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 08:11 pm (UTC)