I thought that this might primarily be of interest to folks such as those who expressed last week that they could no longer support Herseth after her FMA comments (as opposed to those who said that they were willing to give her a pass considering her situation, a pragmatic position that I respect and have no argument with in this instance). I had suggested that rather than abandon her entirely, people email her with their concerns and promises of future support conditional upon further clarification of her position in the right direction. This was my own attempt to do so; I'm sorry that it got a little long, but I haven't yet gotten over the illusion that substantive personal appeals of this sort might sometimes possibly have some effect:
Dear Ms. Herseth,
I am writing to express both my support for your campaign for South Dakota's seat in U.S. House of Representatives and my disappointment over your recent comments on the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (Aberdeen American News, 2/24). These comments seemed to imply that you supported and would vote for such an amendment, and the statement subsequently released by your campaign and posted on the popular Daily Kos political website (2/26) only added further confusion to the issue. As you I'm sure you're aware, these statements caused quite an uproar on this and other Democratic websites -- many of which are listed on your campaign's own home page -- and seriously alienated a very large number of people who had either been potentially willing or actually planning to contribute financially to your campaign and encourage others to do similarly, as well as some who have already done so. I myself had been planning to make a modest contribution after the end of the moth, but I find myself very reluctant to do so in the wake of these statements. At the same time, I have tried to the best of my ability to encourage readers of the Daily Kos site to carefully consider your situation and the realities of South Dakota culture and politics before writing you off entirely, and to be patient with you pending further clarification of your stance on this important and contentious issue. I believe that there are strong moral reasons to oppose such an amendment, which I'm sure you're aware of, and I also think that there might be some solid political arguments for backing away from it at this time. While I know that you don't need advice from me on the political aspect of this issue, before you disregard this letter entirely, please allow me to share a little bit about my own background and reasons for feeling as I do about its substance, as well as make a conditional commitment to your campaign.
I grew up in a family of lifelong Democrats on a small farm outside of [XXX], ND, just a few miles from the South Dakota state line: to give you a sense of how Democratic, my grandparents had pictures of Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy on their mantle, and I remember my grandfather explaining to me the meaning of his "Don't Blame Me -- I Voted For McGovern" button when I was a small child; later, my grandmother took me to meet then-Rep. Byron Dorgan, and my mother explained to me who then-Rep. Tom Daschle was when I saw one of his campaign signs as we drove through Aberdeen. "He's one of the good guys," she said, or something to that effect. So, even though I now reside in [XXX], CA, I'm sure you can see why I have taken a personal interest in and favorable disposition toward your candidacy, on the assumption that you would represent your state and the American people in the tradition of the fine Democratic Congressional delegation that the two Dakotas are currently blessed with.
At the same time, I also grew up with the very typical prejudices toward non-heterosexuals that I'm sure you're all too familiar with from your own experience growing up in the same area. I called other boys "faggot" on the playground and was called the same by them years before I knew what the word actually meant. Unfortunately, there was also serious abuse in my family, and my father did not make a secret of his view that I was not sufficiently masculine and would never grow up to be a real man. "Sissy" and "pansy" are words that I heard from him too often. Equally unfortunately, I took some of these prejudices with me, if only half-consciously, when I left the state to attend [college in CA]. It was there that I first met and in some cases became friends with openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. I was there with other friends through their sometimes lengthy coming out processes, and witnessed very closely the painful emotions and struggles that this sometimes involved. These experiences, together with the insights that I gained from conversations with a variety of GLBT people, helped me a great deal in gaining a better perspective on myself and my own background and the issues that I struggled with because of it, even though I was and remain a heterosexual myself. Later, I was fortunate enough to live for several years in San Francisco and then Oakland, and experience firsthand how psychologically and spiritually refreshing it is to live in environments in which gay relationships are completely normalized and part of everyday life for heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals alike. During these years, I became (and I remain) convinced that a great deal of the reflexive wariness, prejudice and even bigotry toward non-heterosexuals that both you and I are familiar with would disappear very quickly if everyone had the opportunity to have such an experience, and that the enforcement of overly constricting gender roles for all people would be relaxed. I should add that more recently I was able to share the joy of two good female friends who were married in a beautiful Quaker ceremony in Pennsylvania. While it is frustrating to know that their relationship receives no recognition in their home state, I am certain that only the hardest-hearted people could witness their love and commitment firsthand and retain an animus against such relationships -- and that only the hardest-headed people could continue to believe that they somehow imperil heterosexual marriage or the foundations of civilization.
