Dear President Bush,
First, I believe if you really want to protect the institution of marriage, you could do so more effectively by outlawing divorce. With the divorce rate at around 50%, heterosexuals seem to do a fine job degrading the institution of marriage, without the help of gay people.
Second, as far as I know, the State’s only role in granting permission to marry involves the risk of deformed offspring. All other marriages are allowed. Religions may allow or not allow couples to marry based on religious beliefs, but the State may not. So now, as the courts edge us closer towards uniformly enjoying the freedom to make our own decisions about marriage, you would have us to enact a Constitutional amendment compelling the State to specifically deny this freedom to one group of its represented citizens, the first of its kind in American history. And the reason for this drastic measure? In defense of the definition of a word?
When two people marry, what they require from their religion varies greatly. What they require from the State is to govern the wealth, property and children that come from that union. These requirements are no different if the couple is heterosexual or homosexual. As long as we continue to be a free society, homosexuals will continue to fall in love and live their lives together, married in their own eyes and the eyes of their peers. I believe that while religions should have every right to define marriage as they see fit, the State’s definition must remain broad enough to include the diversity of the society it represents, and the reality of the lives led by its citizens.
Derek Gulbranson