Letter to Senator Tarr

Dear Senator Tarr,
My name is _______________ and I live in Rockport on Paradis Circle, just off of Tarr's Lane. I see you around town and have long appreciated your local involvement and visibility. I tend to think of us as neighbors. It is as your neighbor as much as as your constituent that I am writing to you today. I understand that you may be asked to vote an a proposal to amend the state constitution to exclude same-sex marriage and I urge you to vote NO.

The SJC made a clear decision and a change in the constitutional definition of marriage can only be perceived as a choice to undermine that body's authority. Not only would such a thing read as mean-spirited, it would also be frightening to citizens who believe in the structure and balance of our democratic form of government.

When I was a child, the country was grappling with questions of racial equality, religious equality, segregation, integration, interracial couples, interreligious couples, etc. Over two scant decades, our nation made unprecedented progress toward rectifying long-standing inequities and myopic concepts of morality. Federal and State governmental institutions realized that to prohibit people of different races and/or religions from marrying one another was inherently contradictory to our dearly-held belief that all men are created equal. Landmark rulings by wise justices and brave stances by politicians at all levels accomplished what 400-hundred years of history had not, proving that America has an unparalleled ability to progress in ways that reflect our evolving identity. Knowing that we are capable of responsive growth is one of the most exciting things about being an American.

Now, forty years later, we are faced with similar concerns, arguments, and rhetoric regarding issues of gender and sex. Interestingly, there is one key difference. The previous battle included issues of people from one group wanting to marry people of another group. This time, the issue is that members of one group want to marry each other. Like last time, though, similar arguments are brought forth on both sides: religious beliefs, concerns about sanctity of the institution of marriage, rights regarding survivorship, property, judgments from one group about who other people are allowed to love, etc. The question is emotionally charged and challenging, and most people have an opinion about how it should go. Also like last time, there is a group of people who are asking to have its legal equality enforced.

I think part of why it gets to complicated is that marriage, once solely a secular contract, has been absorbed by many religions, including the three "big ones": Christianity, Judaism, Islam. (Interesting factoid: marriage was grounds for ex-Communication for the first 1000+ years of the Christian church.) The issue at hand, though, is the civil office of marriage, the legal contract, and the fact that right now the Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that to deny competent adults access to engaging in that legal contract based upon their chromosomal make-up is unfair.

Gay people are a fact of life. We work, we vote, we pay taxes, we mow our lawns, we participate in religious worship, we parent, we farm, we do laundry, we watch t.v., we love. How can we, as a State or as a Nation, say that someone is fit to vote for the political candidate of his choice but is not fit to decide whom he will marry? How can we say that we trust someone to make split-second decisions in a crisis but that we do not trust her to know whom she loves? It doesn't add up.

A frequent concern expressed is the idea that same-sex marriage somehow "demeans" the institution. There is no logical argument for that statement. How is a contract demeaned based upon the chromosomes of the participants? To look at it from another point of view, which of the following is more respectful of the solemnity of the marriage contract:

1. Britney Spears and her childhood friend are on a multi-day/night binge in Las Vegas and decide to get married after drinking all night. They zoom off to get a license and then are married. They next day they decide that it was an "accident" and file to have the marriage annulled. One set of XX chromosomes; one set of XY.

2. Two women are in a committed relationship. They have been monogamous partners for nearly five years. They have joint finances, live together, are saving for a home together, and already own assets together. They spend holidays as a couple with other family members who acknowledge them as a mated couple. Nephews and nieces call them both Aunt. They attend church together, go to parties as a couple, pay their taxes, shovel the snow, recycle at the local transfer station, and care for one another's needs and best interests. They are working with a financial planner to achieve goals of home-ownership, retirement savings, and post-graduate education. They want to get married as a legal expression of their relationship. Two sets of XX chromosomes.


My father is a philosophy professor. I grew up reciting things like "p implies q. p, therefore q. that's called modus ponens." Not only did that make me a hit a faculty parties, it led to me to understand how logically sound arguments are built; I have integrated the concept of a well-formed formula. Denying same sex marriage, solely on the grounds of the chromosomes of the participants, is no more well-formed formula than denying marriage based upon the relative quantity of melanin in the skins of the participants. At best, it's an out-dated assumption based upon flawed logic. At worst, it is a cruel expression of bigotry; in either case, it results inthe unequal dispensation of the rights of citizenship. The legalization of same-sex marriage is a progressive step and a civil reflection of what already exists in fact.

Based upon what I know about you, Senator Tarr, I feel confident that you can see the logic of this, and the inevitability of legal same-sex marriage in America. Massachusetts has been first in many things. I hope that you will place yourself squarely on the side of logic and the positive enforcement of basic civil rights. Please vote to uphold the SJC's ruling. Please stand in solidarity with the wisdom expressed by the judges. Please vote against any proposals related to a constitutional amendment seeking to undermine it.

I am your neighbor. I am your constituent. And I am asking you to do the right thing, even if it is uncomfortable. You've done it before, and that is why you have my respect.

Sincerely yours,


Copyright 2004 Seasmoke All rights reserved

Exercise Mystery
When I do yoga (and some other kinds of exercise) I feel terrific afterwards, and sometimes even great while I'm doing it. Yet, I still battle the pre-exercise resistance. Do you know the thing I mean? That feeling of "Oh God. Yoga is a pain in tha ass. I've got to sweep the floor (I confess to being a bit anal about trying to keep my sticky mat clean), then put the tape in, then get my props, and then when it's over I'll be thirsty and maybe sweaty. Who needs the hassle?" Or, "Ugh. I don't want to take Grace for a long walk. I'll have to put a coat on her because it's cold, and I'll have to change my shoes, and then I'll have to find my sunglasses. When we come back I'll have to wipe her feet. I don't mind the exercise itself, of course, it's just that there is so much involved..." Of course it's crap. I mean, I could make settling down with a mug of tea and a good book sound every bit as inconvenient if I wanted to. (Dare me. Go on.) So, it's really about some weird resistance to ... what?

The part that really amazes me is that I know myself to be typical of our species in that usually when I get a happy pay-off, I become invested in recreating the circumstances that provided it. So, how come my brain can't make the connection? How come my brain doesn't respond to exercist like it's a DRUG and say, "WOO HOO Gotta get me more of THAT?

Back in my band days, I used to go through a similar resistance to getting ready for gigs, even though I had a blast once the music started. Sometimes I wonder if there's some misfire in my energy-conservation process. Could I be resisting the process of motivating a large amount of energy? Am I afraid that if I expend the energy then I'll be too tapped to do something else? It's not a conscious enough dynamic for me to nail down yet.

Meanwhile, I get to play good cop/bad cop with myself and that's always good for entertainment value. I promise myself that on any given day when I'm especially bad, there is always the threat of restraints... ;)


Copyright 2004 Seasmoke All rights reserved