See You Next Tuesday

Family Missiles, I mean, Missives

2005-04-29T05:25:00.000-07:00

So, dear gentle readers, here's a little story about my family and our e-mail communications. If you've spent any time at all on my blog, you know that I am a happily married woman. My wife is also, I am thrilled to report, happily married. My family absolutely adores my wife, but they are still unsure of the "same sex marriage" thing. Not to mention that many of my family members, my mom, dad and five siblings, are die hard Republicans. Indeed, my parents rub elbows amongst the most influential Republicans in their home state of Oklahoma. Just days before my wedding in 2003, my father ran for state senate on the Oklahoma Republican ticket.

Despite their misgivings, my parents, my father, in particular, work hard to support my wife and I. My father bravely spoke out against a federal anti-gay marriage amendment to the United States constitution this past fall, recognizing that a constitutional amendment is extraordinary and best reserved to grant rights, not remove them. He also criticized the move to amend our national constitution as unnecessary in light of federal legislation and the long standing policy that family issues are strictly a state matter.

My father's reluctant support was not echoed by my siblings. Here's a sampling of the family missiles, oh, golly, I mean missives that rang out just before and just after the November elections:

OCTOBER 29, 2004 . . . A friendly message before election time . . .

On October 29, 2004, I sent the following message, an excerpt written by someone else, to my parents, encouraging them to vote with my family in mind:

Love and Friendship and the Voting Booth
by Vic Basile
In this crucially important election year, I intend to do all that I can to
prevent my family and friends from voting for candidates like George Bush
who oppose my equality. I encourage all of my Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and
Transgender brothers and sisters, as well as all who understand that
inequality for one is inequality for all, to do the same.

We can't really stop them from voting for whomever they choose - it is, at
least for them, a free and democratic country - but we can prevent them
doing it without damaging our bonds of love, trust and friendship. In
fact, they can't truly love or even respect us, and knowingly vote for
candidates who work to deny us the same equality and freedoms they enjoy.
The two are simply incompatible.

Before drawing a line in the sand, it is clearly our responsibility is to
educate them, to make them fully understand that what they are doing
affects our lives in the most fundamental ways possible. My sense is that
they are largely unaware of their candidates' positions on these most basic
human rights issues and are supporting them for completely unrelated
reasons. Unwitting though it may be, they are nevertheless complicit in a
political struggle that seeks to deny us our full equality.

Those who see themselves as our friends and yet vote for politicians who
seek to amend the Constitution to forever cast us second class citizens
need to be reminded of the meaning of friendship. Friends treat each other
with respect and dignity, and as equals. Voting for enemies of your
friend's equality is not an act of friendship and certainly not one of
love. In matters as basic as human rights and simple equality, the old
refrain that "friends can agree to disagree and still be friends" has a
deafeningly hollow ring.

Friends and family can disagree about the economy, national security, taxes
and the environment, and still respect and care about each other. But can
the same be said when one participates in the oppression of the other? It
doesn't really matter whether the issue is race, gender, religion, or
sexual orientation. People who participate in the oppression of others or
who sit quietly by while their elected officials do the dirty work ought to
be called to task. Their behavior is shameful and excruciatingly painful.

My godmother, a truly good woman, would never knowingly hurt me, but she
thinks nothing of making a joke about how her vote would make me unhappy.
No longer can I smile back when she jokes about voting for candidates
opposed to my equality. It is just not funny and it is morally
unacceptable.

I believe most Americans would not knowingly vote for someone they thought
to be racist, anti-Semitic or misogynistic. Yet they don't think twice
about voting for homophobes. They just don't make the connection and we
let their actions go unchallenged. Shame on us! Many of my friends tell
me about their Bush-supporting Republican parents, but go on to say how
accepting they are of them. When I ask how that is possible, how loving
parents could support someone who wants to hurt their child, I get a blank
look or a glib comment about how "that's just the way they are." It isn't
the way they are - they just don't know any better and it is our job to
teach them.

Sometimes I hear (and sadly, this often comes from gay people) "they aren't
single issue voters and consider many issues when deciding how to vote."
What does it say about our sense of self worth when we accept from our
parents the explanation that taxes and school vouchers are more important
than the dignity, safety and equality of their children? Why are we are so
reluctant to challenge them when their behavior so fundamentally affects
our lives?

I have been as guilty of this as anyone, but no more. Ending our silence
is the only way to educate the people we cherish most that our equality is
important and that it requires respect. Love and friendship demand nothing
less.

If more convincing is needed, imagine our electoral power when we vote as a
bloc. Arguably, it was our vote that swept Bill Clinton into office in
1992. The upcoming election promises to be another cliffhanger, providing
us with the opportunity to determine the outcome. Imagine how much
stronger our vote would be if we were joined by our families and friends.
Never have the stakes been higher or the issues clearer. The threat is
horrifyingly real and if allowed to succeed, will set us back at least a
generation. We have come too far at too great a cost to be silent now.

NOVEMBER 12, 2004 . . . And so begun the war of 100 years . . .

I copied my younger brother, Patrick, described in more detail in prior posts, on the message. Patrick responded with a simple, short message on November 12, 2004, just after my dear wife and I fell into a deep depression faced with the idea of another four years of discrimination and personal attacks on our family:

Amy,
Do you want sympathy or what??
see ya,
patrick

LATER THAT SAME DAY . . . And now, ladies and gentlemen, the personal attacks come not just from our president, but our family . . .

The same day, my oldest brother, Chris, a catholic by marriage, chimed in on the ever-enlightening dog pile:

I like to think that what I was voting for was the right for a society to decide what issues (lifestyles and behaviors)it will allow and which ones it won't without some judge on the coast deciding for us. That is why we saw a huge block of voters come out to vote for these ammendments, (like 75%). Should that man in Utah be in jail because he wanted to have multiple wives? What if he wanted to marry a 10 year old? What about the marrying his sister? These should be state's issues decided by a vote of the people.

I couldn't disagree more with the writer.

A RESPONSE THAT NIGHT . . . You gotta defend yourself and the true purpose of our tripartite government . . .

