---
I ask you, does this seem fair? Moreover, this does not even begin to address state and local laws, many of which also have marriage considerations. Grr. This whole flap about Bush stepping back from the Federal Marriage Amendment (which I'm glad he's doing), irks me to no end. I foresaw it from the beginning for what it was--a cheap, political ploy. Here is a copy of my letter to the Republic leadership from last February (note the overly-enthusiastic Republican tenure--I thought it would be more persuasive to the Republican party leadership...:
---
February 19, 2004
To the Republic Leadership:
I am writing to you today to convey my frustration with the Republican Party. As someone who has always identified with the GOP platform, I currently question whether the Party continues to represent my values.
Throughout my college years, I staunchly defended conservative ideals at some of the most liberal schools in the nation (such as the
Despite my concerns, however, I continued to support the Republican Party. I believed that the values the GOP espouses—limited government, states rights, a strong national defense, and fiscal restraint—were still at the heart of the party platform.
Until now.
The Republican National Committee's support of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is an ugly and shameful ploy to appeal to the far-right faction of the Party. Beyond its obviously homophobic roots, it is diametrically opposed to fundamental conservative values—namely limited government and states rights.
President Bush's No Child Left Behind initiative, although an excellent first step at reforming our educational system, is vastly under funded. The economy, while steadily recovering, has not produced the expected number of new jobs. The price for the war on terror has plunged the country into record deficits. I cannot think of a single initiative that is a greater waste of the country's time, financial resources, and attention than the matter of gay marriage.
I understand that President Bush is eager to highlight key differences between himself and his Democratic opponent in the upcoming election. I also appreciate that gay marriage could be a "cultural wedge" issue, garnering media attention and public interest. But I believe the President—indeed, the entire Republican Party—is gravely mistaken about the overall ambivalence of American society on this issue. While there are certainly conservative communities that will embrace a Federal Marriage Amendment, the vast majority of young Republicans will oppose it. Our co-workers are gay, our friends are gay, members of our family are gay—and we realize they deserve the same treatment as every other American.
According to the Washington Post (February 11, 2004), President Bush plans to endorse language introduced by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.) that "would ban gay marriage but not prevent state legislatures from allowing the kind of civil unions and same-sex partnership arrangements that exist in Vermont and California."
I am embarrassed to belong to a Party that would endorse a "separate but equal" status quo. It did not work during segregation—indeed, it has prolonged an already bitter situation in which the Republican Party is portrayed (regardless of accuracy) as a bigoted and sexist Good Ole Boy network.
The article goes on to state that the White House strategy is "designed to minimize alienation of moderate voters". In fact, it has the opposite effect. While I have been frustrated by what I considered shortsighted, discriminatory policies regarding gays in
Until the GOP changes its stance on this issue, I will not just withhold my vote from Republican candidates, but will actively campaign for alternative nominees who realize the value of fundamental human rights such as dignity, freedom, and equal protection under the law.
---
Ugh. It just makes me so disgusted, and yet at the same time please to be living here in Sweden, where gay marriage is accepted (sort of).
