More w00tage
Dear Mr. jiggliusceasar:
Thank you for your letter on the Republican sponsored Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution. Today, the amendment failed on a procedural motion requiring 60 votes; it received only 49. My vote was one of 48 against the measure.
I voted no because I believe we must prevent discrimination from being written into the Constitution; I believe we should allow states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law; I believe we should allow states the right to define what marriage equality means.
In more than two hundred years of our history, we have amended the Constitution only seventeen times since the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Many of the amendments have been adopted to expand and protect people’s rights. By preventing states from granting the legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, the Republican measure would have restricted individual rights and undermined our nation’s commitment to treating all people equally under the law.
Many people are concerned that the government may somehow interfere with the right of their churches and religious groups to conduct their own affairs. But, as the First Amendment makes clear, no court and no state can tell any church or religious group how to conduct its own affairs. Far from upholding religious freedom, the Federal Marriage Amendment would have undermined it, by telling churches they couldn’t consecrate a same-sex marriage, even though some churches are now doing so. The amendment would have flagrantly interfered with the decisions of local faith communities, and it would have threatened the longstanding separation of church and state in our society.
Supporters of the amendment claim that same-sex marriages in one state must be recognized in all other states, but that claim is not true. States have broad discretion in deciding to what extent they will defer to other states when dealing with sensitive questions about marriage and raising families. Across the country, states are clearly dealing with the issue and doing so effectively, according to the wishes of the citizens in each of the 50 states. If it’s not necessary to amend the Constitution, it’s necessary not to amend it.
Our nation has made extraordinary progress in the battle for civil rights, and I am proud of the leading role that Massachusetts has taken with regard to civil rights and marriage equality. I will continue to fight for equal rights for all Americans, and I am glad that the United States Senate can now return to debating the many important issues facing our nation.
Thank you for again for contacting me on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Edward M. Kennedy
Thank you for your letter on the Republican sponsored Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution. Today, the amendment failed on a procedural motion requiring 60 votes; it received only 49. My vote was one of 48 against the measure.
I voted no because I believe we must prevent discrimination from being written into the Constitution; I believe we should allow states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law; I believe we should allow states the right to define what marriage equality means.
In more than two hundred years of our history, we have amended the Constitution only seventeen times since the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Many of the amendments have been adopted to expand and protect people’s rights. By preventing states from granting the legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, the Republican measure would have restricted individual rights and undermined our nation’s commitment to treating all people equally under the law.
Many people are concerned that the government may somehow interfere with the right of their churches and religious groups to conduct their own affairs. But, as the First Amendment makes clear, no court and no state can tell any church or religious group how to conduct its own affairs. Far from upholding religious freedom, the Federal Marriage Amendment would have undermined it, by telling churches they couldn’t consecrate a same-sex marriage, even though some churches are now doing so. The amendment would have flagrantly interfered with the decisions of local faith communities, and it would have threatened the longstanding separation of church and state in our society.
Supporters of the amendment claim that same-sex marriages in one state must be recognized in all other states, but that claim is not true. States have broad discretion in deciding to what extent they will defer to other states when dealing with sensitive questions about marriage and raising families. Across the country, states are clearly dealing with the issue and doing so effectively, according to the wishes of the citizens in each of the 50 states. If it’s not necessary to amend the Constitution, it’s necessary not to amend it.
Our nation has made extraordinary progress in the battle for civil rights, and I am proud of the leading role that Massachusetts has taken with regard to civil rights and marriage equality. I will continue to fight for equal rights for all Americans, and I am glad that the United States Senate can now return to debating the many important issues facing our nation.
Thank you for again for contacting me on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Edward M. Kennedy