Fuming but restrained, I penned the following response to my brother hoping to use a personal example to describe the pain inflicted by his and, i aye mio, our national leader. You see, we are anxiously awaiting my brother and his wife's sixth child. Six kids is not unusual in our family. I enjoy five siblings myself. But family history does not mean happy family. Chris and his wife's past three pregnancies have come in her mid-forties. And although many women of this age carry healthy babies, Chris and his wife have not been so lucky. Their fouth child, Caleb, just a month before he was to be born. Their fifth child, Sammy, has Down Syndrome. She is a beautiful, loving child who is loved a million times in return just like many Down Syndrome children. Nevertheless, you can see why some people are critical of Chris and his wife's decision to have children at their age: the risks of birth defects and complications increase exponentially every year you are over thirty-five. Some people would say we should avoid this risk, especially since their are so many healthy children in need of loving adoptive homes. This was my point in this message to my brother:

Chris, Pat and Mom,

Yes, Chris, perhaps we should let the majority decide issues of civil liberties. In such case, there would still be slavery or, at the very least, segregation. Wife beating would be acceptable and divorce and adultery outlawed, all outcomes that would affect our family in a very personal, painful way. And, couples could be banned from having kids after the age of 35 since the chance of birth defects go up astronomically. I suppose that is another majority rule that would hit you hard. (See, this kind of personal attacks stings.)

And Patrick, it's not sympathy I'm looking for, it's equal civil liberties. It's the "crazy" idea that my family and life-long, committed relationship should be treated by our government like any other, without regard to sex/gender.

Perhaps the best way to address your arguments is to include an editorial I wrote to the Dallas Business Journal, which very surprisingly endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment ("FMA") that would have taken the issue of marriage away from the states and adopted a very discriminatory and narrow definition of marriage in our nation's most sacred document:

In many ways, your article missed the point. The question is simple: should long-term, committed couples who wish to support and care for each other indefinitely be treated equally by the state and federal governments, regardless of their gender? The FMA would forever deny a segment of the population equal treatment based only on the sex of the couples. In other words, the FMA would discriminate against couples of the same sex.

The discrimination proposed by the FMA significantly impairs these couples' ability to care for one another and their family. There are more than 1,100 federal rights and benefits that come with a civil marriage license according to an accounting performed by the Government Office of Accounting, not to mention the many state rights marital status bestows. These rights provide important protections to couples, particularly in the event one of them becomes ill or dies. For instance, if a business offers domestic partner health insurance, same-sex couples are taxed on those benefits when married couples are not. Same-sex couples are not allowed coverage under the Family and Medical Leave Act in order to care for each other in case of illness. At death, the surviving partner is taxed like a stranger on the estate the couple shared. The surviving partner cannot even get Social Security survivor benefits- even though he or she contributed into the system with every paycheck.

Your article also perpetuates the antiquated stereotype that same-sex couples can be reduced to "sexual conduct." This argument denies the stability, love, respect and commitment to care for one another found in long-term, same-sex relationships. Your article uses this crass argument to dismiss this important fight for equality as civil rights movement. But check your definitions: "civil rights are those legal rights granted to citizens by the government." It is just such government-granted rights at stake here, and the FMA seeks to ban one segment of our citizenry from these important federal and state rights.

There is much evidence that sexual orientation is "immutable," a legal term used to describe something inherent to us an individuals, like race, ethnicity and gender. Debate on the issue will no doubt continue for some time. However, fair and equal treatment as required by our Constitution is not limited on this basis. Same-sex couples deserve and our entitled to the same rights, benefits and obligations as their opposite sex counterparts.

There is one thing from you article on which we agree. Marriage is fundamental. Nevertheless, the definition of marriage is ever evolving. It began as an arrangement between families for dowry at a time when women were considered property. At that time, marriage was simply an exchange of property for money or other valuables. The definition of marriage has changed greatly since those times, but it has only been in recent history that marriage focused on love, respect and choice. Even more recently, parts of our country limited marriage to individuals of the same race. Indeed, miscegenation laws, or laws banning interracial marriage, were permitted until the late 1960s when the United States Supreme Court outlawed this type of marriage discrimination-a discrimination based on fear.

Like the fear that fueled miscegenation laws, fear of equality for same-sex couples is unfounded. Granting civil marriage licenses to loving, committed same-sex couples does not in any way endanger the marriages of opposite sex couples. In fact, these folks will go on about their days and life as always. The only difference will be that same-sex couples will be better able to protect and care for each other and their families. The children of same-sex couples-and the last census indicates that millions of children live in homes headed by same-sex couples-will no longer be harmed by the discrimination and second class status that FMA promises for them and their parents.

And civil marriage licenses for same-sex couples does not interfere with the rights pf religions and religious institutions to determine their own course and policy. The marriage licenses and the rights and benefits attendant to it come from the state and federal governments-not a religious organization. Religious groups are free to recognize, or not, these relationships, just as the Catholic Church refuses to acknowledge divorce.

On the other hand, there is a very real fear that, if passed, the FMA will encourage further discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people ("GLBT"), at home and at work. For instance, by relegating same-sex couples to second-class status, the FMA supports treating the GLBT community as second-class citizens in the work force. Fair-minded Americans are shocked to learn that, in 38 states, it is legal to fire someone just because he or she is GLBT. Should the FMA pass, we can expect even more such discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere.

Your articles reference to a slippery slope leading to "a day in the sun" for polygamy is a classic attempt to promote discrimination through fear. You encourage folks to support the FMA because, otherwise, polygamy will become legal! The same type argument was used to promote miscegenation laws. The same-sex couples who would be eligible for marriage are loving, respectful, caring and deeply committed adults entering into a consensual relationship. Polygamy, on the other hand, is commonly known to involve men who seek to marry multiple young girls, oftentimes siblings, in situations that are not consensual and, in fact, abusive, to the young women trapped in them. To compare polygamy to the loving relationships of same-sex couples is insulting and disingenuous. Our constitution clearly protects same-sex couples from discrimination while at the same time protecting the young girls who are often the victims of polygamy.

Your article misunderstands or, worse yet, attempts to mislead when it comes to the important function of the judiciary branch to protect minorities from majority rule by blaming "liberal" or "activist" courts for strides made to rectify discrimination against same-sex couples. As was the case with miscegenation laws, the courts are often the first of our governmental branches to acknowledge discrimination. This is not an indication of a liberal or activist court. To the contrary, this is an important part of the three branches of government created by our forefathers. The judicial branch was created to, among other things, interpret the constitution, giving effect to the principle of Equal Protection (i.e., all people must be treated equally).

While many who fear equal marriage rights like to label courts fulfilling this function as "liberal," they fail to acknowledge that the United States Supreme Court, which recently struck down anti-gay sodomy laws as discriminatory, is made up primarily of judges self-proclaimed as conservatives or appointed by conservatives. The same is true for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which ruled that laws prohibiting same-sex couples from receiving civil marriage licenses are discriminatory and, therefore, violate the state's constitution.

The crucial role of the judiciary branch in guaranteeing our constitutional rights is particularly clear as we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, the celebrated case in which the Court outlawed segregation in public schools and paved the way for significant strides in the African American civil rights movement. It is ironic that, only a month ago, President Bush and others who have supported the FMA, praised the Brown court for bravely interpreting the Constitution in the face of public pressure criticism-the same pressure and criticism now asserted by the President and others against courts who would interpret the constitution in cases involving equal rights for same-sex couples.

The United States Constitution is a sacred document. It has been amended only 17 times, primarily to extend rights and benefits to formerly disenfranchised groups of citizens. Now, for the first time in our nation's history, our President seeks to write discrimination against a group into this great document.

Our country and governmental system was set up to avoid tyrant majorities. Our courts are designed to interpret the Constitution. It's not uncommon for folks in the majority to scream foul or "judicial activism" when courts interpret the Constitution to forbid discrimination long practiced by the majority. We need only look back to Brown v. Board of Education, where the US Supreme Court finally spoke the truth that was so long ignored: separate is NOT equal for the races. Or Virginia v. Loving, where the US Supreme Court said that, although matters of domestic relationships are matters for the states, states are bound to provide equality per the Constitution and, therefore, cannot ban folks of different races from marrying.

As I mentioned in the editorial, it is ignorant and outlandish to compare same-sex marriage to bigamy and/or pedophilia.

I attach a link to an amicus (or friend of the court) brief recently submitted in a New Jersey gay marriage case by the American Psychological Association, the world's foremost authority on human psychology: http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/documents/record?record=1547.

The brief reflects the current state of science and scientific research on gay issues. The brief specifically addresses many of the assertions made by right-wing religious fundamentalist, particularly her assertion that GLBT people are more prone to psychological issues. The APA notes that members of the GLBT community are remarkable for their lack of pathology despite continuous discrimination and the social stigma that remains associated with being GLBT. The brief also notes that members of the GLBT community form loving, committed and long-lasting relationships and often their households include children. Sadly, the brief notes that these children are the primary victims of the discrimination and misperceptions proposed and perpetuated by religious zealots.

Based on the latest scientific studies, discriminatory views about same sex marriage/couples (whether or not this represents the majority of folks can be debated, polling indicates that most folks believe same sex couples should be allowed equal rights, they simply balk at calling it "marriage") can only be attributed to knee jerk or fundamentalist religious beliefs. And there is no doubt that our founding fathers soundly rejected the idea of legislating religious beliefs. Period. There must be some other rational basis for our laws. Period. In fact, our country was founded because people were fleeing the oppression of religious-based legislation and government. Mr. Jefferson, the author of our Declaration of Independence (and founding father, and US President and US ambassador and founder of the University of Virginia), was, despite his many accomplishments, most proud of his work to separate church and state in Virginia and nationwide. He warned that commingling church and state would hobble our government and produce the kind of discrimination same sex couples face now:

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people
maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of
ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always
avail themselves for their own purposes."

-- Thomas Jefferson, speaking about the dangers of mixing church and state,
quoted in a Salon article outlining conservative clergy members' work to
reelect President Bush.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2004/11/11/bush_clergy/index.html

And I will end with this: I appreciate your strong feelings about the issue of same sex marriage/couples. You are certainly entitled to your opinions. However, I challenge you to be intellectually honest about them. They are not based on scientific rationale; indeed, science belies your beliefs. And your experience tells you otherwise: your FRIENDS Dick and Clayton are the perfect example of a life-long, committed couple who work for a living, pay their taxes and live everyday just an ordinary couple. So call a spade a spade. Your beliefs are discriminatory with no basis other than, perhaps, your religious beliefs. In that case, express your feelings in your church. I don't expect the Catholic church to recognize my marriage any more than I expect them to take a more realistic view of birth control. But keep your beliefs out of our government. Every life-long committed, consenting adult couple is entitled to a CIVIL (i.e., not religious) marriage license and the rights and obligations that come along with it.

My message about the vote (to which Pat and Chris responded) was simply this, a vote for the fundamentalist religious extremist platform is a vote to discriminate against Vanessa and I. I merely asked that you, as my family members, take that into account when casting your vote. Last I checked, loving they neighbor and protecting your family are fundamental Christian values.

Respectfully,

Your sister

AGAIN ON NOVEMBER 12, 2004 . . . So maybe sugar didn't work so well . . . Chris's response to my actual message, subject: CROSSING THE LINE:

Once again you all steer clear of any kind of reasonable logic. Why use logic when it flies in the face of what you stand for. You could not be more wrong in you editorial. The reasons why 75% of all people voted against Gay Marriage is the benefits and the Bible condemns the practice. And your comment on having babies after the age of 35 is not condemned by the Bible or anyone else I know. Not only that, but all couple have a chance of having a down syndrome baby, the odd just go up after 35. And nobody is going to vote against that, you know that, so your analogy is stupid. Your attack was personal and mine was toward the issue of gay marriage. You elected to take it personal and in doing so opened the door for me to take out my aggressions on you personally. Thanks, because I enjoy having a personal scapegoat to help ease the tensions of my otherwise stressful life. Remember I dont have to be nice to you like your mother and father. So, Go to Hell.

ANOTHER TRY AT SUGAR FROM ME TO CHRIS . . .

Chris,

Yes, I can understand your obvious anger. That's precisely how I wanted to, but did not respond to your hateful message. Like I said, it hurts to have your family attacked. You can't talk about gays/gay marriage without talking about my family/relationship personally. VANESSA AND I ARE THE ONES YOU ARE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST!

As for insinuating that mom and dad are nice to me out of obligation, you assume too much. They are not nice to me. And they express the same hurtful, hateful views as do you. But don't kid yourself. Mom and dad say the same sorts of hurtful, disapproving things about you and your circumstances, too. Perhaps they are less direct with you.

I appreciate and regret the pain and stress you feel. You might try a therapist, as it seems as though your religion is not as much a source of relief as you deserve. Take care of yourself,

A NOT SO SUGARY RESPONSE FROM CHRIS, SAME NIGHT:

You have no family! You and V are not a family. Just two gals that live together.

