting the tenants of marriage and just living together. None of this erosion happened because of gays, as they weren’t allowed to participate. It’s an institution that was broken by those already given access to it. Still, the fact that gays and lesbians would want to take part in that institution should attest to it’s endurance, strength and importance to society.
It said that the proposed amendment would still allow states to provide civil unions for same-sex couples. Civil unions are the same as segregation was in our schools. Trying to provide a semblance of the same rights through creation of a wholly separate set of partner benefits is not the same. Those rights can be different in different states, they can be allowed not to mimic all of the benefits and privileges afforded to married couples, and may not be transferable to other states. Full civil marriage rights would assure that all Americans were treated equally and equally protected. Unfortunately, the most discussed wording for the proposed amendment has been designed that even civil unions, referred to by the sentence: “Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.", would be invalidated by the amendment. The language is designed to take away any possibility of gay citizens to have their relationships recognized.
You state that the voice of the people must be heard, but you present a draconian plan to work to stop any state from using their sovereignty to decide this issue, and create true, public discourse of the issue. This amendment would actually trump the checks and balances our society has created to respect both the rights of the individual, and work for the common good, issues that do not always result in the most popular decisions, but have strengthened this nation. You say that the historical meaning of marriage must be preserved, but marriage itself has changed, not only in the last 40 years, but also in the last 200, and the millennia before that. You are trying to stop society in its tracks, making it more difficult to change this issue in the future, as society creates new rules, and finds new ways of thinking. Society, despite what people want, or even sometimes need, progresses.
When you ran in 2000, you stated that you were a uniter, not a divider, but yet you play the same politics of class warfare, intolerance, prejudice and fear that any other candidate does. This is shameful and depressing. One would hope that a politician would rise above such petty tactics as supporting a divisive measure that hurts Americans and drives them to a second class status, trying to sweep them back into the closets, all to pander to a group of voters who support this discrimination.
I am not a one-issue voter. I will weigh many different factors when making my choice this fall, a choice that has been made much more difficult with your announcement today. I cannot, and will not vote for a candidate that so blatantly supports discrimination, whether that discrimination directly affects me or not. This leaves me with one fewer choice than I had yesterday. I’m sure your advisors and your party has said that losing my one vote, or the even the votes of the estimated million or so gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered people who voted for you in 2000 was insignificant to re-asserting yourself to your base voters, those who would support this draconian measure. They told you to try to stop debate in the states before it gets “too far”. I’m sure that the stomping on my rights, and my future was much less important than placating voters who were firmly in your corner already.
I already am a member of a minority that doesn’t share in the same rights and protections that others receive, simply for the gender of whom I love, and that I would wish to have a relationship with him. I have hopes that a president, charged to uphold the constitution, would understand that the Constitution should represent all of the people, not just those that are his voting base, or those that agree with him. Unfortunately, I no longer have that faith in you, and I cannot support you.
When you endorse discrimination, when you decide that people’s loving relationships are invalid, when you deny that all citizens should be able to share the American Dream, America loses.
Sincerely,
Michael Edwards
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-02-24 06:12 pm (UTC)I applaud your well thought-out and written letter.
Thank you for sharing.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-24 07:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-24 06:42 pm (UTC)Would they have considered Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore (i.e. refused a federal order to remove the Ten Commandments display at the state capital)an activist judges?
Dorks.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-24 07:51 pm (UTC)Newsome is making a statement as well, but currently two courts are looking into the legality of the subject. we know it's illegal, but there has been no official word from the state, the courts, or the governor's office telling him to stop, so he continues. When the official demand is made, I'm sure he will stop the marriages, obeying the law.
"Activist Judges" just means, "we don't like what they've ruled."
no subject
Date: 2004-02-24 08:11 pm (UTC)no subject
no subject
Date: 2004-02-24 07:42 pm (UTC)I thank you for your kind words.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-24 08:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 09:47 pm (UTC)Wish me luck on publication.
Bravo!
