How is this? Please critique!

[Zerbie]

Please critique this letter before I send it! It's to my senator about his endorsement of an anti-gay marriage amendment.

Dear Senator McCain:

Thank you for your recent letter of response to my concerns about the proposed "Protect Marriage Arizona" amendment. As your constituent and a regular voter, I continue to have grave concerns about the PMA and several questions for you about your support of it

Your letter says that you adhere to a compromise position on this highly divisive issue, and you state, "reasonable Americans agree that preserving the institution of marriage should not lead to discrimination." However, the amendment as it is now wordded will do *precisiely that.*

The PMA includes a clause that reads "NO LEGAL STATUS FOR UNMARREID PERSONS SHALL BE CREATED OR RECOGNIZED BY THIS STATE OR ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS THAT IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF MARRIAGE." This language is vague enough and broad enough to give constitutional ground for denying ocupels significant rights and benefits - in fact, the PMA would codify the discrimination you claim to oppose into the very foundation of our state government.

The amendment is NOT only about marriage; it is an attempt to alienate from society *anyone* who lives outside a narrow set of rules imposed by an extremist fringe, and will outcast them regardless of sexual orientation.

Here are some questions for you:

* What about the currently existing domestic partner benefits (such as those provided by the city of Tucson) guaranteed to be rolled back if this amendment passes? Your letter mentions nothing of the thousands of Arizona families that would lose health insurance coverage under the amendment.

* Private companies would not be prohibited from offering domestic partner benefits. Good. But state and municipal agencies will be prohibited from offering benefits and those taht currently do would have to rescind them.

* Professional organizations such as The Society for American Music, and The American Musicological Society, seriously consider the impact on their members when deciding where to hold professional conferences, and will avoid travel to states that do not provide legal recognition to same-sex couples.

* PMA would not prohibit adults from entering into privately authored legal contracts such as wills. But what is the possibility that such a will could be challenged as unconstitutional on the basis of being a form of legal recognition for unmarried persons that is "similar to that of marriage?" Could that not happen?

If I understand your letter correctly, you support the amendment as an expression of the State's right to "solidify" the institution of marriage and the voters' rights to define marriage "as residents see fit." Please explain:

* How does constitutionally excluding a significant poriton of our state's residents (120,000 households according to teh 200 census) from civil rights and benefits "solidify" the institution of marriage?

* How does rolling back health insurance for thousands of people serve to define marriage? i[I]f this amendment is really about marriage and only marriage, why is there a clause denying any and all legal recognition to unmarried and same-sex relationships?

[* /I]What gives voters a right to deprive their neighbors, fellow citizens, and tax-payers of civil benefits? If it is okay to deny civil rights to unmarried couples and gay people, then whose rights will come up for a popularity vote next? Equality under the law is a fundamental tenet of American society and must NEVER come down to a popularity contest, but that is precisely what the PMA is. Discrimination remains wrong even if a majority wants to discriminate. And the PMA discriminates.

Additionally, not all residents "see fit" to pass this cruel amendment. I do not; and recent poling suggests that some 68% of Arizonans think denying the right of unmarried partners to visit each other in hospitals (as this amendment does) goes too far.

As a constituent who voted for you last election, I am beyond dismayed that with your history as a strong, independent leader you have nevertheless allied yourself with an extremist fringe group in its attempts to demean and outcast some of our fellow Arizonans. I had expected far better of you.

I look forward to hearing your response to the questions above.

My signature.

This is the second draft - further comments please?!

[Vanessa White]

Zerbie: I admire your ability to state the case against PMA so strongly but sounding intelligent and informed. I think if you had tried to add in about Mass. it would have been too long, and for his purposes, he is concerned about his own state right now anyway. Great reference of yourself as one of the constituents that he mentions. I like it as is. Good luck and let us know what response you get. Peace, Vanessa

[revtj]

Your logic is sound, your questions are good...thanks for taking the time to write it. I hope the amendment is defeated. tj

[Zerbie]

Thanks, TJ and Vanessa.

Is there any way you can see to get the points across and be LESS wordy? I am trying to make it shorter, sleeker.

Have I made it crystal clear that the main problem with the amendment is how far it goes *beyond* just "defining" marriage (not that I believe saying who can and can't be part of something is a definition of it but that's OT)? How this amendment outcasts ANYone who lives outside the beliefs of the amendment's supporters, regardless of sexual orientation? The last thing I want to do is make the letter longer, but I hope I've made that point explicit and not just implicit.

Any changes to make? Tweaks?

[revtj]

I don't think shorter necessarily makes it better. The length of it asks him to think deeper than "yes" or "no"

One thing I do in mailings for the non-profit ministry is embolden phrases I want to jump out at them. Also, taking a yellow marker after it's printed can have the same effect on phrases to remember.

These things show you've given a lot of thought to what you are saying and McCain's office will notice, esp. if they get more than one letter like yours.

Keep fighting...our marriage amendment passed here but will likely get struck down eventually because some of the wording wasn't on the ballot!

peace

[Zerbie]

Thanks. Hmmm, I was concerned it might be too long. But maybe you're right, no good way to make it shorter. It doesn't ramble, everything gets mentioned once. Maybe I'll send this version.

[Zerbie]

The letter contains some additions, some editing, and most points are now bulleted. Worried! It takes up 2 pages when printed out, and I'm really concerned about the office staff actually READING all of it. It is a size 12 Arial font - very clear and easy on the eyes. I could make the font smaller, but would rather not. Is there any way to shorten this? Or WOULD you suggest a smaller font?

Please give me your opinions!

Thanks everso much!

[Emproph]

Well that's as compelling as I get for tonight, ideas for tweakage offered.

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Dear Senator McCain:

Thank you for your recent letter of response to my concerns about the proposed "Protect Marriage Arizona" amendment. As your constituent and a regular voter, I continue to have grave concerns about the PMA and several questions for you about your support of it

–“Thank you for responding to my letter concerning the proposed...”
–“As a regular voter and one of your constituents I...”
(^“Regular voter” first innocuously distracts impression of sincere concern while point of YOUR constituent is then made.)

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Your letter says that you adhere to a compromise position on this highly divisive issue, and you state, "reasonable Americans agree that preserving the institution of marriage should not lead to discrimination." However, the amendment as it is now wordded will do *precisiely that.*

-My version- You state that you adhere to a compromise position on this highly divisive issue. Your letter goes on to explain that “reasonable Americans....should not lead to discrimination,” yet the wording of the amendment as it is now would do PRECISELY that.
(***It is NOT Only about marriage, as it attempts to alienate and outcast, regardless of sexual orientation, anyone in society who lives outside the rules imposed by an extremist minority.

(-For example)

Originally Posted by Zerbie

The PMA includes a clause that reads "NO LEGAL STATUS FOR UNMARREID PERSONS SHALL BE CREATED OR RECOGNIZED BY THIS STATE OR ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS THAT IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF MARRIAGE." This language is vague enough and broad enough to give constitutional ground for denying ocupels significant rights and benefits - in fact, the PMA would codify the discrimination you claim to oppose into the very foundation of our state government.

Originally Posted by Zerbie

The amendment is NOT only about marriage; it is an attempt to alienate from society *anyone* who lives outside a narrow set of rules imposed by an extremist fringe, and will outcast them regardless of sexual orientation.

(Cut*** repositioned/changed, above)

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Here are some questions for you:

(Mine--)These are some of the specific questions and concerns I have: )

Originally Posted by Zerbie

* What about the currently existing domestic partner benefits (such as those provided by the city of Tucson) guaranteed to be rolled back if this amendment passes? Your letter mentions nothing of the thousands of Arizona families that would lose health insurance coverage under the amendment.

Private companies would not be prohibited from offering domestic partner benefits. Good. But state and municipal agencies will be prohibited from offering benefits and those taht currently do would have to rescind them.

(–My version–) I understand that private companies would still be allowed to offer domestic partner benefits, but that state and municipal agencies would be prohibited from doing so. Furthermore, it is also my understanding that EXISTING domestic partner benefits (such as those provided by the city of Tucson), would have to be rescinded. Have you considered the effect thousands of Arizona families losing their health insurance coverage would have if this amendment passes? Socially? economically?)
— ^stats, refs, demographics if poss.

Originally Posted by Zerbie

* Professional organizations such as The Society for American Music, and The American Musicological Society, seriously consider the impact on their members when deciding where to hold professional conferences, and will avoid travel to states that do not provide legal recognition to same-sex couples.

(^ Good practical example, is he familiar with them?)

