Here's what I wrote:
February 26, 2004
Dear Ms. Herseth,
Several days ago, I sent you a campaign contribution. Your campaign was brought to my attention by the Daily Kos blog, and I decided to support you because I feel strongly about winning back the house for the Democrats. I looked at your website, read what little information you have posted about your positions, decided I liked the fact that you're reaching out to the netroots, and sent you $25.01.
Today I wish I had waited. I wish I hadn't sent you money. Why? Because of your stance on the federal marriage amendment. Please don't misunderstand me: same sex marriage is not a litmus test for me. I don't care what you think about it. Or what you think about gay people, or gay rights. What I can't support is an effort to amend our Constitution to restrict the rights of a group of Americans. Our Constitution is a sacred document that recognizes our rights as citizens; it is not the place to wage a culture war. Our Constitution is a document that protects rights and civil liberties, and it is wrong to put any express curtailment of rights and civil liberties into it. It is appalling and disturbing that the Constitution would even be considered as a proper vehicle for enshrining such limited, narrow, and exclusive rights and definitions when there already exists numerous other local and state and federal laws and mechanisms to deal with this issue.
I understand that you may feel that politically, you cannot support same sex marriage. However, you can oppose same sex marriage without supporting a Constitutional amendment. The Defense of Marriage Act adequately protects states that do not want to recognize gay marriage. Your own state has such a law. The DOMA is still standing, and any attempt to amend the Constitution that is based on anticipating its demise is necessarily premature. The Constitution is a sacred document that is not to be tinkered with lightly. Because the Constitution is so hard to amend, every amendment must be considered very seriously and at great length because the amendment may very well be in force forever. Amendments were once proposed to ban interracial marriage, at a time when most Americans thought that that was a good idea; imagine what would have happened if we had emblazoned that discriminatory principle into our Constitution. The current rush to amend the Constitution in an election year is not the type of deliberative, thoughtful analysis that must be given to an issue so weighty as modifying our most fundamental document. I understand that both Senators from South Dakota, as well as many other Democrats around the country, have taken this position. I wish you had joined them.
I hope you change your position. I hope you make it clear that whatever our opinions about marriage, and who should or should not be able to marry, the constitution of the United States of America is not the appropriate place to make that decision. If and when you say that, I will be delighted to return my financial support to your campaign. Until then, I must withdraw it.
Regretfully,
Veracious
With thanks to SVDem, RedDan and Ivan.
What did you write?