Date: 2004-02-24 11:31 pm (UTC)Thanks...and congratulatory hugs
no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 03:32 am (UTC)(HUG)
no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 04:21 am (UTC)Um, and off-topic here, what's the command to do LJ cuts (or is it only a paid subscription sort of thing)?
no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 08:30 am (UTC)And I'm not trying to get him out of office since his endorsement of this amendment, I've wanted him out of office for a long time now! ;-) This is just a cause to rally the folk. I guess if all the disenfranchised Republicans vote indy, that'll be OK with me, too. =)
Ooh, and thanks for the help with the LJ code!
no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 09:16 am (UTC)Either way, I can only imagine how hard it is to feel torn between such strong ideals.
Augh, I'm too hungry to talk politics now. I'm going to grab a sandwich.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 09:45 pm (UTC)I want a good, intelligent Libertarian. I want one who could win (Jessie Ventura anyone? OK, maybe not intelligent). I would like someone to break the stranglehold of the current two parties, even if they come from within the party. I hate to say it, but I think I want Joe Lieberman. Nader, is a fool.
The dems are just good at playing the president's weaknesses, and certainly the president and his team don't explain themselves clearly, rationally, and intelligently. It's trouble on both sides.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 05:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 06:41 am (UTC)I agree with others. This should be published.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 09:37 pm (UTC)I knew that much of the party saw me as less than a person, but I was hoping the president might be a little better than that, you know, compassion and all. He's now proven to be with the worst of them.
The problem is, the Democrats pay more in lip service than action for equal rights, and I disagree with them on so much more.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 09:39 pm (UTC)This November is going to be tough.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 08:03 am (UTC)But what I really wanted to say is: I feel so bad for the way you've been betrayed. I'm not particularly conservative on some of the issues that are important to you, and *very* leftist on a lot of them. But you're a good guy and important to me. I believe that your beliefs are very important, even when I don't share them.
I wish the Republican Party could find some of that kind of understanding. The part of me that plays stupid party politics wants to cheer that they're casting away great people like you. But really, I don't win anything from it. And it hurts that you have to go through this.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 09:55 pm (UTC)I'm stopping while I'm ahead here, because I'd eventually have to try to figure out how Wal-Mart brand cola is the communist party or something.
As long as the Republicans stay in the religious right's thrall, I wouldn't expect understanding, or compassion from them. I'm afraid that this could really become nasty - more so than it is now, really soon.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-26 08:51 am (UTC)how can a republican leader be seen as betraying gay men? their really hasn't been alot of subtrefuge on their part, michael ... they hate us. and they haven't made any bones about it that i can see.
they spent the 80's doing everything in their power to prevent AIDS education and research. in a since, it can be said that they hate us so much, they actually tried to kill us off.
i mean, hell, if a gay man can stomach voting for them ... ok ... but to take the stance of feeling hurt or wounded as if we had been betrayed is rather silly.
it is a very well written letter, michael. and the dialogue going on is great. i've been openly gay, out there ... way out there both professionally and with my family and friends, protesting and volunteering, and voting now for 22 years and things have changed so much ... so very much. i think it is hard for those newer to see just how good things are now compared to how they once were. and it has all been slow and gradual.
call it creeping homosexuality.
i hope i haven't offended you, i seldom comment on anything significant because i'm always worried that someone will get offended or pissed off ... i just think that gays need to be realistic about our expectations from the political process and parties. and don't forget ... there hasn't been some great change in leadership in the party that tried to put the nail in all of our coffins during nancy reagan's reign.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-26 06:17 pm (UTC)My politics are from growing up, and in growing up, I've been staunchly small government, stay out of my way, keeping taxes small, and letting American's succeed a small tax. Unfortunately, the endorsement of the amendment was just the last of many disappointments I've had with this guy. Yes, I knew that they didn't support gay issues, and the best I could hope for is that they wouldn't take action. I would hope that he would be compassionate by leaving well enough alone. Someone desperate for votes isn't compassionate.
Yeah, I shouldn't be surprised.
As for the creeping, I understand. Coming from being closeted, I've met kids 20, 18, who have never been in the closet, and they take stuff for granted too. Sure, I won't claim to understand your struggle being out several years before me. It's just our job to inform the next generation of what we have done, what we've worked for, and what's still left to do. It's our "family heritage".
Now, you're free to talk to me about politics, anytime.