I’ve been having discussions with friends (and Laralee) about the Marriage Protection Amendment, which will be up for vote in the U.S. Senate next week. I was a little surprised to find that people I talk to support it; I think it’s a terrible idea.
On a whim, I wrote to my senators to tell them my views:
I’m writing to express some thoughts on the Marriage Protection Amendment scheduled for a vote next week. I do not support the amendment, and feel it will be detrimental in many ways:
1) In my opinion, the government has absolutely no right, nor authority, to meddle in affairs like this. The purpose of the government is to provide for the safety and security of its citizens– nothing more, nothing less. I am against any expansion of government powers, particularly in the arena of personal relationships.
2) Under the Constitution, states’ rights supercede federal rights unless specifically stated in the Constitution. That model was wisely incorporated by the Founding Fathers because they intentionally wanted to avoid a powerful federal government (like the one that ruled the Colonies). This amendment turns that general rule on its head by granting the federal government dominance over states’ rights, and I think that’s a dangerous road.
3) A constitutional amendment will have little or no direct effect on same-sex couples already in committed relationships. If I was gay (I’m not) and living with my partner, I see no reason why I’d suddenly break up with him because of this amendment. Thus, it does absolutely nothing to address the real issue– it merely pushes it farther underground.
Let me be clear that I do not support gay marriage– but I feel that addressing this sensitive issue can be done in different ways, and a constitutional amendment is not an appropriate choice.
I doubt it will do much good, since Sen. Allard is the author of the amendment, but if nothing else I let them know that at least one of their constituents doesn’t support their approach.