Thank you for your service in representing the people of Maryland. I love this state where I was born almost 36 years ago and it is endowed with a rich measure of natural beauty and cultural heritage.
I have never written to Congress before; I normally participate in government from the polling booth. But I may not have the opportunity to participate in a question of vital importance to me without your permission. On June 6, 2006 you will have the priviledge to represent this state regarding a proposed amendment defining marriage in the U.S. constitution.
All I ask from you is to give the people the voice in this matter. Allow this amendment to be submitted for ratification. You are part of a select group of people who have been given much power over the lives of millions. Please remember us when you stand up to be counted.
posted
Are you asking that he vote for the amendment? If so, consider that we live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy. We're supposed to be able to protect the rights of every citizen, including those in the minority. It's perfectly reasonable for a legislator to vote against a constitutional amendment, rather than accepting it just so it can be put to a popular vote, if he or she feels that this amendment could be used by the majority to repress the minority.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I'm asking him and her to vote for.
I don't understand what you meant by that. If it's just a reference to the fact that I used the word "he" in my first sentence to describe a senator that happens to be female, have a look at definition #2. I did use the politically correct pronoun in my last sentence, but I'm not going to correct it in its first instance because it's unnecessary.
If you meant something else by your last post, let me know.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you asking due to the significance of the date? Or are do you support the legality of civil marriage to same-sex couples? I can't remember what your previous opinion on it was.
Initially, of couse, I thought this was going to be about the remake of "The Omen".
posted
The ongoing inequality of women is the main reason I feel this amendment is necesary. Hide behind your style manual if you like.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was mainly looking at how to write a letter about this to two democrat senators. I know a lot of people feel like their opinion won't matter.
I guess the only other thing I want to add is that the sin of Sodom was pride, and not the really fantastic parties. The fantastic parties were just a symptom.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
On that note lets vote to see if Jews and Christians can have a civil ceremony. While we are at it lets put it to the educated masses whether or not Blacks and Whites should get married.
Matters of civil rights should NOT be voted on by the general public. Whether you are for or against gay marriage, the matter should be up to the court system to decide.
The ONLY reason the republicans are fighting so hard to put this on the ballot is because they know beyond any doubt that it will lose to the general public. Every ultra conservative will climb out from between the rocks and vote that day, while the moderates (who are the vast majority) won't care enough to show up at the polls.
As a Maryland resident I thank you for reminding me that day is approaching. I will have to draft my own letter to my representative.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: The ongoing inequality of women is the main reason I feel this amendment is necesary. Hide behind your style manual if you like.
How would my partner and me being able to marry contribute to the "ongoing inequality of women"? You're not making any sense.
The idea of enshrining discrimination against a segment of the population in a Constitutional amendment is horribly frightening. It opens a door that you'll come to regret opening.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder, if this gets voted down, if Southern Baptists are going to spaz about the date...
Let gays have civil unions. They're not edging in on YOUR RELIGIOUSLY-SANCTIONED MARRIAGE. It doesn't make your marriage any lower or less meaningful in the eyes of God. If churches want to let gays marry, they should be able to, and if they don't, then gays should have the option of civil union. I mean, for crying out loud, if the Catholic church doesn't think that Catholics should remarry, should the government pass an amendment voiding remarriage?
posted
Well, the letter seems rather unclear... it's difficult to even determine what it is you want without reading it several times, and it's not until halfway through that you start to explain why you're writing. However, if what you're asking for is a chance to vote for legal discrimination against gays, well... please keep it as is.
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the letter sounds good. I'm sure they will be getting a lot of nutty letters...so they will apreciate one that doesn't sound over the top. I wrote my senators once...and got letters back from both of them...though one of them was rather pissy. They can get touchy when you ask them to vote in a way that they don't want to vote (unless of course you are a lobbyist that is willing to bribe them).
Personally, even though I am a conservative Christian...I would vote agaist the amendment. I just don't think that it is a constitutional issue. I would support an anti abortion ammendment, because that (in my view) would protect the unborn babies, but I really don't see why gay marriage would harm anyone. That being said, I wouldn't want my church to support gay marriage anymore than I would want my church to come out in favor of premarital sex, but I just don't think it is something the government should be involved with.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm baffled as to why Congress would need to give "the people" a voice in this matter. Isn't there already a provision that enables "the people" to bypass the legislature for an amendment, provided they muster overwhelming support? Most states -- and the federal government -- admit this possibility.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm baffled as to why Congress would need to give "the people" a voice in this matter. Isn't there already a provision that enables "the people" to bypass the legislature for an amendment, provided they muster overwhelming support? Most states -- and the federal government -- admit this possibility.
That would involve some sort massive organized movement, something we are just not capable of any more.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm baffled as to why Congress would need to give "the people" a voice in this matter. Isn't there already a provision that enables "the people" to bypass the legislature for an amendment, provided they muster overwhelming support? Most states -- and the federal government -- admit this possibility.
