I don’t know what to make of this. Yes, I used one of the Protect Marriage forms, but I changed the words around so that it was actually the opposite of what the original form letter said. Basically I was making a mockery of it.
Which leads me to the following thoughts on Rep. Jackie Speier.
1) Yay for not supporting it
2) Boo for not reading
This is what I sent:
I am very DELIGHTED that the Democratic Party has endorsed homosexual marriage. I urge you NOT to co-sponsor H.J. RES. 89, the Marriage Protection Amendment of 2008, which would make marriage legal only between a man and a woman. This is like banning marriage between people of different races.
Obviously, the capitalized words are the changes and I also added the last sentence.
Here’s the response.
Thank you for contacting me to express your support for House Joint Resolution 89 (H.J. Res 89), the Marriage Protection Amendment. H.J. Res. 89 was introduced by Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) and seeks to amend the Constitution of the United States by inserting language declaring that marriage “shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.” This legislation was referred to the House Judiciary Committee on May 22, 2008 and is awaiting further action in committee.
While I understand and respect any person’s religious or moral beliefs about the institution of marriage, I strongly oppose H.J. Res. 89 and any measure designed to prevent Americans with a different sexual orientation from marrying. In 221 years, the U.S. Constitution has been amended only 27 times. Notable amendments include the thirteenth amendment which abolished slavery, the fourteenth amendment which provided for equal protection under the law, and the nineteenth amendment which gave women the right to vote. The Constitution has never been amended to deny a group of citizens the rights enjoyed by others.
For many years it was illegal for persons of different races to marry. However, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down this prohibition and opened the door to adults of all races to freely marry. Societal beliefs about interracial marriage changed significantly over the intervening years, but today most Americans agree that skin color and ethnicity should not hinder the right of an adult to marry whomever they choose.
Many marriages begin with a religious ceremony, while others begin at the county courthouse. Both have the same status in our law: They are contracts. We do not place limits on the ability of adults to contract for a home based upon their sexual orientation, and I don’t believe that we should treat marriage any differently.
Not everyone has to agree with every marriage. I frankly don’t like marriages entered into in haste, such as those that happen when a couple who barely knows each other flies to Las Vegas on the spur of the moment and gets married, and we all regret marriages that start with abusive relationships. However, in my judgment, the law must treat all adult Americans equally and, so long as both adults are competent to freely enter into a contract, I believe that all adults should be able to freely marry