AND AN AFTERTHOUGH IN A SEPARATE MESSAGE FROM CHRIS:

And I dont have a circumstance we love our daughter very much and could not even imagine her any other way.
She is just like any of our other kids. To bad you will never know what that is like.

FULL CIRCLE: THE LATEST FROM CHRIS, APRIL 9, 2005:

Hey there sister,

Just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that we all really care for you.

We may not always see eye to eye, but we love you.

Your Brother,

Chris

NOW WHAT AM I TO MAKE OF THIS??

Okay, friends and readers, what am I to make of this? Seems to me, and I could be overracting, that Chris's messages were a little more hostile than a simple disagreement (failing to see "eye to eye"). So now, I open the floor to you. Do I respond? If so, how?

Let me hear from you!

Sex Abuse Results in Hyperbolism

2005-03-05T09:34:00.000-08:00

Dear gentle readers, it is good to be among you again today.

I have been reflecting on a past posting, "A few of my favorite things," over and over again, more unconsciously than not. My anger at BTK a/k/a Mr. Rader is apparent. But my feelings go far beyond the pain and perversion BTK has sown. I sum it up in what some feminists have coined the "female fear." It is a vulnerability that most of the male gender (and I use that word in its precise sense, gender is not sex) are lucky enough to never know. It is the fragileness that comes with being hunted, scouted, singled-out, objectified, de-personalized and de-valued by serial killers like BTK but even more often, and perhaps more insidiously, by our parents and our employers and by marketers and by religions.

All to often, every second of every day, the vulnerability is realized. Femmes are, in the words of and deeds of BTK, "bound, tortured and killed." Not to mention raped, humiliated, made less than. Even those who claim to be our biggest fans, indeed, we ourselves reduce each other to a second class citizenry so deep and pervasive that those of the female gender begin to believe that it is okay, even superior, to have an important (in many cases, our only) source of power derive from our sex, our bodies, the idea and reality that we are irresistable to those of the male gender.

I realize I am losing some of you now, dear readers. You say, not all men are serial killers. Not all women trade on tits and ass. But hear me out, my friends. I entreat you, the serial killers, the sex workers, those are just the most blatant examples of the source of the female fear. Let me share with you the more subtle, but equally effective means of reminding femmes, whether of male or females sex, of their second class, delicate status.

Let me describe for you my colleague in law school, a former navy officer and graduate of the esteemed Naval Academy. An attractive man. A smart man. A worldly man.

His wife appeared smart and able herself. But you see, it wasn't about the stimulation he was getting at home, be it intellectual or physical. He had a need, deep-seeded and probably not conscious, to attack me for my good performance in law school. I could not win with this guy: I was overly ambitious if I studied conscientiously, a slacker and non-team player if I downplayed my knowledge of a particular issue (a good team member should grasp every issue and share his or her knowledge), I was arrogant when I expressed confidence in my understanding of the subject matter. Most of all, he turned the greenest color of envy when grades were announced, not because of anything I did, but merely because of the results: the top three students based on overall grade point average were women, I fortunately among them. He suggested I stick my head in an oven then chuckled to think, out loud in front of others, that it may not fit (my head, that is).

What set his pranks apart from normal competition among law students was his simultaneous sexual harassment. Wouldn't I join him for coffee, alone, he'd ask, knowing that the both of us were in committed relationships that precluded such a rendez-vous. He accused me of seducing professors to garner favor, then asked for the same treatment. He punctuated every of our conversations with common talk of sex.

I thought many times of lodging a complaint and even approached one professor on the matter who encouraged me to discuss it with female professors who might help me adapt to the situation, assuming of course that it was either (1) my fault; or (2) a normal part of the female-male dynamic. There was no where to run, it seemed. Which was worse, I wondered, enduring harassment or becoming an incredible pariah tramp, only to be raped again by the university.

Upon becoming a lawyer, I have encountered the same harassment more times than I can count: at least hundreds. In one instance, a senior male lawyer did not expressly make my job conditioned upon sex, but made clear that titilation certainly improved my work and assignments. Another reminder of how I was powerless to the male gender and its ferocious appetite for sexual gratification.

He and the other males in power at the office repeated warned us young, female neophytes (affectionately referred to as the "baby chicks") that women who complained of their treatment would be ruined. They taught their lesson indirectly, slandering a women who had brought and won such a suit against a well known trial lawyer with whom we all were now forced to work (and, by the way, who liked to "tickle" young female lawyers in his care, but alas that is another example for another day), describing her as a whore, a cunt, a liar, a lawyer of little skill and whatever other degrading remarks might cross their minds. We understood the take home message: a women who speaks out about the abuse would never work for a "respected" firm again.

More intimadation. More forced titiliation.

The senior lawyer insured we worked together repeatedly, often on cases that coincidentally required travel or late nights.

I left that firm when I could no longer live with, in a real but not common sense, the prostitute I had become.

I joined a smaller, more prestigious firm. The male partner with whom I worked most closely, again, did not expressly make my job conditioned upon sex, but insisted I travel with him and indulge his incessant questions about how I could be a lesbian. I mean, he would say, you get along so well with men.

I remember very well the night we arrived, late and tired, in Los Angeles. The phone rang as I was resting quietly, preparing for bed. My boss explained that he was such a good guest at the hotel, the concierge sent a bottle of wine to his room. Wouldn't I join him for a drink? I cannot be sure, but I imagine his wife, a federal judge who built her legal career as a kick-ass employment lawyer might not approve of his invitation.

I hated to leave the firm, this nutty partner and the instant credibility I seemed to have as an associate there. But you can only take so much sex talk at the office.

Even now, as a senior associate and partner hopeful at a growing, well-regarded, diverse and mindful firm, I am subjected to the occasional incredible comment. Called a "skirt." Asked to talk with a male partner in a conversation with just "us girls." Accused of being sensitive and, amazingly, not sensitive enough.

All of this is to say, dear reader, that chronic, pervasive and completely tolerated sex abuse results in hyberbolism. Just ask Catherine MacKinnon. Do a google search. You'll find her.

These are a few of my favorite things . . .

2005-02-27T09:24:00.000-08:00

Today, my insides are green. And not from the terrible flu that has visited nearly every home in Dallas.

Green like jade. Jade as in jaded. Jaded as in hopeless. Faithless. Everyday, the universe serves up my worst fears. Murder. Rape. Torture. Starving. Rejection. Oppression.

Nevertheless, my sunny disposition will not allow me to wallow in sess. It forces me to look on the bright side. To see light in a black hole. So, in honor of the face I show the world, today I will share one of my favorite things:

Bind, torture, kill. After decades of murder, the police have captured the notorious serial killer of Park City, Kansas. Mr. Rader, fifty-nine, appeared to be the normal, average white guy. He acquired the requisite wife and two kids. He indulged the community with his dedication to his Lutheran Church and the disciminating Boy Scouts. The worst report by friends and neighbors, Mr. Radar took his job as a city code enforcer very seriously. One neighbor went so far as to describe this from-the-Heartland Amercian as a "beauricratic bully."

And a bully, indeed. You see, since the 1970s Mr. Rader got his kicks binding, torturing and killing his neigbors, friends and co-workers. He apparently started with a family of four, strangling his former air force colleague and the man's wife and two young children. From there, he provided his life-ending services to women, some of them he knew from work, some of them from his own neighborhood.

Over the years, Mr. Rader came to require more than murder. He courted his already dead or dying victims with poetry writen especially for them. He taunted the police with letters and clues, sending pictures of the victim's dead bodies, jewelrey he took from them and even in a couple of cases copies of or the actual driver's licence. He begged the media for coverage of his special proclivities. How many do I have to kill before I get some national coverage, he asked. He signed his coy missives as "BTK," an acronym, he explained, for "bind them, torture them, and kill them."

Mr. Rader eluded law enforcement despite his attempts to assist them. Police apprehended him only after his daughter came forward, convinced that her father was responsible for the murders. Her blood provided the DNA law enforcers used to link her father to the crimes. Detectives predict that, with this new information, they will link Mr. Radar to even more deaths.

In keeping with Mr. Rader's good fun, and in tribute to his many victims, today I revel in the great fun, even glee, of thinking of ways to bind, torture and kill Mr. Rader. Yet, lest Mr. Radar feel I have stolen his clever idea wholesale, I have added a special element: PUBLIC HUMILIATION. I am arrogant enought to believe my good ideas could be used for more than Mr. Rader. Indeed, I am bold enough to suggest the same fair treatment for all who torture or hurt any living creature, current Administration included, of course.

This is, without any doubt whatsoever, one of my favorite things!

Dubyah Doesn't Know Combat: A Personal Story of Second Hand Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome

2005-02-20T15:01:00.000-08:00

September 19, 2004

“In news from Iraq, terrorists beheaded another American today,” the news anchor announced, piling this bad news on top of more and more coming from the Middle East. The reports of growing violence and chaos come more than a year after President Bush declared, “Mission Accomplished” in a made-for-television appearance in full fighter pilot regalia on top of one of country’s great battleships. The bad news continues to mount until finally, it falls back like the last winter sweater that refuses to land, balanced and neatly folded, on top of its brothers and sisters who wear the balls and musty smell of overuse at the tip top of the closet’s highest shelf.

The falling news from the disaster in Iraq: more than a 1,000 United States men and women dead; almost twice that injured; every day car bombs and explosions; a hand full of Iraqi cities—including Baghdad, so poisoned by the invasion, their inhabitants so enraged, labeled “no-go” zones where not even our proud and well-trained military dare not tread. Most recently, but not entirely novel in this war, Iraqis have begun to express their anger by kidnapping and brutally murdering civilians.

In Iraq, American civilians constitute an army themselves. Hundreds of thousands of them, mostly contractors for American companies such as Haliburton, work every day to build water systems, schools and other infrastructure. And they provide security and other military-type services. More than 34 civilians have been killed in Ira q—shot, beheaded; their bodies burned, stoned, drug through the streets and hung as warnings and in celebration.

My brother, Patrick, is a 28-year-old firefighter. He towers at six feet five inches tall, his handsome blue eyes full of expression. We share that trait; we know no poker face. Patrick is a clown. He likes to say you have to laugh every day. And he knows how to make good on his advice: he can open up the solemnest heart, making it sing with the carelessness that we call laughter. This is a trait he shares with his six year old daughter, Sarah. She’s beautiful, I think, and not just because I see myself in her. Her long shiny Jennifer Anniston-colored hair frames perfectly her sweet mirror face, made up of huge eyes and an easy smile. Patrick is in love with his daughter and she is in love with him.

Patrick is also a contractor in Baghdad. His voluntary duty started more than a year ago in Saudi Arabia where he was lonely, sad, depressed. He left the safety of America for money, not to be a hero, not to serve his country, although he deeply loves his country and served it well for four years in the United States Air Force. The dream of enough money to live near Sarah, to provide for her, lulled my brother to the Middle East. It persuaded him to leave his friends, his family, the comfort of his bed and his culture and the necessity of safety and peace.

No, my brother did not go to the Middle East to be a hero. But he has become one. His transfer from the relatively safe Saudi Arabia to the battlefront of Baghdad transformed his reluctant heart to one of pure courage. Like the bad news rising, my brother transcended his fear and sadness to find excitement in putting out the blaze ignited by a suicide bomber, the reward in tending to wounded soldiers.

I heard from Patrick regularly, often with a joke or a rib over e-mail, when he was in Saudi. In this way, his missives served a dual purpose. They meant he was alive, and still funny. But Baghdad has him too busy to write. Instead of laughing at his jokes, I now know the sorrow and worry of impending doom.

And so, unconsciously, with every report of another bomb, another explosion, another attack, another death, another kidnapping, another beheading, I begin to write my script for the what ifs.

There’s the one for the funeral meant for family and friends, to acknowledge and honor and celebrate the magic of my brother. This one omits his cruelty when we were kids. It sets aside my anger at him for failing, until perhaps now, to live up to his limitless potential. This one concentrates on my deep love for him. A love so deep it made me cry at the prospect of my brother being punished as a child; I offered to take his lickings for him. A love so deep it seeped out of me in song, a song that floated us to sleep when we shared a room as young kids. A love so deep it forgives the time he peed on me during a bath as children. This speech is meant for a friendly audience, a group who shares my love for the “big guy.” It’s a speech I would love to give, over and over, if only in different circumstances and then, only in a million years from now.

But there’s another speech as well. This speech turns my stomach into knots, my hands into fists. It is a speech, or more a begging, I heard today from the family of the most recent beheaded American. Even while this American was murdered, his body discarded beside the road, his family pleaded for his life; that he was a friend to Iraq. The killers published tapes of his murder later in the day, adding to the horror of his family and warning of more deaths to come.

Like this family’s beseeching, my speech-in-the-working is likely to fall on deaf ears although its message is beyond refute. I am a proud American for a great number of reasons, many I will describe later. But I am not so proud as “to be arrogant. Our country’s Iraq policy is out of control and I am not going to wait for my brave, bawdy brother to be captured and killed to speak out.

David Halberstam, a journalist who closely followed and wrote about combat in Vietnam, recently described a disturbing change in American politics. It seems some politicians are not troubled by the facts. They create their own reality. When served with a huge dose of fear and religious righteousness, regrettably, many Americans eat it up.

Most recently, the creators of subjective realty conjured up a world where those who have gallantly served our country in wartime are inexperienced patsies, while those who used their privilege to buy deferments to escape war are weathered, experienced and wise warriors and strategists.

Let me give some of Halberstam’s examples. General Collin Powell fought bravely in Vietnam and became one of our country’s great and most senior military officials. But when he wrote about the lessons of that war in his 1995 memoir, My American Journey-- demanding that our leaders never use the military (the loved ones of mere mortals like you and me) for military gain, that they think through any prospective war, and commit to enlist adequate forces before going to war—he was criticized by some in the National Security Council, the White House and the Defense Department for a lack of courage. Take Senator John McCain, another Vietnam war hero challenged by those in his own party during the presidential primary in 2000. Even President H. W. Bush, a World War II fighter pilot and “the real deal” in my father’s words, would not escape disparagement as a wimp.

Compare, on the other hand, the current Bush Administration, widely regarded among Americans as experienced, tough and intelligent when it comes to national security. As brave as my prior examples, the leaders of the Bush administration were what Halberstam described as sunshine patriots: they attempted to display patriotism while securing deferments to keep them from harm’s way. Dick Cheney received six (six, six, SIX) deferments, the first at the time he was leaving college for poor academics. Forever righteous John Ashcroft requested and received seven.

And these outrageous, shameful numbers are not surprising; we all know their boss’ story. President Bush joined the National Guard in a concerted effort to avoid going to Vietnam. He failed to show up even for this less demanding job. No one, not even the President himself, disputes this account of his record. Nor can they apparently. Perhaps this explains the recent, frenzied attempt of the White House to redirect focus from the record to the credibility of the “Dan Rather documents.”

Yet, somehow, the President urges us to believe that he is better able to direct the country in these troubled times than Senator John Kerry, a man who drew and successfully maneuvered one of the most dangerous duties in Vietnam, all because Kerry came back from his duty speaking the truth about the mistakes made, the lessons learned, in that war. Douglas Brinkley described the maturation of Kerry in his book Tour of Duty. Using Kerry’s tapes, journals and letters from the war, Brinkley notes the change in Kerry’s voice as his experience in Vietnam breaks the optimistic spirit of a young officer.

Halberstam explains that combat imparts respect for the complexity of the world. He argues that those who have seen or participated in combat have a knowledge born out of experience that no one and nothing can simulate. For him, this experience denotes patriotism and ability more so than deferments and privilege. I do not doubt this.

But there is something about combat of which there can be no doubt: combat forever changes a soul, in turn, touching all those around them. I know this because I saw it first hand.

My father served two terms in Vietnam as a United States Marine. My understanding of his duties is unclear; he jumped out of airplanes and, I think, flew them, too. The confusion is a result of my father’s secrecy about his service. It was a taboo topic. When we were young children, Patrick asked once my father if he had ever killed anyone, a brutally honest question, the kind you expect from a child. My father raged, “don’t ever ask that again,” he ordered from behind clinched teeth, leaving no doubt about the answer.

My father was a handsome young man. I was astonished to find that his high school picture looked just like my teenage brother, although Patrick is much taller. Dad was a natural athlete. His best friend, Wayne Baughman, the three-time Olympic wrestler, describes him as the best wrestler he ever saw. In fact, my father turned down a wrestling scholarship to Northwestern University to enlist in the Marine Corp. The scholarship is truly astonishing; my father was from a large, very poor family in Oklahoma City. He ultimately graduated from a small community school in Edmond, Oklahoma years after he returned from Vietnam. He was still the first in his family to obtain a college degree. When my father joined the Marines, he was so young, my grandmother had to authorize his enlistment.

My father was a troublemaker before he joined the military and went to war. He enjoys telling stories of how he, usually accompanied by equally angry, poor friends, fist fought with other boys. He jokes of stealing the goat mascot of a rival school and setting it loose in his own high school. He smiles as he remembers throwing his books out of the school’s windows. Perhaps his adolescence foreshadowed things to come whether or not my father later killed people and feared being killed, but I cannot believe the stress of war did not take its toll.

My father returned from Vietnam with a pregnant, reluctant Japanese wife. I have only met her a few times and know her story only in bits and pieces. From what I gather, my father’s first wife did not want to leave her family, her food, her culture, her language—everything she knew-- to come to America. But my father had a very direct, violent way of getting what he wanted. She had a son, my half-Japanese brother who I resemble perhaps more than any other of my five siblings. My father’s first marriage failed quickly, again I do not know the details, but have my suspicions based on the failures of his second marriage to my mother, a relationship that, like many perverse couplings, persists today.

My father married my mother in 1969. My mother had been married before as well. Like the Brady’s, my parents joined two families with their union: my father his son; my mother a son and two daughters. Unlike the Brady’s, blending families is never easy and my family was no exception. However, our situation seemed worse, more dire and more hopeless than most. You see, my father’s veins ran with a rage and sorrow that I believe can be attributed to his combat experience.

My father beat my mother. There are pictures of her pregnant with black eyes. It robbed his children of basic psychological needs: safety and trust. He somehow made a deal with my mother to stop physically assaulting her as though he was giving her a gift. But the constant fear never ended. His deal didn’t include intimidation and violent rages sans the physical violence. My father later made the same deal with Patrick, another very special gift. I never got that deal.

The point of my very sad, personal story? Combat changes everyone, even if the family member comes home. This is not a revelation. American know that going to war is a bad thing, at least our leaders do. That’s why of our more than four hundred national representatives, only one has a kid at war. Bush will not be sending his child to war. But he doesn’t hesitate to send poor kids like my dad, many struggling to deal with their lives without the confusions, sorrow and regret (the “complexity of the world”) of war. He recruits people at Wal-Mart.

Shame on the Dallas Business Journal!

2004-07-10T21:39:00.000-07:00

On July 2, 2004, the Dallas Business Journal, a journal that purports to be dedicated to business issues, published an article in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment. The amendment has been strongly supported by the Republican party, Dubyah and his Administration and would write discrimination into our nation's most sacred document for the first time in history (in fact, since 1776, the US Constitution has only been amended 17 times, primarily to extend rights to groups who were previously disenfranchised). I am deeply concerned by such blatant partisanship on the part of the Dallas Business Journal, particularly because its article fails to mention business or the any effect the FMA may have on business at all. Consequently, the article appears to be a completely gratuitous act of conservative partisanship, using some of the most archiac stereotypes I have heard in a long time.

For your convenience, I attach a link to the article:

I wrote a response to the editor of the Dallas Business Journal, expressing my disappointment at the misperceptions perpetuated by the article: about the U.S. Constitution, our federal system of government and stereotypes about same-sex couples offered in support of the article. I encourage you to make your concerns known as well. Now is the time to make your voice heard! You may offer your feedback to the editor of the Dallas Business Journal at the following address:

dallas@bizjournals.com

Don't Write Discrimination Into My Constitution

2004-07-10T20:38:00.000-07:00

Hello, fellow bloggers. Welcome to See You Next Tuesday where, every Tuesday you can expect commentary, literary and other references and pure, unadulterated opinions on current events, particularly those important to me as a lesbian lawyer who demands intellectual honesty from everyone up to Goerge "Dubyah" Bush and his sidekicks, down to my colleagues and family. You will also enjoy priceless snipets from actual websites of religious fundamentalist, folks I fondly refer to as right wing nuts, many of whom are trying to declare my home state of Texas and this great, free country of ours a "Christian" nation. All other religions and, of course, the separation of church and state upon which our country is founded BE DAMNED!

In my first installment of Expose Bush 2004, I must write about Dubyah's most recent attempt to satisfy his right wing nut supporters, perverting our nation's most sacred document and polarizing the country at the same time. I am referring to Dubyah's call to amend the U.S. Constitution to forever deny gays and lesbians the right to equality. Particularly, the amendment Dubyah supports, denies even the most loving, respectful, committed same-sex couples the more than 1,100 federal rights and many more state rights that come with a civil (i.e., government issued, NOT religious) marriage license. The Senate is debating the amendment beginning July 12, 2004, and a vote is expected the same week. SO NOW IS THE TIME TO EDUCATE YOURSELF ON THE ISSUES AND MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD . . . SILENCE IS NOT AN OPTION WHEN IT COMES TO AMENDING OUR CONSTITUTION!

Let me start by saying what is undisputed, the United States Constitution is a sacred document. It has been amended only 17 times, primarily to extend rights and benefits to formerly disenfranchised groups of citizens such as slaves/African-Americans and women. Now, for the first time in our nation's history, our President seeks to write discrimination against a group into this great document. Shame on you, Dubyah, and on those who blindly support your efforts to set a horrible precedent of casually amending the Constitution for the purposes of discrimination!

Dubyah and many right wing nut leaders have been rallying their followers with fear-based messages about defending "traditional marriage." In this way, the conservatives who promote this hateful legislation miss the point. The question is simple: should our nation's most sacred document, a document that has never been used to discriminate against a group of citizens, be casually amended to reflect the fears of a small segment of our society? The effects of such a precedent could be devestating. This year, gays and lesbians are under attack. But we need only wait until there is switch in power (hopefully as soon as 2004) to see new groups under scrutiny. Who would be next: the National Rifle Association, Muslims or, heaven forbid, the right wing nut organizations themselves. Our founding fathers intended our Consitution to be a pristine, stable docunent that would be amended only in the most compelling circumstances, not at the whim of the self-appointed moral majority. For this and other reasons, the American Bar Association ("ABA"), the largest and most well-regarded group of jurists in our country, and many other professional groups and publications, have spoken out against the FMA.

The ABA and true conservatists also agree that issues such as a marriage and family have traditional fallen within the preview of the states throught our history as a federalist system. For this reason alone, no matter your stance on the propriety of gay marriage, the FMA such be soundly rejected.

The practical effect of the FMA, in other words, the discrimination it would work, also begs for its failure. The FMA would forever deny a segment of the population equal treatment based only on the sex of the couples. In other words, the FMA would discriminate against couples of the same sex.

The discrimination proposed by the FMA significantly impairs these couples' ability to care for one another and their family. There are more than 1,100 federal rights and benefits that come with a civil marriage license according to an accounting performed by the Government Office of Accounting, not to mention the many state rights marital status bestows. These rights provide important protections to couples, particularly in the event one of them becomes ill or dies. For instance, if a business offers domestic partner health insurance, same-sex couples are taxed on those benefits when married couples are not. Same-sex couples are not allowed coverage under the Family and Medical Leave Act in order to care for each other in case of illness. At death, the surviving partner is taxed like a stranger on the estate the couple shared. The surviving partner cannot even get Social Security survivor benefits- even though he or she contributed into the system with every paycheck.

Proponents of FMA perpetuates the antiquated stereotype that same-sex couples can be reduced to "sexual conduct." They claim the FMA does not affect relationships, but targets only "sexual conduct." This argument is blatantly disingenious and denies the stability, love, respect and commitment to care for one another found in long-term, same-sex relationships. Dubyah and his right wing nut supporters use this crass argument to dismiss this important fight for gay and lesbian equality as a civil rights movement. But check your definitions: "civil rights are those legal rights granted to citizens by the government." It is just such government-granted rights at stake here, and the FMA seeks to ban one segment of our citizenry from these important federal and state rights.

There is much evidence that sexual orientation is "immutable," a legal term used to describe something inherent to us an individuals, like race, ethnicity and gender. Debate on the issue will no doubt continue for some time. However, fair and equal treatment as required by our Constitution is not limited on this basis. Same-sex couples deserve and our entitled to the same rights, benefits and obligations as their opposite sex counterparts.

There is one thing to which folks on all sides of the debate can agree: marriage is fundamental. Nevertheless, the definition of marriage is ever evolving. It began as an arrangement between families for dowry at a time when women were considered property. At that time, marriage was simply an exchange of property for money or other valuables. The definition of marriage has changed greatly since those times, but it has only been in recent history that marriage focused on love, respect and choice. Even more recently, parts of our country limited marriage to individuals of the same race. Indeed, miscegenation laws, or laws banning interracial marriage, were permitted until the late 1960s when the United States Supreme Court outlawed this type of marriage discrimination-a discrimination based on fear.

