browngirl: (Change!)
[personal profile] browngirl
Modified from the one I got here. This is, of course, the first draft.

Dear President Obama,

I am writing to express my disappointment and outrage at the legal brief your administration filed in a California Federal Court defending DOMA, the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act -- a law you promised to repeal when you were running for President. That promise is one of the reasons I voted for you, sir, one of the reasons I decided you would make the best president of the choices before us. You made me believe in a better future for this country, one where all citizens could come closer to being truly free. Please don't renege on that,

I am writing to urge you to immediately stop defending DOMA, to call for its repeal and to instruct the Department of Justice to take any and all actions to support that position, including asking the court to strike the brief. This is the right thing practically -- defending DOMA is not going to win you supporters nearly as substantially as it will lose you supporters. And it's the right thing morally, a step closer to that country of liberty I hoped you could lead us towards becoming.

Please, use your power as President to defend the powerless and raise the oppressed. I demand
that you immediately call for an end to all discrimination against LGBT Americans and demonstrate that you are the "fierce" advocate you claimed you will be.

Sincerely,

[[My full name]

Comments are screened.

Date: 2009-06-13 07:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zanda-myrande.livejournal.com
I reacted the same way you did (and got leapt on by various people saying "give him time it's not easy you know"), and then I read in someone else's journal that apparently the executive branch is required by law to defend legislation that's been passed by Congress if it's challenged, even if it's a law they plan to get rid of. I don't know if that's true or not, but the person who told me has no reason to lie to me about it that I'm aware of. If it is true, then this brief (which goes so completely against everything I've heard Obama say that at first I thought it had to be a hoax) could simply be a gesture to satisfy the letter of the law.

But I know how you feel. Yes, he's walking a tightrope, but the object is surely to move from one end to the other eventually.

Date: 2009-06-13 08:06 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] browngirl.livejournal.com
I unscreened this because it's important information, but I'll rescreen it if you like.

Thank you for letting me know. At least I'll be changing my letter a lot, but I feel even more like I must send one, to help emphasize that one more US citizen insists this be changed. Legally, so it sticks, but it must be changed.
Edited Date: 2009-06-13 08:08 pm (UTC)

Date: 2009-06-14 02:28 am (UTC)
rosefox: Green books on library shelves. (Default)
From: [personal profile] rosefox
On the one hand, yes, the federal government is the defendant in this suit.

On the other hand, the brief certainly did not need to be written the way it was. See here for more info.

Date: 2009-06-14 02:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] browngirl.livejournal.com
*makes note, when revising my letter, to address the language of the brief*

Date: 2009-06-13 07:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] valkyrwench.livejournal.com
Have you seen this?. It may help. It made a lot of sense to me, and helped mitigate the amount of frothing I did.

Date: 2009-06-13 08:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] browngirl.livejournal.com
*nod* You and [livejournal.com profile] smallship1 have given me concurrent information, which I'm unscreening because it's important.

Thank you, a lot.

Profile

browngirl: (Default)
browngirl

June 2017

S M T W T F S
    12 3
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 17th, 2025 02:06 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios