help please - congressman response

Kitiara5512

This is what lord douchington said:

Dear Mr. xxx:

Thank you for contacting me regarding President Barack Obama?s decision to order the Department of Justice (DOJ) to discontinue defending the Defense of Marriage Act (P.L. 104?199). I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important matter.

I strongly oppose President Obama's decision to instruct the DOJ to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. The President has elected to make this ill-informed decision based on political motivation, rather than defending a statute that was passed by Congress, signed into law by previous Administrations, and broadly supported by the American people. I firmly believe that both President Obama and his Administration have an obligation to defend and uphold federal law, regardless of personal ideology, and you may be certain that I will continue to monitor this matter closely.

As you may know, in 1996 Congress overwhelmingly passed?and former President Bill Clinton signed into law?the Defense of Marriage Act. This federal law defines marriage as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife"?I firmly support this position.

Under the laws, traditions, and customs of all fifty states, marriage has historically been defined as the union of a man and a woman. However, judicial rulings?and outright lawlessness by local officials in some states?have threatened traditional marriage and moved this debate onto the national stage. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas provides lower courts with the leverage needed to invalidate traditional marriage laws. And the first major assault on traditional marriage came in Goodridge v. Mass. Dept. of Health, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court?citing the Lawrence decision?overturned that state's traditional marriage law. Since this time, other activist state courts have followed Massachusetts' lead. In light of these judicial trends, constitutional scholars on both sides of the aisle agree that the Defense of Marriage Act and similar state laws are now in peril. I believe that judges should strictly interpret the law and avoid the temptation to legislate from the bench or color their rulings with personal ideology.

#yiv830287387 #yiv830287387 #yiv830287387 #yiv830287387 #yiv830287387 #yiv830287387 #yiv830287387 #yiv830287387 #yiv830287387 #yiv830287387 #yiv830287387 #yiv830287387 #yiv830287387 #yiv830287387 #yiv830287387 #yiv830287387 #yiv830287387 .yiv830287387par_B2C87075EC44A2E185257A2200528125_3 {font-family:sans-serif;color:black;font-size:10pt;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:none;} #yiv830287387 #yiv830287387 #yiv830287387 #yiv830287387 #yiv830287387 #yiv830287387 #yiv830287387 #yiv830287387 #yiv830287387 #yiv830287387 #yiv830287387 #yiv830287387

I appreciate the opportunity to represent Texans in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN

United States Senator

 

My response (please help me improve it)

 

Senator Cornyn, I respectfully disagree. The American people have often voted against the rights of the minority, as has Congress. I am grateful that there is a Supreme Court and judicial oversight to ensure that the voice of the majority does not drown out the rights of the minority. Can you imagine if blacks were still sitting in the back of the bus, drinking from separate water coolers, or prevented from patronizing most establishments? And it was all legal then too, under the Jim Crow laws. Those were overturned barely half a century ago. Marriage is simply a legal contract. It was passing women, as chattel, over to their husbands by their fathers, often in return for a piece of land or cattle. Religion did not enter until the Church grew powerful in the 1200s, at which time both royalty and feudal lords decided that it was another way to ensure that good, Christian women could still be made to do men's bidding, this time risking the ire of the Lord if they refused. It still all had to do with money and riches, and nothing to do with God. Still, that is no longer relevant as I am sure you are aware that a good portion of your constituents are not Christian. Your defense of marriage would make far more sense if you chose to outlaw divorce. The attack on marriage is not coming from those who are fighting for that right, but from those who are choosing to abuse it by marrying and divorcing over and over again. The Defense of Marriage Act is blatantly and completely unconstitutional. Even a child can see that when you take a segment of your population and tell them that they are not worthy of the same constitutional protections because of who they love, and that it flies in the face of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." And I hope that you will never have to look at your progeny and tell them that you voted against their happiness and their right to marry whom they will because your opinion trumps their liberties as two consenting adults. And I am Mrs. xxx, married to a man. I simply have to look at my son every day and wonder if he will grow to be part of that minority whose rights you are so carelessly ignoring.

grr_aargh

Heh. 

Lord Douchington.

 

I really like your letter, particularly your send off.  

LaCally4

I think it sounds great!

hammerb44

Awesome that you are taking the time to write this, however please don't spend too much time...I've worked for and interned for Congressmen and know that for the most part it is the interns who actually read these letters and just send out form letters in response.

gimmietimmies

grr_aargh:

Heh. 

Lord Douchington.

 

I really like your letter, particularly your send off.  

Send it off, what else do you have to loose.

Also, Lord Douchington! He is the Colonel of Asshattery. Him, and that guy that want to make single parents illegal need to be voted off the island. Your response was excellent. I'd cc other politicians though.

Kitiara5512

gimmietimmies:

grr_aargh:

Heh. 

Lord Douchington.

 

I really like your letter, particularly your send off.  

Send it off, what else do you have to loose.

Also, Lord Douchington! He is the Colonel of Asshattery. Him, and that guy that want to make single parents illegal need to be voted off the island. Your response was excellent. I'd cc other politicians though.

Yeah, I'm thinking of looking up their emails. This dude is for my precinct/area or whatever. Everytime I see a support Cornyn ad of any sort, I cringe. And I think of corns. Not the kind you eat, but the kind that make me think of warts on your feet. Yuck.

[Deleted User]

That's great Kit.  This may not mean much, but that makes me proud. 

oceanrunner6

hammerb44:

Awesome that you are taking the time to write this, however please don't spend too much time...I've worked for and interned for Congressmen and know that for the most part it is the interns who actually read these letters and just send out form letters in response.

This.

I can say that at our office at least they would log where constituents stood on issues and keep a running tally, to get a feel for how those in the district felt.

Another piece of advice, not sure which office you're sending your letter to, but sending it to the office in your state will get it read quicker than sending it to DC. They screen all the mail going into DC for anthrax and stuff so it takes forever to get delivered.

Kitiara5512

Thanks for the responses. If I could get Heather R or another politically involved teacher type to double check for grammar that may get me laughed off by an intern, that would be awesome. And I think I will email this to several of the local pols.