There is no way to amend the federal constitution without going through legislatures. Congress can be bypassed, but not the state legislatures.
Edit: the second sentence was worded incorrectly. Either Congress can bypass the state legislatures (by sending the proposed amendment to special conventions in each state) of the state legislatures can bypass the Congress (by calling for a special national convention, which will then send the bill to either the state legislatures or a special convention).
quote:How would my partner and me being able to marry contribute to the "ongoing inequality of women"? You're not making any sense.
quote:Gays who marry are responsible for the dirty old men discriminating against women?
Both of you (understandably) misread what "amendment" referred to in pooka's second to last post. She was talking about the correction from "he" to "him and her" - that is, her amendment to the wording in Baron Samedi's question.
Note the timing on pooka's and Bokonon's post and the clear reference to the style manual.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
There are proposed constitutional amendments in my state on a regular basis. Thousands of petitions are signed, and then the state has to vote on them.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka is almost certainly referring to a federal amendment, everyone. Specifically this one.
She has two Senators she's writing, one a man and one a woman, which matches up with Md.'s senators: Barbara A. Mikulski, D (to Jan. 2005) and Paul S. Sarbanes.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
She has two Senators she's writing, one a man and one a woman, which matches up with Md.'s senators: Barbara A. Mikulski, D (to Jan. 2005) and Paul S. Sarbanes.
Its a shame I hate those two with so much passion. But sadly on this issue I'm glad they have the Senate seats rather then their conservative counterparts.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with convening a special national convention is that the delegates can then pass any and all of the Amendment(s) that they choose, up to and including dissolution of the three branches of the Federal government.
posted
The other day, I got a hysterical push poll from a Republican candidate for the House here in Wisconsin. One of the questions was:
"Would it significantly affect your voting decisions if you knew that Tammy Baldwin (our current Rep.) had twice voted against America last year?"
I found that hysterical. And said yeah, sure, it probably would, but I'd really like to know what bill that was supposed to be. Was it a straight up and down vote? "America: Yes or No?" And if the nays had won, would they all have gone home?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Maybe it was the band.
Probably. I understand that Tammy Baldwin also dislikes Kansas. She thinks that Bringing it Back isn't a bad song, but other than that she hates 'em.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The other day, I got a hysterical push poll from a Republican candidate for the House here in Wisconsin. One of the questions was:
"Would it significantly affect your voting decisions if you knew that Tammy Baldwin (our current Rep.) had twice voted against America last year?"
When I was 16, it was the occasional questions like that in polls that I conducted that strongly influenced me to quit that job.
And people wonder why I never accept a poll to prove a point in a debate...
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is kind of ironic that this is even up for debate in Maryland considering that's where the Toleration Act of 1849 was conceived.
Posts: 484 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem with convening a special national convention is that the delegates can then pass any and all of the Amendment(s) that they choose, up to and including dissolution of the three branches of the Federal government.
It still requires ratification by 3/4 of the states legislatures.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I emailed my senators about the Federal Marraige Amendment. One replied, saying she will be voting against it because she believes marraige is part of family law, which the states (not the nation) are supposed to govern. I didn't know about that last part.. Anyway, she's a democrat so make of it what you will. It sounds like a good position for not angering too many people on either side of the issue.
Posts: 1056 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem with convening a special national convention is that the delegates can then pass any and all of the Amendment(s) that they choose, up to and including dissolution of the three branches of the Federal government.
It still requires ratification by 3/4 of the states legislatures.
I thought it just needed ratification by 3/4 of the states. Some states ratify by an open plebecite, no?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes - again I screwed it up. See my correction in my first post on the subject.
To correct the correction, it's only state legislatures or conventions within each state:
quote:in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof
posted
Who are the constituents who asked for this bill to be crafted in the first place? Anyone know the history on this particular bill?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: The ongoing inequality of women is the main reason I feel this amendment is necesary. Hide behind your style manual if you like.
Years ago, you mentioned your belief that homosexual marriage is a threat to women's equality. Several people disagreed -- and I thought you changed your views then. Out of curiousity, did you recently return to this opinion, or did it never waver?
And in either case, I'd be interested in hearing an explanation of how equal rights threaten women. If anything, it liberates them -- homosexuality isn't a solely male trait. What possible danger do you believe homosexual equality could pose to women? Or to anyone, for that matter?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm interested in your answer to Lalo's questions, too. It seems to me that if gay marriage had any effect on equal rights for women it would be positive, not negative.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can someone point to the place where pooka said homosexual marriage threatened women's equality?
And before simply quoting the he or she amendment post, please explain why you think "amendment" referred to the amendment being proposed in Congress, not the change of "he" to "him or her."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
