Harry Reid’s Form Letter
Dear ______________:
Thank you for contacting me to express your support for a proposed
Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one
woman. I appreciate hearing from you.
Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) introduced the Marriage Protection Amendment (S.J. Res. 1) on January 25, 2005. On May 18, 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported S.J.Res. 1 to the full Senate on a party line vote, 10 - 8. Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist (R-TN), has scheduled
consideration of this legislation for the first week of June.
I personally believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
As a Nevada voter, I supported the Question 2 ballot initiative that
established this principle in Nevada law. As a member of Congress, I
supported the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which defines
marriage for purposes of federal programs as the union of a man and a
woman and which ensures that no state is required to recognize a same-sex
marriage from another state.
Nonetheless, amending the Constitution is a drastic step that is neither
appropriate nor necessary to protect the institution of marriage. The
Constitution has served the nation well for over two hundred years.
Before we tinker with our nation’s most cherished document, we should
allow the people of each state to deal with this issue, as Nevadans
already have.
Finally, I have enclosed my statement from June 5, 2006 on this subject
for you.
Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. For
more information about my work for Nevada, my role in the United States
Senate Leadership, or to subscribe to regular e-mail updates on the issues
that interest you, please visit my Web site at http://reid.senate.gov. I
look forward to hearing from you in the near future.
In Nevada today, gas prices are over $3.00 a gallon. Fill-ups at the tank
cause emptiness at the bank. This Administration, the most
friendly-to-oil Presidency in our history, refuses to buck Big Oil or the
auto manufacturers. Our citizens are literally choking on the lack of
alternative fuel. Few incentives for energy created by the sun, the wind,
or the Earth’s geothermal reserves has this Administration endorsed.
Raging in Iraq is an intractable war. Our soldiers are fighting valiantly,
but we have Abu Ghraib and Haditha-where 24 or more civilians were
allegedly killed by our own-and no policy for winning the peace. However,
Secretary Rumsfeld continues in his job with the full backing of the
President. Not a reprimand, not a suggestion that his Defense Secretary
is at fault.
We have a national debt that President Bush won’t acknowledge, but our
children, their children, and their children’s children will have to
acknowledge the generations of debt created by President Bush’s economic
policies. Federal red ink as far as one can see. America is becoming
continually more dependent on loans from China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and
England.
Our world is changing as we speak as a result of global warming-a
condition our President does not acknowledge, let alone attempt to
reverse.
Today nearly 46 million Americans have absolutely no health insurance.
Millions more of our countrymen have inadequate health insurance. This
Administration has come forward with nothing of substance to address this
national emergency.
Seniors in Nevada and each of the 50 states are struggling to survive.
Some physicians refuse to take Medicare patients. The President’s
Medicare prescription drug plan has been a gift to HMO’s, insurance
companies, and drug companies and a nightmare for seniors.
Education for many of our graduating high school seniors has become a goal
too far. Student loans and Pell grants are not a priority of the Bush
Administration. The ability to obtain a college education is becoming more
and more based on how much money your parents have instead of how much
academic potential our youth have.
Crime remains a national worry, but money from the federal government to
our states for crime fighting and crime prevention is being drastically
cut. Successful anti-crime programs such as the COPS program are being
eliminated by President Bush, much to the consternation of police officers
across America.
A trade policy that is continually eroding America’s favorable balance of
payments seems to be the watchword of the Bush Administration. This trade
policy causes America to be less and less globally competitive.
The scientific community cries for help. They believe dread diseases such
as Alzheimer’s, Lou Gehrig’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes could be moderated
and prevented, but President Bush emphatically says NO to allowing
scientists to study and research the healing powers of stem cells. He
refuses to keep hope alive for the suffering people of our great country.
In spite of the many serious problems we have just discussed, what is the
United States Senate going to debate this week?
A new energy policy? NO.
Will we debate the raging war in Iraq? NO.
Will we address our staggering national debt? NO.
Will we address the seriousness of global warming - NO
Will we address the aging of America? NO.
Will we address America’s education dilemma? NO.
Will we address rising crime statistics? NO.
Will we debate our county’s trade imbalance? NO.
Will we debate Stem Cell Research? NO.
But what we will spend most of the week on is a constitutional amendment
that will fail by a large margin, a constitutional amendment on Same Sex
Marriage-an effort that failed to pick up a simple majority, when we
recently voted on it. Remember, an Amendment to our Constitution requires
67 votes.
I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. I believe in our
federal system of government, described to me in college as a central
whole divided among self governing parts. Those self governing parts-the
50 states-have already decided this on their own in state after state.
For example, in Nevada the constitution was amended to prevent same sex
marriage. Congress and President Clinton passed a law that gave the
states the guarantee that their individual laws regarding marriage would
be respected. The Defense of Marriage Act creates an exception to the
Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution so that no state can
force its laws of marriage on another.
So why are we being directed by the President and this Republican majority
to debate an Amendment to the Constitution, a document inspired more than
two centuries ago? Why would we be asked to change this American
masterpiece?
