Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

letter to me from senator hutchison & my response

Expand Messages
  • Greg Cannon
    From: Correspondence_Reply@hutchison.senate.gov To: gregcannon1@yahoo.com Subject: Correspondence from Senator Hutchison Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 19:30:52 -0400
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 9, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      From: Correspondence_Reply@...
      To: gregcannon1@...
      Subject: Correspondence from Senator Hutchison
      Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 19:30:52 -0400

      July 9, 2004

      Mr. Greg Cannon
      5521 Martin
      El Paso, Texas 79903-2311

      Dear Mr. Cannon:

      Thank you for contacting me regarding same-sex
      marriages. I welcome your thoughts and comments on
      this issue.

      Marriage laws have historically been the
      responsibility of state governments, and I generally
      oppose federal government intrusion into matters of
      state authority. Periodically, however, one state's
      action can have serious and far-reaching implications
      for other states, particularly because our
      Constitution requires states to give full faith and
      credit to the laws of other states.

      In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defined
      marriage as only between a man and a woman. I voted
      for this federal law, and I continue to support it
      today because I believe the traditional family unit
      should remain the foundation of our society. The
      recent decision by a narrow majority of the
      Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court mandating
      same-sex marriage threatens to overturn DOMA
      nationwide and effectively make that single state's
      marriage policy the law of our entire country.

      In response, Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) has
      introduced S.J. Res. 30, the Federal Marriage
      Amendment, of which I am a co-sponsor. This bill
      would amend the Constitution to define marriage in the
      United States as
      consisting only of the union of a man and a woman.
      Currently, S.J. Res. 30 is under review by the Senate
      Committee on the Judiciary. When this legislation
      comes before the full Senate for a vote, I intend to
      support
      its passage.

      I appreciate hearing from you and hope you will not
      hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to
      you.
      Sincerely,
      Kay Bailey Hutchison
      KBH:cfh

      Dear Senator Hutchison,
      You wrote to me that "The recent decision by a narrow
      majority of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
      mandating same-sex marriage threatens to overturn DOMA
      nationwide and effectively make that single state's
      marriage policy the law of our entire country."

      I was under the impression that the court decision
      would only force other states to recognize same-sex
      couples who are Massuchusets residents that move to
      other states, but does not force other states to allow
      their own residents to have same-sex marriage. So a
      gay couple from Massachusetts might be recognized in
      Texas, but a gay Texas couple is still not allowed to
      wed. Any how many Massuchesetts residents actually
      move to Texas? I doubt it's that many. Can't we allow
      those crazy New England folks to have their fun, if we
      Texans are still allowed to have marriage the way we
      want it?

      Your constituent,
      Greg Cannon

      You can also write her at http://hutchison.senate.gov/e-mail.htm
    • Ram Lau
      Only religions define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, the US Constitution doesn t. So the whole gay marriage controversy is bogus and
      Message 2 of 3 , Jul 10, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Only religions define marriage as a union between a man and a woman,
        the US Constitution doesn't.

        So the whole gay marriage controversy is bogus and un-American.
        Marriage is not and should not be what the religious right
        hypocrites want it to be.

        Ram
      • greg
        You re very right. I only framed it as a states rights issue in my letter because I thought that might appeal to Senator Hutchison more than the other
        Message 3 of 3 , Jul 10, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          You're very right. I only framed it as a states' rights issue in my
          letter because I thought that might appeal to Senator Hutchison more
          than the other rhetoric I've used in letters about it to her.
          I remember hen I wrote in a letter to my other senator, John Cornyn
          (one of the biggest proponents of the amendments), that he should keep
          in mind not all of his constituents are bigots, he stopped answering
          my letters for a long time.
          --- In prezveepsenator@yahoogroups.com, "Ram Lau" <ramlau@y...> wrote:
          > Only religions define marriage as a union between a man and a woman,
          > the US Constitution doesn't.
          >
          > So the whole gay marriage controversy is bogus and un-American.
          > Marriage is not and should not be what the religious right
          > hypocrites want it to be.
          >
          > Ram
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.