Originally Posted by Zerbie

* PMA would not prohibit adults from entering into privately authored legal contracts such as wills. But what is the possibility that such a will could be challenged as unconstitutional on the basis of being a form of legal recognition for unmarried persons that is "similar to that of marriage?" Could that not happen?

(^Excellent point)
(Senator McCain, am I to believe this is of no concern to you?)

Originally Posted by Zerbie

If I understand your letter correctly, you support the amendment as an expression of the State's right to "solidify" the institution of marriage and the voters' rights to define marriage "as residents see fit." Please explain:

* How does constitutionally excluding a significant poriton of our state's residents (120,000 households according to teh 200 census) from civil rights and benefits "solidify" the institution of marriage?

* How does rolling back health insurance for thousands of people serve to define marriage? i[I]f this amendment is really about marriage and only marriage, why is there a clause denying any and all legal recognition to unmarried and same-sex relationships?

[* /I]What gives voters a right to deprive their neighbors, fellow citizens, and tax-payers of civil benefits? If it is okay to deny civil rights to unmarried couples and gay people, then whose rights will come up for a popularity vote next? Equality under the law is a fundamental tenet of American society and must NEVER come down to a popularity contest, but that is precisely what the PMA is. Discrimination remains wrong even if a majority wants to discriminate. And the PMA discriminates.

(^must NEVER be reduced to a 'contest')

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Additionally, not all residents "see fit" to pass this cruel amendment. I do not; and recent poling suggests that some 68% of Arizonans think denying the right of unmarried partners to visit each other in hospitals (as this amendment does) goes too far.

As a constituent who voted for you last election, I am beyond dismayed that with your history as a strong, independent leader you have nevertheless allied yourself with an extremist fringe group in its attempts to demean and outcast some of our fellow Arizonans. I had expected far better of you.

(...allied yourself with such extremists in their attempt to....)

Originally Posted by Zerbie

I look forward to hearing your response to the questions above.

(^Mine– I look forward to and appreciate any insight you have to offer in regard the concerns I've raised above.)

Originally Posted by Zerbie

My signature.

Thank You Sincerely,
Zerbie Nightingale
1776 Liberty Lane
McGonnagle, Arizona
5digit code
(012) 345-6789
bmaxalot@whatever.net

-Just suggestions to spark ideas that hopefully fit with you, in fact ***I hereby decree that Zerbie Nightingale has full ownership to this post to do with as she pleases, signed Emproph Schtoutsel ***
-The specific references are always good, they demonstrate an openness that is inviting of scrutiny. He’ll get it, well maybe. He USED to be cool man..

[Zerbie]

Great awesome, thank you!! Have as many carrots as ya like.

Didn't notice how some of those sentences start out in a rather passive structure. Thanks for pointing it out. Got to where I had looked at them so much, they just seemed in stone. Ya know how it is, if ya write much.

Will tweak this weekend and mail on Monday. Thank you VERY much for the editing suggestions.

[Emproph]

Groovy tunes.

I do write a lot, but I'm a perfectionist so not alot always get's out (you should see the mountain of dead essays I've amassed), but if I apply myself, I am versed in recognizing redundancies of words or messages conveyed, etc., If I have enough time, I usually tweak it to where I can read it through at least three times, on paper, without a mental flinch. Though I wouldn't necessarily recommend that for anyone with a life.

Anyway, it's a compelling letter, should make him think a bit more, at least.

Good luck

[Zerbie]

Eh, give yerself permission to write a "bad" essay for once. Maybe even TRY to do one.

As long as it's there, you have *some*thing. I hate starting things - like this letter. I finally said, 'Sh*t, I hafta at least put a sentence down on paper' and once I had one sentence I followed with the others until I had a rough draft. So that way, I got SOMEthing. I thought it was bad, but I was happy to have a bad letter b/c a bad letter can be improved and become a good letter.

My fav thing to do when I'm judging my writing is to make fun of my own self-criticism. So when I'm hating what I see on the computer monitor, I will ACTUALLY type in whatever silliness I'm thinking to make fun of myself (which makes me laugh and keep going.)

So for instance: "Dear Senator, omigosh you've morphed into a total and complete reprobate. To be or not to be as anti-gay as Santorum, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous politicians and stand up for your constituency. . ." And so on. Once I have a good laugh, I continue writing in more normal language, and when I have something to replace it, I delete the silly lines.

