We received a letter from Sen. Stabenow dated May 26 regarding the federal Marriage Amendment and it prompted this reply. We appreciate the response to us.

However, saying that same-sex marriage should be left to the states is unrealistic. It seemed plausible in 1776, but not in 2006. It does not even seem plausible in 1966. When our forefathers wrote the Constitution they never, in their wildest dreams, thought that this great United States of America would be faced with same-sex “marriage.”

The vast majority of Americans do not want legalized same-sex marriage. When put to a vote, people vote for one man-one woman marriage. Every state has some legal guidelines for marriage. The Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution states that one state can be forced to accept another state's law. And some of our radical judges, sooner or later, will rule a state law unconstitutional - it has happened in Colorado. State laws are not protected.

Marriage as defined is a “legal union of a man and a woman.” If the gay community wants to define their bond together, why do they copy “marriage?” Why not establish a new terminology to suit their lifestyle and leave the established traditional marriage alone. Marriage as established thousands of years ago has provided stability and procreation, and follows the natural laws to work in harmony with nature.

As representatives for the Michigan people, you are supposed to work for the majority who voted for traditional marriage and want a national ban on same sex marriage. Why do you go against the majority?

Dallas

and Marge Bicknell

Atlanta

Subscribe to the Herald Times

• Visitor Comments

No comments posted.