Sunday, July 16, 2006

John Cornyn's Demagoguery Refuted

I was in a feisty mood when I got the following "letter" from my Senator —John Cornyn of Texas. First his entire letter followed by my reply to the Senator in which I responded to his specific absurdities in block quotes:
Dear Mr. Hart:

Thank you for contacting me about efforts to uphold traditional marriage. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important matter.

As you may know, in 1996 over three-fourths of Congress passed—and former President Bill Clinton signed—the Defense of Marriage Act (P.L. 104-199). This federal law defines marriage as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

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. As such, 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. During my tenure as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights, I conducted a series of hearings to determine the steps necessary to uphold traditional marriage. As a result, on January 24, 2005, Senator Wayne Allard introduced a joint resolution (S.J. Res. 1) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I am proud to co-sponsor this joint resolution, which would allow the American people to decide on its ratification—rather than permitting traditional marriage laws to be invalidated by judicial fiat. S.J. Res. 1 has been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary for consideration.

You might also be interested to learn that the Texas Legislature passed a constitutional amendment (H.J.R. No. 6), which was added to the statewide ballot last year as Proposition 2. The "Texas Marriage Amendment" defined marriage as being only between one man and one woman, and on November 8, 2005, Texans voted overwhelmingly to pass Proposition 2 by a vote of more than 76 percent.

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

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator
Now my reply:
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. —Sen. Cornyn
I just don't believe that to be the case with regard to the GOP and the right wing in general. The only "judicial activism" I see going on is from the right wing.
You might also be interested to learn that the Texas Legislature passed a constitutional amendment (H.J.R. No. 6), which was added to the statewide ballot last year as Proposition 2. The "Texas Marriage Amendment" defined marriage as being only between one man and one woman, and on November 8, 2005, Texans voted overwhelmingly to pass Proposition 2 by a vote of more than 76 percent. —Sen. Cornyn
A completely unnecessary amendment and one which I oppose. This proposed amendment is repugnant and intrusive, involving government in purely private matters. There is no need for either the Federal Government or the states to get involved with what is primarily a "religious" act. What both levels of government should do is to get out of the "marriage" business entirely —save for the creation of civil unions for the purpose of determining "...who gets what" when a separation occurs.

What right has the "state" to define "marriage" of any sort? Marriage —for thousands of years —has been and continues to be a religious act and ceremony. I deny that any state or government has the power to perform a "marriage" or to require of anyone a "license" to have sex or live together. As a marriage is a religious act, your proposed amendment violates the separation of church and state. Now —if an established religion chooses to recognize a "civil union" as a marriage, that is a right of that church that is protected under the FIRST AMENDMENT —little read of late by the GOP.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...

—First Amendment, U.S. Constitution

Your proposed amendment is incompatible with the First Amendment on its face as it "...respects an establishment of religion". "No law ..." means "No law"! Now I understand that your proposed amendment applies to the state of Texas. But didn't a US Supreme Court, notable for its 5-4 GOP majority, strike down the work of a State court's ruling concerning its own state laws? Was this not completely without precedent? Was this decision not known as Bush v Gore? Was it not cheered by the GOP? What will be the reaction of the GOP when a federal court, likewise, dares to declare your amendment incompatible with existing federal, constitutional law to which the State of Texas is subject? How do Republicans manage to reconcile —within a single brain —two mutually exclusive propositions? Another example, how do Republicans manage to oppose abortion even as they turn a blind eye to the questionable executions on death row?

What ever happened to smaller, less intrusive government? If I had been expecting the GOP to deliver on that empty promise, then I would have been sorely disappointed. However, I have learned over some 60 years, that nothing said by the GOP can be believed.

Regards, but I will be working to defeat the GOP at every possible level and, respectfully, that includes you Senator and your colleague in the Senate.

Meanwhile, George W. Bush has been very credibly quoted by an experienced journalist, based upon several eye witnesses, to having said: "The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper!" Is this true? If it is true, then why has he not been impeached for violating his Oath of Office? He is sworn to uphold and defend that "...Goddamned piece of paper!"

I am increasingly and profoundly offended by this "President", in particular, and by the radical, anti-American nature of the GOP in general. When did Washington stop listening to the people? Was it when the lobbyists for big corporations and defense contractors proceeded to buy the government of the United States of America? Hey! Sen. John! You wanna debate me? How about high noon?






The Existentialist Cowboy
Post a Comment