Warner’s Response

I got a snail mail response from Senator Warner’s office to the letter I sent back in November (see this post). Nearly two months to get a response. Good thing it wasn’t something that required an immediate response.

I’m not going to type in his whole letter, but the gist of it is that he (or whoever on his staff responded) didn’t truly read my letter. This was made clear by this paragraph: “Please be assured that despite my concerns about the clarity of the second sentence of S.J. Res. 40, I understand the importance of ensuring that marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. I will continue to work in the United States Senate to support traditional marriage.”

Ok, so I sent him a letter telling him why his position is wrong and he responded by telling me to rest assured that he will continue to work toward this wrong position. This is representation? I don’t expect my elected officials to agree with me on everything but I do expect them to respond with something that leads me to believe they are paying attention to what I say. At least Allen’s response, while disappointing, showed that my letter was read.

So, guess he needs another nudge to make him realize that I don’t agree with him.

Dear Mr. Warner,

Thank you for your letter, dated December 22, 2004 in response to my email regarding the Federal Marriage Amendment. Unfortunately, it does not appear that you read my letter before responding because the tone of your letter indicates that you think I agree with your position.

To be blunt, the FMA is evil.

You and your colleagues that support this amendment are frequently heard using phrases like “activist judges” and never address the real issue of civil rights and discrimination. To quote Spain’s Deputy Prime Minister Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega, “The right to marry is a right for everyone, without distinction. It cannot be understood as a privilege.”

In your letter you say, “I understand the importance of ensuring that marriage in the United States shall consist of only the union of a man and a woman.” Why? How does any same-sex marriage diminish, demean or lessen any heterosexual marriage? It is clear how the lack of same-sex marriage does hurt same-sex couples. From inheritance to providing for the safety and security of children to taxes, same-sex couples are discriminated against by the Federal government. There is no reason to deny these benefits other than the desire to discriminate against gay and lesbian Americans.

The courts have acted where legislatures have failed to do the right thing. Look at the history of our own state with regard to interracial marriage and you’ll see a clear parallel.

Please reconsider your position. I would be happy to meet with you to explain in more detail why supporting same-sex marriage is the right thing to do.

Sincerely,
Linda Thomas