I understand that there are many reasoned and nuanced positions that people can take on the issue of same sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships. Given your positions on other important issues, I want to believe that your heart is in the right place on these matters. As I am sure that you are already familiar with the many compelling moral arguments against writing discrimination into the United States Constitution -- fixing it in stone for all states and all people -- I do not need to recite them to you. And given your legal expertise, I do not need to recite to you the potential ramifications of the "or the legal incidents thereof" clause in Rep. Musgrave's proposed amendment, which as you undoubtedly know would be used to challenge not only civil unions and domestic partnerships but in all probability other anti-discrimination measures as well. Assuming that your heart is in fact in the right place -- on the side of fundamental human dignity and the foundational American principle that all men and women are created equal and deserve equal protection under the law -- the only questions that should remain are whether and how and how strongly one should oppose such an amendment during a special election in which the GOP machine has apparently targeted you for defeat. While I cannot pretend to give you sound pragmatic advice on these questions, I want to call your attention to the numerous persuasive arguments that can actually be made against such an amendment in a state such as South Dakota. The relatively straightforward position of Sen. John Edwards -- that he doesn't believe in gay marriage but thinks that question needs to be left to the states -- is one. The statements of Senators Daschle and Johnson -- essentially, if I read them correctly, that changing the Constitution is an extremely weighty matter and that there is nothing that makes such an amendment necessary at this particular time -- suggest another. This could of course be expanded upon by pointing out that it would be imprudent to rush an amendment through in a political season and that it would be wrong to exploit this issue for political gain. More interestingly, I read that SD House Republican Leader Bill Peterson believes that an amendment is unnecessary and that all states should be allowed to define marriage by themselves, as provided for in the 10th Amendment (Aberdeen American News, 2/24). As I'm sure you know, there are a variety of other arguments against such an amendment made by other prominent Republicans as well as moderate and conservative Democrats nationwide. From everything I've heard so far, I suspect that the state's rights argument will be a particularly strong minimum position at this particular moment in our history: e.g. "We don't want people from Massachusetts or California dictating what we can and can't do here in South Dakota -- on issues like gun control, for example -- and we shouldn't try to dictate to them on this, either." Or: "The federal government shouldn't be getting involved in these kinds of issues. They're issues for states, churches and other religious communities to decide on their own." Within the context of arguments of this sort, opposing the "legal incidents" clause of the current Musgrave Amendment for the sake of respecting other states' civil union and antidiscrimination laws -- while refraining from taking a position on other, purely hypothetical amendments -- could be a wise move. (Obviously, a higher risk but potentially higher benefit strategy would be to appeal to people's basic notions of fairness and defend the right of same sex couples to be free from egregious forms of discrimination, thereby forcing your opponent to risk appearing unfair and discriminatory, which no one really likes except the most bigotted of bigots. But I strongly doubt that you're going to get the bigot vote anyway.) I'm sure you can think of other approaches still, but whichever position you ultimately chose to take, I trust that you have the ability to articulate it in principled moral terms that will resonate with the best values shared by the majority of South Dakotans.
The final thing I want to say is that I remain willing to contribute to your campaign, provided that you take some clear steps to distance yourself from the implication that you are ready to support the Musgrave Amendment or any similar Constitutional amendment at this particular time. I would gladly make such a contribution today if not for this seeming implication of your previous statements (you would be only the second candidate I have ever directly contributed to; after retired Gen. Wesley Clark); unfortunately I simply cannot contribute in good conscience to a candidate who might be likely to alter the United States Constitution in a way that would humiliate and adversely affect millions of American citizens (or any American citizens, for that matter), and further the cause of intolerance rather than tolerance. This is a defining historical moment, and I appeal to your own conscience to stand on the right side, or at least not stand on the wrong side. The financial contribution that I can make will necessarily be modest, since I currently live on a graduate student's budget, but if you do the right thing I will encourage other readers of Daily Kos and other websites to make contributions of their own, along with my own friends. [...] Whatever decision you make, I wish you the best of luck in your campaign and thereafter, and I remain hopeful that you will handle this issue in a way that is consistent with the basic values and principles that have guided our nation's progress from the beginning.
Sincerely,
[XXX]