Will it next be to constitutionally dictate the cause of divorce, or
military service, or even what America’s religion must be?
So for me it is clear the reason for this debate is to divide our society,
to pit one against another. This is another one of the President’s
efforts to frighten, to distort, to distract, and to confuse America. It
is this Administration’s way of avoiding the tough, real problems that
American citizens are confronted with each and every day:
High Gas Prices.
The War in Iraq.
The National Debt.
Health Care.
Senior Citizens.
Education.
Crime.
Trade Policy.
Stem Cell Research.
Each issue begging the President’s attention, each issue being
ignored-valuable time in the Senate spent on an issue that today is
without hope of passing.
These issues are not Democratic issues. These issues are not Republican
issues. There must be bipartisan efforts to address America’s ills.
I will vote no on the Motion to Proceed, as it is not a measure meant to
bring America together. Rather, it is an effort to cover and conceal the
issues necessary to make America more competitive, caring, considerate and
stronger.
Together, America Can Do Better.
(Somewhat) Similar Posts:
Interesting open letter written by Karl Rove to Barack Obama: here....It doesn't get any more generic, and less thoughtful than this email I received from Patty Murray: Thank you for contacting my office. Your thoughtful comments...The uses of dihydrogen monoxide are varied and growing: 1. As an industrial solvent and coolant; 2. In nuclear power plants; ...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...
June 25th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
You know, for a guy I don’t really care for, Senator Reid has some d*** good points here.
June 26th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
I think that you obviously missed the point of what Senator Reid was saying in his letter. First of all he is saying that in reality the family is not that important, which when looking at different civilizations it is the very foundation of society. Second, he is trying to distract his constituents from the fact that he did not vote the way the constituents wanted him to vote. He is trying to underplay the importance of this amendment and inflate the importance of these other issues so he can cover himself and look like there are more important things he is doing with his time than doing what the people want him to. He is trying to play to the democratic party and by doing so not being a representative of his constituents. Third, he brings up the fact the consitution has not been amended for a long time that does not mean that it should not be amended now. The constitution was set up in such a way to be amended. Times have changed and the drafters of the constitution knew this would happen and made it so we could amend the constitution. I feel that if you read this form letter again you will find many more red herrings in his argument that are used to distract us from what he is really doing. He is skirting the issue so he can serve the democratic party and the morals he claims to have. He is demeaning the intelligence of his constituents by sending this letter to them and not addressing the real issue. The only reason why this amendment is “without hope of passing” is because Senators like Harry Reid are not representing the people. It is obvious through this form letter Harry Reid cares more about the democratic party and his personal pursuits than the people he represents.
June 26th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Harry Reid made a total of 2 points in this letter, 1) There are more important issues than properly defining marriage by law, and 2) the issue of marriage should be left up to the states –Â which one of them was good?
Point #1 - Mssr. Reid lists gas prices, the Iraq war, the national debt, global warming, health care, education, crime, trade policy, & stem cell research as issues more deserving of our attention. I seriously question the gravity of gas prices, the national debt, and trade policy. The others are indisputedly important, but only debateably more important. If you agree with the well-founded idea, as suggested by Elena above, that the family is the fundamental unit of society–any society– then it would be hard to make an argument that defending its sanctity would be an inferior issue to any other. If you disagree with that premise, I would like to hear your argument as to why. To make the argument that we shouldn’t debate an important issue because other important issues exist is circular and unproductive.
Considering Senator Reid’s harsh criticism of the US Senate debate docket, surely a man holding his position (Senate Minority Leader) would be actively engaged in ensuring the important issues are continuously being debated on the Senate floor. Here is a summary of some of the bills Mr. Reid has sponsored in recent history (from the Library of Congress Senate history):
*S.AMDT.2932 to S.2349 To provide additional transparency in the legislative process.
*S.AMDT.2752 to S.662 To modify qualifications and terms of Governors of the United States Postal Service.
*S.AMDT.2178 to H.R.3058 To provide for the conveyance of certain public land in Clark County, Nevada, for use as a heliport.
*S.AMDT.1747 to H.R.2744 To provide for minimum prices for milk handlers.
*S.AMDT.562 to H.R.1268 To modify the provision relating to the water lease and purchase program for the Walker River Paiute Tribe.
*S.1273 : A bill to provide for the sale and adoption of excess wild free-roaming horses and burros.
*S.RES.402 : A resolution designating the first day of April, 2006, as “National Asbestos Awareness Day”.
…and more, but very few, if any, addressed any of the issues that Harry Reid says are more important than properly defining marriage. Why does he feel we have time to debate these other issues, but not an important issue like marriage and the family? For this reason I think this “point” is just a ruse, and an effort to distract voters and artificially call them onto his side of the issue.
Point #2 - It is interesting how Harry Reid’s appeal for states’ rights itself wreaks so strongly of federalism. When did it become the federal government’s responsibility to manipulate oil prices, or provide health care, or even education for that matter? When did they enter t