Consumption Rules

I recently wrote both senators from Washington (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell) encouraging them to support the important debate surrounding legislation adding an additional amendment to the constitution defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. Maria Cantwell responded with a form letter:

Dear Brad,

Thank you for contacting me regarding a possible amendment to the Constitution that would define marriage as a union of a man and a woman. As you are aware, President Bush endorsed such an amendment. I oppose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage because I believe it is wrong to amend our Constitution to limit the rights of any Americans. Further, I believe that marriage laws should continue to be decided at the state level.

The framers intentionally imbued the Constitution with the strength to survive centuries, but also the flexibility to be changed by the will of the people. Yet it is rare that we take the extraordinary step of altering the blueprint of our democracy. In the more than two centuries since the Bill of Rights was ratified, we have amended the Constitution just seventeen times. Accordingly, I take any proposed amendment to the Constitution very seriously, and I believe that we should reserve this option for exceptional circumstances.

Since the beginning of the 20th century, we have revised the Constitution only twelve times. Most of those amendments expanded one of our most fundamental and cherished rights: the right to vote. In 1920, we enfranchised women; in 1961, we expanded the Electoral College to include the District of Columbia; in 1964, we abolished the poll tax, a vestige of a nation divided by race; and in 1971, we gave U.S. citizens age 18 and over the right to vote. Other amendments of the last hundred years modified the structure of our representative government, providing for the popular election of Senators, limiting the President to two terms, and providing a course of action should the President become disabled while in office.

In modern times, with few exceptions, we have taken the remarkable step of changing the Constitution to expand the right to participate in our democratic system and to make structural changes to our system of representative government. It would be unprecedented to use this mechanism to restrict the rights of any Americans.

Furthermore, as a general matter, I agree with Vice President Richard Cheney’s statement that “the fact of the matter is that [marriage] is regulated by the states.” I am committed to supporting legislation that protects the rights of all Americans regardless of sexual orientation, race, religion, gender, national origin, age or disability.

Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. As always, I welcome your views on all issues, and I appreciate the opportunity to have a direct dialogue with you. To that end, you may be interested in signing up for my weekly update for Washington state residents. Every Monday, I provide a brief outline about my work in the Senate and issues of importance to Washington state. If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator

For future correspondence with my office, please visit my website at
http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/index.html

Frustrated with her response, I wrote her back the following:

Senator Cantwell,

Thank you for your response, and I appreciate the open dialogue on an issue as important as a proposed constitutional amendment. If nothing else, I am glad it has been brought to the forefront of discussion through such a bold proposal.

While I respect your opinion, I feel it misses the point. The point of a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman does not seek to limit the rights of Americans, only to uphold the sanctity of the fundamental unit of society – the family. The family environment is the ideal training ground for good citizens; where mother and father love and respect each other and teach their children. Each fills a vital role that can never be wholly substituted by any other person or organization. Only in such a tight-knit community of love can you correct people and help them to develop characteristics that are valuable life skills and vital qualities for all members of society – values that most of society now lacks because of the breakdown of the family.

We spend so many resources curing the symptoms, but not the root of the problem. I recently read that the federal government is going to implement ethics training for our military personnel. Had these servicemen been raised in effective families, they would have all been provided built-in ethics training throughout their lives. The same is true with many ills of our current society – many of them come as a result of not having good familial backgrounds. It’s time the leaders of our country start to see that.

It worries me that so many like you are afraid to take the bold initiative to stand up for what’s right, and provide real solutions to problems. Instead it seems that most are caught up in the wiles of the new thought police. We’re so worried of offending some people, or worried of providing ‘equality’ to everyone, worried that we’ll be labeled a ‘bigot’ or some other empty epithet that does nothing to address the issue, only to incite pity support for the cause. Of course we all should respect all Americans, and provide an equal playing field for everyone, but with the limitations necessary to support what is best for society as a whole. If it were not such an important issue, affecting all aspects of our national interests, then perhaps it would be appropriate to leave it up to each individual state, but given the importance of the family to all of America it is requisite that we amend our national constitution to protect it.

Defining marriage as being between one man and one woman is a step in the direction of strengthening families, and therefore strengthening our nation. Careful thought and consideration is, of course, needed to understand why that is so, and why it has nothing to do with bigotry or limiting peoples’ rights. Please stop catering to the wants of the few and capitulating the sanctity of the fundamental building block of society. Strong foresight and leadership, along with the willingness to stand up for what is truly right in the face of adversity, is the only way to correct our massive societal failures. You are in a position to provide that leadership, if you have the courage.

Thank you for your response, and I appreciate your consideration of my reply.

Of course she responded with the same form letter she had previously sent me - probably typed up by an intern that she authorizes her secretary to email out to anyone who mentions the marriage amendment.

Notes:

 

(UPDATE: Senator Murray responded to my email this morning with her own form letter.   I disagree with her that  limiting marriage between one man and one woman takes away the rights of others, and that it is an internal ‘divide and conquer’ struggle.  The text follows:)

 

Thank you for contacting me regarding S.J. Res. 1, the Marriage Protection Amendment.  I am glad to know your views on this matter.

The Marriage Protection Amendment would have amended the Constitution to recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  In addition, it would have prohibited the Constitution or any State constitution from granting marital status or its legal benefits to unions not composed of one man and one woman.  I recently voted against a procedural motion on the Marriage Protection Amendment.  The Amendment did not garner the required two thirds of the Senate to put forth a constitutional amendment.

I am opposed to this constitutional amendment that would deny same-sex couples the rights and protections that other Americans enjoy, and I am deeply concerned by efforts to use the Constitution to take away the rights of individuals.  Amending the Constitution is a serious step–one we have taken just 27 times in the 215 years since the Constitution was ratified and 17 times since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791.  With the exception of prohibition, which was repealed 14 years later, the Bill of Rights has never been amended to restrict our rights.

America is a strong nation, and our diversity only makes us stronger.  But if we are to remain so, we cannot afford to waste time or energy dividing and conquering each other.  Our nation will be best off when we appreciate each other’s differences and treat all Americans with respect and dignity.

Again, thank you for contacting me.  Please do not hesitate to call on me in the future if I can be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Patty Murray
United States Senator

 

Share This

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 7th, 2006 and is filed under . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

(Somewhat) Similar Posts: