Reply to Senator Levin...
Dear Senator Levin,
I appreciate your reply, and your stance, on the subject of same sex marriage. I applaud you again for not wanting to write discrimination into the Constitution, a document which has historically been used to grant people more rights, not take them away.
However, I would like to point out to you that, while civil unions are currently "in fashion", this would amount to a situation where the LGBT community would be in a "separate, but equal" position. A similar justification was used by white America to keep African Americans out of their bathrooms, schools, buses, churches and, basically, life. Is that what we really want to do this in the country? Allow two separate kinds of marriage? To use two different definitions for the same idea doesn't make any sense to me, both as an American and as a gay man.
Why should my union be called something else if it affords me and my partner all the rights of marriage? If you truly are for legal protections for partners of the same sex, write that into the Constitution. The United States is far behind other countries in the world, all of which are our allies. It has been shown time and again that gay marriage will not destroy the institution of marriage. Canada, Belgium Spain, Britain and others have not crumbled to the ground. On the contrary, cities around the world are electing openly gay officials to authority positions.
I understand the Senate will be voting on an amendment to the Constitution very soon regarding this issue. I surmise from your previous comments you will be voting against this measure. Thank you for that.
Again, I appreciate your time,
I appreciate your reply, and your stance, on the subject of same sex marriage. I applaud you again for not wanting to write discrimination into the Constitution, a document which has historically been used to grant people more rights, not take them away.
However, I would like to point out to you that, while civil unions are currently "in fashion", this would amount to a situation where the LGBT community would be in a "separate, but equal" position. A similar justification was used by white America to keep African Americans out of their bathrooms, schools, buses, churches and, basically, life. Is that what we really want to do this in the country? Allow two separate kinds of marriage? To use two different definitions for the same idea doesn't make any sense to me, both as an American and as a gay man.
Why should my union be called something else if it affords me and my partner all the rights of marriage? If you truly are for legal protections for partners of the same sex, write that into the Constitution. The United States is far behind other countries in the world, all of which are our allies. It has been shown time and again that gay marriage will not destroy the institution of marriage. Canada, Belgium Spain, Britain and others have not crumbled to the ground. On the contrary, cities around the world are electing openly gay officials to authority positions.
I understand the Senate will be voting on an amendment to the Constitution very soon regarding this issue. I surmise from your previous comments you will be voting against this measure. Thank you for that.
Again, I appreciate your time,