Like the fear that fueled miscegenation laws, fear of equality for same-sex couples is unfounded. Granting civil marriage licenses to loving, committed same-sex couples does not in any way endanger the marriages of opposite sex couples. In fact, these folks will go on about their days and life as always. The only difference will be that same-sex couples will be better able to protect and care for each other and their families. The children of same-sex couples-and the last census indicates that millions of children live in homes headed by same-sex couples-will no longer be harmed by the discrimination and second class status that FMA promises for them and their parents.

And civil marriage licenses for same-sex couples does not interfere with the rights of religions and religious institutions to determine their own course and policy. The marriage licenses and the rights and benefits attendant to it come from the state and federal governments-not a religious organization. Religious groups are free to recognize, or not, these relationships, just as the Catholic Church refuses to acknowledge divorce.

On the other hand, there is a very real fear that, if passed, the FMA will encourage further discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people ("GLBT"), at home and at work. For instance, by relegating same-sex couples to second-class status, the FMA supports treating the GLBT community as second-class citizens in the work force. Fair-minded Americans are shocked to learn that, in 38 states, it is legal to fire someone just because he or she is GLBT. Should the FMA pass, we can expect even more such discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere.

Dubyah and his right wing nut friends incite fear that gay marriage opens the door to a slippery slope leading to "a day in the sun" for polygamy. This a classic attempt to promote discrimination through fear. You encourage folks to support the FMA because, otherwise, polygamy will become legal! The same type argument was used to promote miscegenation laws. The same-sex couples who would be eligible for marriage are loving, respectful, caring and deeply committed adults entering into a consensual relationship. Polygamy, on the other hand, is commonly known to involve men who seek to marry multiple young girls, oftentimes siblings, in situations that are not consensual and, in fact, abusive, to the young women trapped in them. To compare polygamy to the loving relationships of same-sex couples is insulting and disingenuous. Our constitution clearly protects same-sex couples from discrimination while at the same time protecting the young girls who are often the victims of polygamy.

Dubyah and company misunderstand or, worse yet, attempt to mislead when it comes to the important function of the judiciary branch to protect minorities from majority rule by blaming "liberal" or "activist" courts for strides made to rectify discrimination against same-sex couples. As was the case with miscegenation laws, the courts are often the first of our governmental branches to acknowledge discrimination. This is not an indication of a liberal or activist court. To the contrary, this is an important part of the three branches of government created by our forefathers. The judicial branch was created to, among other things, interpret the constitution, giving effect to the principle of Equal Protection (i.e., all people must be treated equally).

While many who fear equal marriage rights like to label courts fulfilling this function as "liberal," they fail to acknowledge that the United States Supreme Court, which recently struck down anti-gay sodomy laws as discriminatory, is made up primarily of judges self-proclaimed as conservatives or appointed by conservatives. The same is true for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which ruled that laws prohibiting same-sex couples from receiving civil marriage licenses are discriminatory and, therefore, violate the state's constitution.

The crucial role of the judiciary branch in guaranteeing our constitutional rights is particularly clear as we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, the celebrated case in which the Court outlawed segregation in public schools and paved the way for significant strides in the African American civil rights movement. It is ironic that, only a month ago, Dubyah and others who have supported the FMA, praised the Brown court for bravely interpreting the Constitution in the face of public pressure criticism-the same pressure and criticism now asserted by the Dubyah and others against courts who would interpret the constitution in cases involving equal rights for same-sex couples.

NOW IS THE TIME TO SPEAK UP! At a minimum, contact the two Senators from you state. The number is 877-762-8762. The Senators will likely be on the floor for the debate, but you can leave a detailed message with their staff expressing your opposition to the FMA.

Go to http://tinyurl.com/25wg8 to get more information on what you should say.

You can also identify and contact your Senators through http://tinyurl.com/ygxr9.

I also encourage you to fax handwritten notes to some Republican Senators who, based on comments and past votes, may break ranks and oppose the FMA. To date we know of only one Democrat who has vowed to support FMA, Zell Miller (D-GA). We believe that grassroots contacts to other Democrats listed below are needed to bolster their opposition before a public vote. In addition, we urge you to Senator Daschle, Minority Leader, to thank him for his leadership and committment on this issue.

Republican Members who may break rank:
Alexander, Lamar TN Fax 202-228-1264
Bennett, Robert UT Fax 202-228-1168
Campbell, Ben N. Co Fax 202-228-4609
Coleman, Norm MN Fax 202-224-1152
Collins, Susan ME Fax 202-224-2693
Crapo, Michael ID Fax 202-228-1375
DeWine, Mike OH Fax 202-224-6519
Ensign, John NV Fax 202-228-2193
Graham, Lindsey SC Fax 202-228-3808
Gregg, Judd SC Fax 202-224-4952
Hagel, Chuck IN Fax 202-224-0360
McCain, John AZ Fax 202-228-2826
Murkowski, Lisa AK Fax 202-224-5301
Smith, Gordon OR Fax 202-228-3997
Snowe, Olympia ME Fax 202-224-1946
Specter, Arlen PA Fax 202-228-1229
Stevens, Ted AK Fax 202-224-2354
Sununu, John NH Fax 202-228-4131
Vionovich, George OH Fax 202-228-1382
Warner, John VA Fax 202-224-6295

Demoncrat Members who need grassroots bolstering:
Baucus, Max MT Fax 202-224-4700
Bayh, Evan IN Fax 202-228-1378
Breaux, John LA Fax 202-228-2577
Bryd, Robert WV Fax 202-228-0002
Carper, Thomas DE Fax 202-228-2190
Conrad, Kent ND Fax 202-224-7776
Minority Leader Thomas Daschle SD Fax 202-224-2321
Hollings, Ernest SC Fax 202-224-4293
Johnson, Tim SC Fax 202-224-5765
Landriue, Mary LA Fax 202-224-9735
Lincoln, Blanch AF Fax 202-228-1371
Miller, Zell GA Fax 202-228-2090
Nelson, Ben NE Fax 202-228-0012
Pryor, Mark AR Fax 202-228-0908
Rockefeller, John WV Fax 202-224-7665