Tuesday, June 13, 2006

I enjoy writing snarky letters to right-wing politicians - Part Deux

So, if you slide back a couple posts, you'll see the letter I sent to Missouri's Senators (Talent & Bond) about their votes on the FMA. Today, I got a letter back from Talent:

"Dear Ms. A****:

"Thank you for contacting me regarding your opposition tothe Federal Marriage Amendment. I appreciate the time you havetaken to share your views with me, and I welcome the opportunityto respond.

"This issue is upon us because the Massachusetts SupremeCourt decided, with no input from the citizens of Massachusetts,that same sex marriages should be permitted. Because of the wayour federal system works, it is likely that other courts will forcepeople in other states to recognize same-sex marriages contractedin Massachusetts, and the federal courts may force it upon thepeople in a national case.

"Marriage is our oldest social institution. It is older than ourformal religions and our systems of property and justice, and itcertainly predates the Constitution and the existence of the UnitedStates. And marriage may be the most important of all theseinstitutions because it represents the accumulated wisdom ofliterally hundreds of generations over thousands of years abouthow best to lay the foundation of a home in which we can raise andsocialize our children. This does not mean that every child is orcan be raised as the product of a traditional marriage. It just meansthat, for reasons which we cannot fully explain but which havebeen overwhelmingly validated by social science, the idea ofmarriage is tremendously important to the fabric of civil society.

"In other words, marriage is what it is because our societyhas collectively judged over centuries that marriage as so definedis the best way to perpetuate and perfect the mores of goodindividual and social life. And according to the traditionaldefinition, everyone has the right to get married but not to anybodyhe or she may choose; you can't marry a sibling, for example, or aperson who is already married-and this is true regardless of theperceived justice or injustice of such restrictions in particularcases. The same has always held true for same-sex marriage, andwe don't have anywhere near enough experience with same-sexcouples to say that we should discard this restriction. To the extentwe have experience with same sex marriage, the results have beendisquieting. In the Scandinavian countries which have permittedsame sex marriage, marriage of all kinds has systematicallydeclined. The more malleable the definition of marriage becomes,the less respect people have for it, and the less important it is aspart of family life.

"But apart from all this is the question of whether courtsshould be deciding these issues. The first and most basic politicalright is the right to self government. This means, among otherthings, that courts have no authority to issue and enforce decreesupon the people of this country unless they act on the basis ofsome law which was enacted with popular consent. Of course, acourt decision actually based upon the Constitution would have abasis in the consent of the people. But on what intellectuallyhonest basis can it be said that the constitution of Massachusettsrequires the people of that state to change their marriage law insuch a radical way?

"The only way to justify such a decision is on the theory thatthe people intended to vest in judges the right to govern bydecree-to rule as they see fit, regardless of what the Constitutionand statutes actually say, were intended to say, or have alwaysbeen understood as saying. The question is not whether judgesshould be strict or liberal constructionists, but whether the judicialfunction is still one of construction at all, or whether judges shouldbe allowed to make the law up as they go along. This can not beadmitted without discarding the first principles of representativegovernment.

"I voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment because aConstitutional amendment is the only sure means now remainingfor trying to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. If thecourts complete the process of imposing their views on the people,their decisions will be irreversible through any process other thanConstitutional amendment.

"Again, thank you for contacting me. If I can be of furtherassistance, please don't hesitate to call or write.

"If you would like to contact me via e-mail, please visit
http://talent.senate.gov/Contact/default.cfm

"Sincerely,

"Senator Jim Talent"

To which I replied:

"I appreciate hearing an explanation of your views. You're still an asshole.

"Liz A****"

Yes, I really sent that to my Senator. And, yes, I'm comfortable with that.

Power to the people, bitches! Hooray for the First Amendment! (And, now I'll be done with my radical hooblahblah.)

And, look! Senator Talent was kind enough to give us an easy way to send him our thoughts. Feel free to write rude things to him, as well.

Love for everyone! (Except willfully ignorant, closed-minded assholes/politicians.)