Reply from the senator

[Mia14]

Dear Ms. __:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Marriage Protection Act. I
appreciate hearing from you and having the benefit of your views.

On January 24, 2005, Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado introduced
S.J.Res. 1, the Marriage Protection Act. I joined Senator Allard as an
original cosponsor of this resolution, which proposes an amendment to the
United States Constitution that marriage in the United States shall
consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

As you may know, on May 17, 2004, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
became the first state in the history of the United States to legalize
same-sex marriage, by a four to three decision of the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court. The court came to this decision by claiming that
same-sex couples have a right to marriage under the Massachusetts
Constitution. Despite that for thousands of years traditional marriage has
been defined as an institution between one man and one woman, and the
wealth of evidence of its benefits for children, the court declared, "[t]he
marriage ban works a deep and scarring hardship on a very real segment
of the community for no rational reason." Regardless of efforts to
block, delay, or modify the court's decision, beginning on May 17, 2004,
Massachusetts was forced by the Court to issue marriage licenses to
same-sex couples.

Through the Massachusetts court decision, the fundamental principles of
marriage have been attacked by unelected judicial activists who have
taken it upon themselves to redefine the institution of marriage. The
Massachusetts court has made it clear that they interpret marriage merely
as a contract for individuals rather than a social institution that
exists for the common good. Since this decision, a number of states have
been forced to determine the breadth of the Massachusetts decision.
Same-sex couples from across the country have gone to Massachusetts to
get married and then return to their home states and demand under the
full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution that the marriage be
recognized, despite a clear residency requirement in the Massachusetts
law.

With these developments, we can no longer assume that current federal
or state laws can protect the institution of marriage. The Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA), passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton
in 1996, is sound law that aims to protect traditional marriage.
However, it cannot adequately protect marriage from judicial activists who
wish to reinvent their state constitution and ultimately the U.S.
Constitution. In fact, traditional marriage has been challenged in nine
states, and four of these states' (California, Maryland, New York, and
Washington), trial courts have found a right to same-sex marriage-in each
case relying in part on the Massachusetts decision. At least 35
lawsuits have been filed challenging those states' marriage laws as
unconstitutional. Additionally, a Nebraska federal court found unconstitutional a state constitutional amendment that was passed by 70 percent of Nebraska voters.

The American people have spoken on this issue. In August 2004, the
voters of Missouri overwhelmingly supported a constitutional amendment
sustaining traditional marriage. Louisiana followed in September with
overwhelming support to defend traditional marriage. Then, in November
2004, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi,
Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah each passed some form of a state constitutional amendment defending traditional marriage. Seven more states will vote on constitutional amendments in the 2006 mid-term elections.

Pennsylvania law states, "it is hereby declared to be the strong and
longstanding public policy of this Commonwealth that marriage shall be
between one man and one woman. A marriage between persons of the same sex which was entered into in another state or foreign jurisdiction, even if valid where entered into, shall be void in this Commonwealth."
However, the court decisions above make it clear that this law is in
jeopardy unless an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is enacted.

I believe that redefining marriage sends a message to the next
generation that children do not need mothers and fathers, and alternative
family forms are just as good as traditional families. Furthermore, I
cannot think of anything more vital to the preservation of our society than
encouraging traditional marriage in which children are raised by a
mother and a father. Additionally, I think it is wrong for the government
to legitimize the concept that children do not need mothers and
fathers. There is an abundance of research and literature supporting a
healthy marriage's positive effect on children. Children that are a product
of a healthy marriage are less likely to be poor, less likely to fail
at school, and less likely to have an emotional behavioral problem
requiring psychiatric treatment.

The federal government must continue to encourage a strong culture of
marriage, with people marrying and raising children, because research
shows this provides the best, most stable environment for children. This
is an important issue that requires the people to have the right to
define marriage for themselves and for their voices to be heard, rather
than having it defined for them by unelected judges. Please know that I
will continue to work with my Senate colleagues to press for passage of
the Marriage Protection Act.

Thank you again for contacting me. If I can be of further assistance
on this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to call on me again.
Sincerely,

Rick Santorum
United States Senate

[Mia14]

I'd like to make an intelligent and strong, but respectful response to this, which was in response to a short letter I sent him urging him not to support the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Any ideas? Reactions? Anyone get a similar response from a senator?

[tdogg]

Mia,

You could respond in part by providing some divorce statistics among heterosexuals, and possibly include some positive stats/stories about same-sex couples and their families and then provide him with some references to read. Doubt if it's going to make a difference with this person. I think we have to really concentrate and voting these people out of elected office whenever possible. Perhaps the best course of action is to put our efforts out to the public, in the areas where the public will listen - sort of like the politicians do. There are those who are adamantly against gay marriage and those who are adamantly for it. perhaps we need to be contacting those who are 'swinging' on the issue - undecided. Not sure about how, when, where, etc.

I'm a bit of rebel tho, so doubt if I could let that response go without a reply in turn... Good luck!

[Zerbie]

Tdogg's right, Santorum is not exactly open to persuasion on this one!

However, I've written several letters taking on some of the points cited above. There are a couple of threads I created weeks/months ago where I discussed some points I made in a letter to Sen McCain's support of the Arizona state constitutional amendment. You could search that out - you'll see what I had to say, plus read all the helpful suggestions that everyone else posted.

My number one point is that civil responsibilities, rights, and benefits, must never hinge upon a popular vote. But there are other points as well.

I think the thread was called something like, "How is this? Please critique." It was a while ago, so it might be a few pages back. Take a look!

[brichards]

I'm a little late on this one, but ... This appears to be, word for word, the same stock reply I got from him ... the only thing that annoys me about that (aside from just how wrong and immovable he is) is that there is not indication that he/his office even knew whether my initial contact with him was in favor or in opposition to the amendment ... I have no confidence that my senator is listening to me/us. But I do know who I'll be voting for in November, and his initials aren't RS!