 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
||
|
Follow-up Letter from Richard Wilkins to Senator John Kerry
Requesting Clarification of His Position on a Federal Marriage Amendment
June 2, 2004
Dear Senator Kerry, I am disappointed that after more than six weeks you have not responded to my letter of April 15 requesting clarification of your position on a constitutional amendment to define marriage in the United States as exclusively the union of a man and a woman. For your convenience, a copy of that letter is attached. The legalization of “same sex marriage” by your home state of Massachusetts makes amending the Constitution even more urgent now than when I originally wrote to you. Opinion polls continue to show increasing opposition to legalizing “same sex marriage” at the same time that these developments in Massachusetts make it more likely that activist judges will impose “same sex marriage” on all the states. As I pointed out in my original letter, this legalization effort poses two threats. One is the serious negative consequences that inevitably would result from changing forever how our society and future generations would view marriage and the family. Throughout history, the strength and integrity of these two institutions have been directly correlated with the success of cultures and societies. Your opposition to tampering with marriage in this way suggests that you understand this danger and we applaud you for taking this position. However, as I stated in my letter, it makes your opposition to a constitutional amendment to protect these institutions even more puzzling. The second danger posed is that the effort to legalize “same sex marriage” by judicial fiat undermines our representative form of government. It would not only be undemocratic, it would be anti-democratic. There is no language in any of the state constitutions or in the U.S. Constitution to justify judges interpreting them to require this, especially since nay such ruling would also run counter to the history and traditions of the American people as well as the opinion of the majority. It is clear following the reasoning of the majority in Lawrence v. Texas that we must reign in the judiciary or risk losing our representative form of government. In the defense of marriage, at least, a federal constitutional amendment is the only way to accomplish this. Amending the Constitution to defend marriage is rightly emerging as one of the most significant issues in the upcoming campaign because of it has such significance for our future as a society and as a nation. That is why it is so important for you to clarify your position on this issue. I renew my offer to discuss this issue with you or your advisors in more detail or do whatever else we can do to help you in further clarifying your position on this issue. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Richard G. Wilkins |
||