President Barack Obama
\n1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
\nWashington, DC 20500<\/p>\n
July 20, 2011<\/p>\n
President Obama,<\/p>\n
Earlier today you announced that you were endorsing a bill to end the hilariously-named Defense of Marriage Act. \u00a0That is good. \u00a0I appreciate that. \u00a0I\u2019m in favor of gay marriage; in fact I\u2019m in favor of whatever marriage people want. \u00a0Even the hyperbolic worst case scenarios people throw around. \u00a0So what if man-dog marriage becomes legal? \u00a0How does that possibly affect me enough to be worth spending my precious little free time to fight? \u00a0It\u2019s just not enough of anyone\u2019s business to waste resources on.<\/p>\n
But I digress.<\/p>\n
You\u2019ve said before that you oppose gay marriage, I don\u2019t know if that\u2019s the truth or a political position and it doesn\u2019t matter which is true. \u00a0If that\u2019s your real opinion you have the right to be wrong. \u00a0But it\u2019s also clear from your recent statements that you\u2019re in favor of getting rid of these ridiculous laws against doing anything while gay and that\u2019s what matters.<\/p>\n
I understand why you\u2019ve been so hesitant to do anything about this. \u00a0It\u2019s a touchy political subject in an election year, and while nobody who hates gay people is going to vote for a non-white Democrat I can understand being cautious. \u00a0However you\u2019re looking at this all wrong. \u00a0This is an opportunity.<\/p>\n
The modern Republican party has two contradictory central positions: They believe in small government and a lack of intrusion into personal lives, and they believe in increasing the power of government to legislate people\u2019s personal lives and prohibit sin. \u00a0Gay marriage more than any other issue is the intersection between these, the point of central conflict. \u00a0Half the party would give more weight to the small government side and the other to the legislated morality side.<\/p>\n
In short, you can tear the Republican party in half with this and force them to choose their path between those two.<\/p>\n
The trick, as I see it, is how you frame it. \u00a0Appealing to people\u2019s sense of fairness, empathy and basic humanity probably won\u2019t do it, historically speaking. \u00a0So frame this as a states\u2019 rights issue. \u00a0A tenth amendment situation. \u00a0Marriage is not a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor is it prohibited to the States, so it\u2019s reserved to the States. \u00a0To refuse to honor a state\u2019s marriage license is a subversion of their rights under the tenth amendment.<\/p>\n
Now don\u2019t get me wrong, I don\u2019t want to destroy the Republican party. \u00a0A two-party system is crucial and balance is key to a fair government. \u00a0The sad fact, however, is that they\u2019re broken, due in part to the two contradictory positions and in part to the fringes dominating the direction. \u00a0Forcing them to focus on one set of principles and forcing the party\u2019s extremists to self-segregate will give the party as a whole more credibility in the future, hopefully attracting more moderate voters to primaries and in the end electing more sensible, less hard-line members of Congress. \u00a0Then the entire nation wins.<\/p>\n
Plus a good internal conflict wouldn\u2019t hurt your prospects of reelection. \u00a0And, you know, it would go a long way toward ending our nation\u2019s embarrassing institutional discrimination against millions upon millions of our countrymen.<\/p>\n
Sincerely,<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Daniel J. Willis<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
President Barack Obama 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington, DC 20500 July 20, 2011 President Obama, Earlier today you announced that you were endorsing a bill to end the hilariously-named Defense of Marriage Act. \u00a0That is good. \u00a0I appreciate that. \u00a0I\u2019m in … Continue reading