gigamatic

I thought I would share this letter with you, the reader. I sent it far into the reaches of Jesusland and Canada yesterday, via email, and at least one of you chose to send a letter to our Secretary of State as well.

The following was sent to a rather politically active friend of mine in response to his letter to the secretary of state regarding the "gay marriage ban" which was on our ballots and passed this fall. All names have been removed to attempt to foil googling.

[Please note any typos are from transcription]

On behalf of [state] Secretary of State, [name of SoS], thank you for your recent letter concerning [the Issue]. I am responding on his behalf.

Your civility, both in tone and wording is evident and demonstrates your thoughtfulness and passion for your viewpoint. In turn, and in good conscience, I will attempt to lay out a few of the Secretary's thoughts on this matter in a civil manner.

There are two issues at play here. The first issue, giving constitutional protection to a group of individuals who surpass the bar for legally protected group status, has historically not been applied to individuals who choose to engage in sexual intercourse with a member of the same sex. The U.S. Supreme Court has never held that a person, who chooses to have sexual intercourse with another person of the same sex, and thus, identify himself or herself as a homosexual, deserves equal protection under the law as someone who does not choose their race, gender or age for example.

The second issue deals with the definition of marriage. For thousands of years, an untold number of civilizations have recognized that marriage was between a man and a woman. One, to now accept that two men or two women can come under the definition of marriage would be to totally eradicate the meaning and structure of marriage. Two, such a "union", in essence, would say there is no need for either a father or mother in a home. All of the data says otherwise. As a matter of fact, as is much as humanly possible, numerous studies show that a husband and wife should stay together for the health, welfare and sake of their child(ren). There is something undeniably unique, and the facts bear it out, about the stability a mother and father can bring to their child. Discrimination, no. If a person wants to become married, there have always been guidelines - age, no.one closer than a second cousin, no current spouse and someone of the opposite sex - one can choose to follow if they so desire.

As [the Issue] allegedly relates to destroying property rights or foiling the intent of inheritance bequests, such is not the case. Individuals always have the legal ability to carry out personal transactions through contracts, wills, trusts and the like.

In terms of the ramifications of the second paragraph of the Issue, as worded on the ballot, time will tell as it is defended and interpreted by the Attorney General and analyzed by judges. As for the role of the Secretary of State's office in educating the voters on this issue, our role on this and every ballot issue is to disseminate as widely as possible a booklet which allows the proponents and opponents to stress their arguments on behalf of their given position.

Although we may maintain different perspectives on this important issue, hopefully our dialogue has remained respectful. Again, thank you for taking time to convey your thoughts and for being an engaged citizen. On behalf of Secretary [name], may you experience much joy during this holiday season.

[name] Assistant Secretary of State

-------------------

A response email I got from a friend no longer living here: "I just sent [the Secretary of State] and [the Governor] a letter about why I will never move back to Ohio and how this law is going to ruin the university system and Ohio's economy. Suck it, [Secretary of State]."

That sums up my sentiment. Suck it. You fought dirty and won, asshat.