[BruceChris]

Some thoughts that help me to keep this type of letter in perspective: (1)
I strongly suspect that most of these letters are read by staffers only, and often not all that carefully. Then they get placed in the Pro or Con pile. A lot of short letters from like minded friends would probably help more. (2) A
really well thought out letter would probably have more effect if it were seen on the editorial page. More people could read it, and some might even
take time to think about it.

Zerb, I hope that you can accept this as helpful and constructive, as that is how I have meant it. Hey, do enjoy writing it, and send a copy to the editor too, while you're at it. Peace, B.C.

[Zerbie]

Welcome to the forum. I thought I had stated an intention to submit this as a letter to the editor b/c it would have more effect if seen and considered by a variety of folk. Finally I remembered that I posted that on a different forum! So yes, you're absolutely on target with the suggestion; since the vote will be in November, I will submit the letter in the late summer. I think that would be more timely. Do you agree?

I've tried so hard to be concise and brief w/ the letter to McCain hoping that it would at least give the staffers something to consider. Wouldn't it be nice if the staffers were grumbling? Maybe even put it in McCain's own hands. But above all, I had to write the letter for my own conscience's sake.

[Zerbie]

Hubby did some editing on the letter too. He completely struck out the question I raised about whether or not wills could be legally challenged as unconstitutional under the amendment. He says the question is 'bogus' because it could never happen.

I've posted this question before on another board, and possibly here, because it is a legitimate question: I don't know if that could possibly happen. No one seems to know - at least, no one has ever responded to the question. IS the question valid?

Emproph seemed to think it was important to mention it in the letter. Does that mean its possible to invalidate a private contract such as a will, under one of these amendments? Does that ever happen?

Or should I take that paragraph OUT of the letter?

[Zerbie]

Then I'll let this thread die. But meanwhile, does anyone have an opinion/answer to the question about contracts/wills?

Thanks if ya have! I'd like to mail the letter tomorrow/Tuesday.

[Zerbie]

Going to mail the letter today omitting the paragraph about wills.

[BruceChris]

Zerbie, You have good energy.

And I am still learning how to use this website. Peace, BC

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

So for instance: "Dear Senator, omigosh you've morphed into a total and complete reprobate. To be or not to be as anti-gay as Santorum, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous politicians and stand up for your constituency. . ." And so on. Once I have a good laugh, I continue writing in more normal language, and when I have something to replace it, I delete the silly lines.

We're NOT supposed to send those?

-I realize this is after the fact and I’m still not sure about the wills thing, I’m sorry I didn’t get back in time. I don’t remember exactly what that movie said (“tying the knot.") I was under the impression they had a will, not sure though.

Originally Posted by Zerbie

I thought I had stated an intention to submit this as a letter to the editor b/c it would have more effect if seen and considered by a variety of folk.

I don't recall reading that around here but I say send it to both. While you're at it, you may want to consider making a habit of it.

{In fact, that's good advice, I think I'll take it myself }

Send it to McCain's office as a copy of the letter to the editor, better if/after it's published, but either way It speaks to an additional level of passion. You felt strongly enough to take the time to write a letter to the editor, and they know how much thought and preparation go into writing speeches. Which I can only assume, is why he's not a speech man.

Within the last week, on CSPAN, I heard a congressman speak of a letter to the editor. If it was important enough to use for cheap political advantage (it was cheap), imagine how many of them and their staff scour the editorials every day. ("Drivel me not" they must squelch.)

[Zerbie]

Always back with more new, interesting ideas!

As you might imagine, the letter was sent nearly a week ago - it surely has been read and filed by now. The final edit cleared out anything that sounded directly confrontational, while retaining the same points. I don't feel like typing it out. The points all remained except the one abouts wills, and I get the impression no one is sure about that one.

At some point I want to determine the best time to send a letter to the editor. I will use this one as a basis for it, and forward it to friends asking them if they would take the time to write their own version and submit as well.

I don't wish to draw McCain into any letter to the editor move. He's stated his position, why "attack"? It would not help our campaign to seem to be smearing a very popular figure in Arizona over a hotly contested, "controversial" issue. Could in fact, hurt. So when that letter to the editor gets done, it will stick to the amendment itself and its effects. Those effects are more than persuasive enough: 2 out of 3 voters polled oppose the amendment IF they are told everything it will do.

[Rick336]

You made some excellent points in the letter Zerbie. Very well said and very professional.