arachne (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} aracknee) wrote,@ 2004-06-22 08:50:00 |
|
The Contitutional Vote on same-sex marriage is looming
This is the letter I sent to Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein this morning:
"I am a bisexual woman in a relationship with a lesbian. Just over a year ago, we stood before our families and friends and vowed our commitment to each other. The ceremony was held at a local venue that hosts five or six weddings each week in peak season. I wore a wedding dress and Lisa wore a fancy suit. We had a 3-tier wedding cake and danced a waltz for our first dance. My father danced with each of us, and our friends stood up and tosted us, after most of them wiped tears throughout the ceremony. The only thing that was different from the other five weddings that were held there that weekend was our ceremony wasn't sealed by a legal document that granted us any rights toward each other.
We have spent a good deal of money working with lawyers to create documents that will roughly mimic the financial rights and responsibilities of a straight married couple, but there are some areas that we cannot control with documents and contracts. I'm very excited that as of January, 2005, we, as California residents and registered Domestic Partners, will be granted such expanded rights and responsibilites in this state. But what happens if we move out of California? What happens if one of us is injured while travelling in another state, and our relationship to each other is not recognized as valid? I can only hope that residents of other states in this country will start to understand that civil unions or marriage rights for same-sex couples is not any threat to the religious institution of marriage, and that recognition and protection for same-sex will start to expand across this country.
The proposed Constitutional Amendment will put a stop to my fragile hopes for recognition of equality in the United States. To use the Constitution to discriminate against any group of people is shameful. It is neither compassionate nor conservative. It is a radical position that would insert discrimination into the document that has guaranteed and expanded liberty and equality for over 200 years.
The U.S. Constitution should not be amended to limit the rights of a group of people. Further, the power to regulate marriage and the granting of civil marriage licenses is a power that has historically been reserved to the states. A constitutional amendment to prohibit governmental recognition of same-sex relationships would take this power away from states.
The amendment would do much more than define marriage. Leading legal scholars agree that the amendment could forever invalidate civil unions or other legal protections for same-sex couples -- such as the right to visit a partner in the hospital or to receive partner health benefits -- even if state legislatures passed them and voters approved them.
The rights and responsibilities of marriage, other forms of relationship recognition like domestic partnerships and civil unions, and basic civil rights protections are essential components that make all families, including families headed by same-sex couples, safer and more secure. Marriage licenses, which are granted by the state, and religious marriage, are two separate things. Religious institutions will never be forced to bless relationships with which they disagree, just as today religious institutions can refuse to marry couples of different faiths or individuals who have been divorced.
Please oppose any attempt to build discrimination into the very document that should protect everyone and please oppose any other legislation designed to prohibit civil, secular recognition of same-sex relationships. I look forward to hearing from you on this extremely important issue."
Please take a moment to send a letter to your senators. HRC has made it easy.
This is the letter I sent to Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein this morning:
"I am a bisexual woman in a relationship with a lesbian. Just over a year ago, we stood before our families and friends and vowed our commitment to each other. The ceremony was held at a local venue that hosts five or six weddings each week in peak season. I wore a wedding dress and Lisa wore a fancy suit. We had a 3-tier wedding cake and danced a waltz for our first dance. My father danced with each of us, and our friends stood up and tosted us, after most of them wiped tears throughout the ceremony. The only thing that was different from the other five weddings that were held there that weekend was our ceremony wasn't sealed by a legal document that granted us any rights toward each other.
We have spent a good deal of money working with lawyers to create documents that will roughly mimic the financial rights and responsibilities of a straight married couple, but there are some areas that we cannot control with documents and contracts. I'm very excited that as of January, 2005, we, as California residents and registered Domestic Partners, will be granted such expanded rights and responsibilites in this state. But what happens if we move out of California? What happens if one of us is injured while travelling in another state, and our relationship to each other is not recognized as valid? I can only hope that residents of other states in this country will start to understand that civil unions or marriage rights for same-sex couples is not any threat to the religious institution of marriage, and that recognition and protection for same-sex will start to expand across this country.
The proposed Constitutional Amendment will put a stop to my fragile hopes for recognition of equality in the United States. To use the Constitution to discriminate against any group of people is shameful. It is neither compassionate nor conservative. It is a radical position that would insert discrimination into the document that has guaranteed and expanded liberty and equality for over 200 years.
The U.S. Constitution should not be amended to limit the rights of a group of people. Further, the power to regulate marriage and the granting of civil marriage licenses is a power that has historically been reserved to the states. A constitutional amendment to prohibit governmental recognition of same-sex relationships would take this power away from states.
The amendment would do much more than define marriage. Leading legal scholars agree that the amendment could forever invalidate civil unions or other legal protections for same-sex couples -- such as the right to visit a partner in the hospital or to receive partner health benefits -- even if state legislatures passed them and voters approved them.
The rights and responsibilities of marriage, other forms of relationship recognition like domestic partnerships and civil unions, and basic civil rights protections are essential components that make all families, including families headed by same-sex couples, safer and more secure. Marriage licenses, which are granted by the state, and religious marriage, are two separate things. Religious institutions will never be forced to bless relationships with which they disagree, just as today religious institutions can refuse to marry couples of different faiths or individuals who have been divorced.
Please oppose any attempt to build discrimination into the very document that should protect everyone and please oppose any other legislation designed to prohibit civil, secular recognition of same-sex relationships. I look forward to hearing from you on this extremely important issue."
Please take a moment to send a letter to your senators. HRC has made it easy.
