Planned Parenthood's response to the FMA.....
Stop the Marriage Amendment
Dear xxxxxxx xxxxxx,
The U.S. Senate is expected to vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) as early Monday, July 12. To show our deep opposition to the FMA, we are calling on all of our activists to take action now and to participate in our new Flags Across America campaign.
While this constitutional amendment purports to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, it is really much more. The FMA is an effort to undermine the right to privacy in our nation's most sacred document, the Constitution.
Please join our campaign to stop this amendment by downloading a rainbow flag from our Web site and posting it in your window, on your car, in your office, or wherever you think it appropriate to show your opposition to the FMA and your solidarity with those who would ask the government to respect every American's right to privacy.
Click here to download a flag.
Then use the letter below to urge your Senators to "vote no on cloture for the Federal Marriage Amendment."
At Planned Parenthood, we trust individuals to make responsible choices about their lives and their relationships. We strongly oppose efforts to limit the privacy interests of same-gender couples or to limit their civil rights, including the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Thanks as always for your help, and please forward this email to your friends and colleagues.
Below is the sample letter to send to the following decision maker(s):
Targeted Senators
Subject: No on the Federal Marriage Amendment
Dear [decision maker name automatically inserted here],
I strongly oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA).
While this constitutional amendment purports to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, it is really much more. The FMA is an effort to undermine the right to privacy in our nation's most sacred document.
In Griswold v. Connecticut, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a state law that criminalized the use of birth control by married couples. The court's decision in this case became the basis for later decisions recognizing privacy rights, including Roe v. Wade, in which the court recognized the right of a woman to make certain fundamental decisions affecting her destiny, including whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. Roe reaffirmed that the Constitution protects individual's decisions about marriage, having and raising children, and basic family relationships and underscores an individual's right to freedom from government interference in the most personal, private decisions. That same right to privacy is the basis of many of the most important legal decisions guaranteeing the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans.
I trust individuals to make responsible choices about their lives and their relationships. I strongly oppose efforts to limit the privacy interests of same-gender couples or to limit their civil rights, including the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Please vote no on cloture.
Sincerely,
xxxxxxx xxxxxx
What's At Stake:
In 1973, Roe v. Wade constitutionally guaranteed that the right to privacy "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." That same right to privacy is the basis of many of the most important legal decisions guaranteeing the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans.
In Griswold v. Connecticut, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a state law that criminalized the use of birth control by married couples. The court’s decision in this case became the basis for later decisions recognizing privacy rights, including Eisenstadt v. Baird, in which the court invalidated a law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried couples, and Roe v. Wade, in which the court recognized the right of a woman to make certain fundamental decisions affecting her destiny, including the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed these constitutional protections most recently in Lawrence v. Texas, striking down the Texas law making it a crime for individuals of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual contact. In reaching its decision in Lawrence, the court relied on Griswold, Eisenstadt, and Roe itself in reaffirming that the Constitution protects individual’s decisions about marriage, having and raising children, and basic family relationships.
These cases form a seamless web that underscores an individual’s right to freedom from government interference - be they gay or straight - in the most personal, private decisions. We oppose efforts to unravel these protections or to weaken the Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection of the law.
They've put the cart before the horse. They want the government not to leave homosexuals alone, but rather to interfere on their behalf. So, they act as though homosexuals had the right to marry all along -- i.e., as if the Gavin Newsoms and Jason Wests were the defenders of the law, rather than criminals -- and FMA were an attempt to have the government violate a right it had respected for centuries.
This is an example of pure propaganda, totally unmoored from any basis in law, morality, or logic. That PP would engage in it at all is based on its leaders' knowledge that their allies in the media and education will not point out their letter's fallacious argument, but rather will demonize (and if possible, fire and whitelist) anyone who points out the fallacies.
The document tells us nothing about the right to "privacy" or the "right" to marry someone of the same sex, but it does tell us that PP is politically in bed with radical homosexuals.
BTW, is it legal for a non-profit organization to engage in such partisan political organizing?