when you get a reply from the senator, will you please post it here? I’m interested in seeing if he actually reads it and comes with a thoughful reply. =D

1) If marriage is only a religious sacrament, then why are governments involved in defining marriage at all? Yet essentially every government in the world does define marriage. Clearly, it’s a civil institution.

2) If marriage were only a religious sacrament, then atheists wouldn’t want to get married, would they? Is it a “redefinition of a religious sacrament” to allow non-believers in religion to get married?

3) Joe is obviously confusing “marriage ceremony” with “marriage.” A marriage ceremony – a wedding – frequently is a religious sacrament. However, “marriage” isn’t the 5-minute (or 5-hour) wedding ceremony — it is the lifetime relationship that follows the ceremony. And when a marriage is recognized by the government, that brings with it civil rights and responsibilities.

4) Although not stated by Joe, the “religious” nature of marriage argument usually leads to the argument that churches will be forced to offer weddings to gay couples. That too is a red herring — it simply doesn’t happen. The Catholic Church, for example, doesn’t recognize re-marriage of a divorced individual, and even though every state in the U.S. does allow such re-marriage, the Catholic Church has not once been forced to perform such a wedding. The same would apply to same-sex marriage.

My suggestion to the Joes of the world who want us gays to accept “civil union” as the legal status for our relationships instead of “marriage” is that they activly work to take the word “marriage” out of the laws everywhere, and substitute “civil union” for everyone — so that marriage can be kept a “religious” issue. Short of that, I’m not willing to settle for second-class status for my not-yet-recognized marriage (which celebrates its 36th anniversary next week!)
—

Tom-

I want to congratulate you on your over-the-internet-where-you-have-supporters recognized marriage. =D congratualitons on your 36th anniversary.

^^

Sorry about that. We don’t mean to undermine just how awful slavery was.

We’re only comparing how unfair it is.

Sorry if we offend you in any way- we really don’t mean it. We’re just… I think a lot of you guys will agree we’re simply angry about the current situation at hand.

No offense meant!

Minneasota may vote Democratic pretty much most of the time! But Nothern Minneasota in more Concerative when it comes to “Gay Marriage” I hate to say as a gay man but “Gay Marriage” in Minneasota might take a while to be legal in this State! But I hope I am wrong to!

Matt

—–

Hello,

I had recently read development whereby you are refusing to support same-sex marriage because the state of Minnesota has more important items on the agenda. Many upset gay people are sending emails to you regarding your stance, and your assistant is replying to these emails with a rather-poor letter that describes this issue of gay marriage as pointless.

I can understand the argument that there may be more important matters to tend to than gay marriage, such as the economy and military action; however, I believe that no matter should be left completely ignored or discarded, as the entire ship is important at all times, and we must never lose sight of the big picture in the face of our crises. President Barack Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 just nine days after assuming office, while he has been spending the plurality/majority of his time focusing on the economy.

I do understand that you represent constituents who are conservative and may not agree with gay marriage. At the same time, though, you were sworn above all to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States and the state Constitution of Minnesota, and I would think that this takes the highest priority over all.

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states the following:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The State Constitution of Minnesota starts with Article I, Section 1:

“Government is instituted for the security, benefit and protection of the people, in whom all political power is inherent, together with the right to alter, modify or reform government whenever required by the public good.”

To me, and I would hope to you as well, gay people are deserving of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and gay marriage is an appropriate means to achieving such things as straight marriage has been for straight people over the last two centuries. Gay people are also deserving of security, benefit and protection from the Government, and such things are achieved through marriage, whether gay or straight. I know you are gay, and I know you are deserving of all of these things, like everyone else is, and I especially know that you can personally relate to the struggle that many gay people face from marriage discrimination. Our Constitutions are meant to protect everyone, including you and me, and even though you serve a constituency that more or less may be of a certain mindset, that should never overrule the laws of the Constitutions that you are sworn to uphold and protect, for yourself and everyone else.

I am disappointed as to how any person considers gay marriage to be pointless, and I am confused as to how an openly-gay person considers gay marriage to be pointless. If gay people are not legally allowed to marry the ones that they love, then these rights are being denied to them, and that is unconstitutional. I can tell you that the majority of gay citizens in America do believe in being able to legally marry the ones that they love, and they don’t consider this issue to be pointless. After all, it’s their very lives that they want to live, and there is nothing more important than being able to live one’s life, as you would like to live your life, and as I would like to live my life.

As you continue to serve your term as State Senator of Minnesota, I hope that you reflect on what is right, just and fair, not just the majority mindset of a particular constituency but to all of us, including you.

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. I hope that any response that I may receive is thoughtful and respectful in return.

Regards,
Sean Chapin