Letter to GW

I wrote my first letter to George W. Bush since the 2000 election debacle. Here it is

February 29, 2004

George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500

Mr. Bush,
I am angered at the blatant disregard displayed by your recent comments regarding supporting a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, to ensure that the commitment between two men will never be recognized in the same manner as the similar commitment between a woman and a man.

I am stuck thinking about September 10, 2001, not for reasons of national homeland security, but instead this was the day that my best friend Jennifier Kline and her fiancè Thomas Trapp exchanged their vows in a beautiful outdoor ceremony. I had the privilege of giving Jennifier away at her wedding where she and Thomas declared their mutual commitment for each other in front of their friends and family, their religious leaders, and subsequently in the eyes of society and the government. I some day I hope Jennifier will return my gesture as I partake the same commitment, and I have every right marry a man with whom I wish to share my life.

You have stated that marriage has had the experience and growth of “… more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience.” Your statement implicitly acknowledges a very important detail that is not part of the debate regarding marriage: marriage existed before the governments which comprise the United States even existed, or had the ability to infer legal rights upon married couples. The government by borrowing and codifying the norms of religion at the time violated and continues to violate the First Amendment by respecting the definition of marriage as defined by the churches when the laws in question were written.

Herein lies the fundamental mistake that is the source of much disagreement. The First amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” In recognizing the religious ceremony of marriage the government has violated this sacred amendment, one which both protects both the government and religion.

I will not attempt to argue that the government has no vested interest though in supporting unions of two people. I believe that the union of two people into a family unit provides stability for society. Government should recognize and encourage the civil unions of two people regardless of their genders.

I have digressed into a brief analysis of marriage, but I will get to the point. You are a bigot and should not be in any elected office. By proposing that the nation enshrine discrimination into our most sacred document, you have disgraced our nation in front of the world community and you have lost the last sliver of respect I had for you. I currently respect the homeless drunk more than I respect the President of the United States.

For that I am disappointed.

Nicholas Barnard