I recently received the following letter and would like to address this issue not only personally with the gentleman that sent it, but also address it as an issue. My official response follows the letter:

Good luck in your campaign. Please keep low taxes and the Constitution front and center.
I also request that you consider that gays and lesbians have families too. Their children deserve the same protections under marriage as children of straight people.
Families today are not the families of 1950, and the Protection of Marriage law creates collateral damage on various fronts for living, breathing American people. Repeal the Protection of Marriage Act, if not for the difficulties it imposes on some families, then for the fact that this law encroaches on State's rights and undermines interstate marriage reciprocity.
This law causes cherry-picking of marriage contracts. This one's valid, this one's not.
I am currently married and not married depending on where I stand. This duality of status creates hardship.
My spouse's income is taken into consideration when it is a disadvantage (ie disqualifies eligibility for educational grants based on too much "family" income). But at tax time, my spouse can't count my educational expenses in his deductions. This is unfair.
From a Spiritual point of view, do you think Christ will commend such a law?
Will He not judge that this law, which is intended to protect marriage, has essentially ignored the greatest threat to marriage, divorce? Is this not a case of straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel? The nobleness of this law's intention crumbles under the weight of divorce, which Jesus specifically condemned at the Sermon on the Mount. He never mentioned gays. What is the point of preserving a pearl if it is to be trodden under foot by the very ones who want to deny it from others?

This comment is not meant to be divisive, as I strongly welcome conservative values, like liberty, small government, low taxes, free market capitalism, and the Fair tax.
I just don't think the Federal government has the legitimate authority to negate marriage contracts of individual States based upon sex. Let States make their own laws on marriage. I don't think I should have to join radical Progressives to secure equality. The thought of their Socialistic brand of Democracy turns my stomach, so please take this to heart.

Thanks for listening and good luck once again.

Sincerely,
D

D,

Thank you for taking time to express your concerns for the Protection of Marriage Act. I appreciate the tone of your letter in that it doesn’t come across as divisive or argumentative.  It is certainly at the forefront of my campaign to be able to agree with you on issues of fiscal responsibilities (i.e., keeping taxes low, small government, capitalism and fair tax).  You and I certainly are able to find common ground in supporting the fiscal issues facing Maryland and the U.S.

The issue of Gay Marriage and/or its supporting laws is definitely a state issue and should not be a Federal one. Our nation’s founders set up our Federal Government to have very little control over state’s rights and have very limiting responsibilities in defining the laws of the land outside of citizen protection.  While your position on Gay marriage differs greatly from mine, I certainly support your freedom to choose the lifestyle in which you live. That is what makes our Nation great in terms of “Freedom” and the rights that the U.S. Constitution provides us both. It is this liberty that makes America the greatest nation in the world and drives people into our boarders to make America their homes to enjoy the “pursuit of happiness” that our Declaration of Independence states as an inalienable right. 

While your chosen lifestyle is your pursuit for happiness, I have chosen traditional marriage to pursue that same life fulfillment; I do not believe that Government at any level (State or Federal) should involve itself in the details of personal lifestyles. Your point for children is a subject matter that is separate from Gay marriage, in my opinion, and I do believe that children should have protections under the law where they are too young to protect themselves by decisions they are too young to make. Your right, we are no longer in the 1950’s, however, I do believe strongly in a sense of “right and wrong” which I understand is a fading position in our postmodern society, but it is a position I hold strongly to as did our nation’s founding fathers.

The forefathers of our nation declared that marriage is defined as between a man and woman, they also founded our nation upon Judeo Christian values and many of them as much stated that our nation would fail when we fail to maintain that system of belief or ideals. It was never intended to usurp the individual’s freedom to live according to his/her definition of happiness, while it was the mindset that morality was based on Judeo-Christian principals and for two hundred and thirty three years that has worked for this country, even though our culture and society has changed and even fought against it as a foundational principal.

Our constitution protects both of our freedoms and protects our lives and personal property. However, given the reasoning I have come to as mentioned above, I find it difficult to conclude that it is appropriate to use tax payers dollars to “fund” anyone’s freedoms regardless of their lifestyle when it is in direct conflict of what our founding fathers intended when this country was developed. Last week I heard more than once that our laws were “archaic.” Law’s are intended to be set in “stone.” Good laws withstand the test of time. I personally believe that Marriage between a man and a woman is a good law and not only falls into order with how our nation was built, but how I believe God intended man to live.

I will help you in any way that I can, as we agree on so many issues - we truly do - but on this one we simply do not and I cannot in good conscious protect with tax dollars the union of non-traditional lifestyles.  I am certainly not going to infringe on your liberties and always stand for your freedoms, you can count on that but I cannot use tax dollars to support that particular freedom.

Sincerely,

Mike Phillips

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites