After sending a disapproving generic email to Sen. Mikulski this past spring about the Federal Marraige Amendment, I recieved the following generic response from her office:Dear Mr. Brennan:
Thank you for getting in touch with me about the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 1. It's good to hear from you.
This legislation would amend the Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman only. Our Constitution provides fundamental rights for all citizens, so I take amending the Constitution very seriously.
I oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment. It is unneeded and unnecessary. There already is a federal law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. I voted for this law. Maryland has a similar law.
Congress' priority should be making families safer and stronger. That means working to create jobs, improving access to health care, reducing the cost of energy, and helping families with the cost of college.
Again, thanks for getting in touch with me. If there is any way I can be of assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senator
How annoying right!?! And, did she just say that she already voted for a law that defines marraige as between a man and woman? Um, wtf?
So I respond:
Senator Mikulski,
I appreciate your staff returning my email. I am glad to hear you oppose the federal marriage amendment, but I find your response contradictory when you stated:
"I oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment. It is unneeded and unnecessary. There already is a federal law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. I voted for this law. Maryland has a similar law."
Does this statement mean you oppose banning rights on a federal level, but condone banning rights on a state level? Or, you believe there is already a federal law that defines marriage between a man and a woman and you believe that is enough to block the rights of homosexuals?
Gay "Marriage" isn't about the church. It shouldn't have been called "marriage" in the first place. Church and state in our country need more separation. By denying the UNION of two souls, our country is denying homosexuals the rights that heterosexual couples take for granted (i.e. adoption, love, acceptance into American society, legal ramifications). Laws such as this give bigots a grounds for continued hate and hostility.
Again, I appreciate your opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment Act and I hope you will change your vote in the state regarding "marriage." If you truly believe in fundamental rights, I hope you will advocate and vote towards a more equal state and country for all United States Citizens.
Most Sincerely,
Patrick J. Brennan
Not bad, I should definitly get a validating response, right? Wrong:
Dear Mr. Brennan:
Thank you for getting in touch with me again about the Federal Marriage Amendment.
You have obviously given this a great deal of time and thought - - I've learned from hearing your views. I want to be responsive to the needs of all Marylanders when I make decisions. Information from people like you is essential if I'm to reach that goal.
Again, thanks for keeping in touch with me. Please let me know if I may be of assistance in the future.
Sincerely,
Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senator
How dreadfully disappointing and patronizing is that? "Obviously I've given this a great deal of time and thought..." How arrogant. To which I responded, "You didn't answer my questions in the previous email," and haven't heard back from them since.
No comments:
Post a Comment