Now that Massachussetts allows gay marriages, and that Dubya is pushing for a Constiutional Amendment stating that marriage is between a man and a woman, it is important to know where the people you elected will vote on the issue. Here is a response from Senator Dianne Feinstein on her position for the Federal Marriage Amendment:

May 18, 2004

Mr. {Name/address ommitted by request)

Dear Mr.:

Thank you for writing about the Federal Marriage Amendment, a proposed constitutional amendment which would require that marriage in the United States consist only of the union between a man and a woman. I appreciate your taking the time to share with me your thoughts.

In my view, enacting such a measure would overstep the role of Congress by interfering with States= constitutional authority to legislate in the area of family law. The issue of marital union has always been, and I believe should continue to be a State right and responsibility.

Thank you again for sharing your views on marriage with me. If you should have any further comments or questions, please do not hesitate to call my Washington, DC staff at (202) 224-3841, or visit my website at http://feinstein.senate.gov.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

http://feinstein.senate.gov

Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the Nation are available at my website http://feinstein.senate.gov. You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list at http://feinstein.senate.gov/issue.html.

The recipient of this e-mail was disheartened. I told that he should have expected no less from a person who was once the mayor of San Francisco.

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2004

Answers

Rev. Harper:

Senator Feinstein makes a significant point that truly points to the nature of our government. Right now, because the conservatives control the legislative and executive branches of the federal government there are a lot of calls for the federal government to intercede on areas that were once the exclusive domain of the states. A few years ago, like gay marriage it would have been heresy to even suggest that federal government get involved in such a state issue.

38 states in the country have laws defining marriage as the union of man and woman. The nation has a defense of marriage act signed by that infidel president Clinton that defines marriage as the union of man and woman for the purposes of accessing federal programs primarily social security.

If anything those who oppose gay marriage, unions or anything in between may be too late, after all in the state of Massachuetts marriages are taking place, what is to become of those unions if the amendment passes, and that is not an easy thing to do, do we dissolve these marriages?

It will be fascinating to watch the process unfold. Remember in order to change the constitution you need super majorities in congress and in 38 of 50 state legislatures.

-- Anonymous, May 20, 2004