Got this from Senator Edwards...

[jmowreader]

On one of the fundie sites y'all sent me to was an urging to "write your senator to support the Federal Marriage Amendment."

So I wrote to my senator to tell him what I think of the FMA...and this is what was returned:

Thank you for contacting me regarding S.J. Res. 30, legislation proposing an amendment to the Constitution related to marriage. I appreciate hearing from you.

As you may know, states generally maintain the authority to establish the definition of and the requirements for marriage. However, current federal law defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and defines "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
S.J. Res. 30 proposes a constitutional amendment declaring that marriage in the United States can only consist of the union between a man and a woman. This amendment would also state that neither the federal Constitution, the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, could be construed to require that marital status be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman. S.J. Res. 30 has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I serve.

As a matter of personal belief, I do not support gay marriage, although I believe that gays and lesbians in committed relationships have both rights and responsibilities and should be entitled to partnerships benefits under our laws.

I also have deep reverence for our Constitution, and believe it should be amended only when absolutely necessary. I am not able to support this legislation. Please be assured that I will keep your strong views about this issue in mind as it is considered by the Senate.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to keep in touch.

Works for me.

[AP]

1. This is the best strategy on this issue: separate legal rights

from "marriage" -- make sure that all the RIGHTS of being married are conferred upon everyone without regard for term you use to describe the relationship two people are in (whether it is "marriage" or "civil union").

Then, over time, let "marriage" become the domain of religion, and let conferring legal rights become the domain of government.

[jmowreader]

2. That's how the Germans do it and I like it

Unlike in the US, where people can be married by one of several entitities (a judge or a religious person in all 50 states, a notary public in Florida, an Elvis impersonator in Nevada), in Germany a wedding must be conducted by a judge. If you want the marriage blessed in a church that's up to you, but the judge will perform the legal ceremony. Makes sense--it's a high-level legal proceeding; name one other high-level legal proceeding that is conducted by someone other than a judge or a lawyer.