Thursday, May 18, 2006

government policy

I sent letters to my senators today. Well, actually, it was the same letter sent to both. I am praying that I spelled everything correctly. We know how bad my spelling can be.

Hello Ms Boxer/Feinstein,
I scanned your most recent press releases before contacting you so that I could discover your stance on the proposed Constitutional amendment regarding marriage in the United States. Since I found none, I would like to express my feelings on the subject.
The Constitution of the United States, as I see it, allows that the citizens of this great country should have certain liberties, which are not to be infringed on by the government. I would like to hope that among the unmentioned freedoms is the freedom to love as we choose, be it man or woman, without regard to age, ethnicity, or religion. In a perfect world, these unmentioned freedoms are inherent. In the real world, these freedoms are questioned on basis of preconcieved notions, upbringing, socioeconomic adgendas. Then they are used as fodder to push independant adjenda.
I believe that Marriage is a sacred union between two people. In matters of religion, it is a covenant of god, a union of the soul, an opportunity to make a public commitment to a life together. In terms of the law, it can mean a tax break if the couple chooses to take it.
I can only hope that you agree with me that restricting the right of the people to marry as they choose would not be in the best interests of my fellow Americans. As an unmarried woman, I would hope that when I do love, and am loved in return, that no one will question my right to marry the person of my choice. I hope that when I do choose to marry, no one declares my love against God's will because it does not fit into their idea of what is right. I hope that my goverment does not declare the love that I choose against the constitution. I see love in any form as the ultimate expression of god. No matter which form of god you worship. And in that frame of mind, I don't see how the government can dictate what is between humans and god.
I know you have difficult choices that you must uphold and defend every day. I hope that I have made a good point.
Have a lovely day
Blessed Be

I'm not going to read that again because I know I will find spelling and grammer mistakes and then I will feel like a colossol idiot. Love to you all, including those who I KNOW don't agree with my stance on this subject.

10 comments:

NWJR said...

I'm going to marry myself. I seem to be the only one I can get along with.

Charlie Foxxtrot said...

Good one nwjr!

Gina...so you're redefining marriage as a "sacred union between two people"? I'd say that's fairly egotistical of you. If you feel you have the right to move the line, I feel I have the right to obliterate it. Anything is fair game. Polygamy, incest, any possible combination you can think of is just as valid as what you support since we're now getting to "choose" our definition of marriage. You okay with that?

Gary said...

If I married myself, would I get one extra tax exemption or two? That always confuses me.

I didn't see any spelling errors. Actually it is very well written.

Nice post.

jen said...

Nice letter, Gina! :)

Ginamonster said...

Excellent point Charlie!

No, I'm not really ok with that. Polygamy I can kind of accept because it really does work for some people and has been practiced for centuries. It's not for me, and I think it's weird, but I'm not really against it. Gay mariage is also not for me, except that I support it. it isn't hurting anyone.

Rich, I think I'm gonna just go head and marry myself too.

Sensei Ern said...

Gary said:If I married myself, would I get one extra tax exemption or two? That always confuses me.


Question: If you filed for divorce of yourself...say "irreconcilable differences"...who would get the money?






The lawyers.

Randy said...

(Quote charlie foxxtrot)"...Anything is fair game. Polygamy,.."
-Ummm, Charles, in case you didn't know , poligamy involves 3 or more people.

"...incest,.."
-Incest is outlawed not because it's impossible to love family members like that, but because the effect on potential offspring is disasterous. Bloodlines that close together cause invariably horrific birth defects and/or retardation. Just look at European royalty - lol

"...any possible combination you can think of..."
-Just how many combinations can you think of? Bi-racial? Different religions? 19 and 60 year-olds? Are these all affronts to God? I suppose we could all come out of cokkie-cutters, live the same lives, and be bored into oblivion. By the way, Christians only make up 33% of all world religions Link. Do you suppose a loving God creates 66% puppets bound for Hell?

Charlie Foxxtrot said...

Randy

{Sorry to hijack your blog Gina!)

Nice attempt to frame the "argument" based on your preconceived notions of my beliefs. So typical of your sort. I at no time mentioned God nor religion. Marriage historically has been between one man and one woman. You want to move the goalposts? Fine. But moving them just enough to include gay marriage because YOU think it's okay is the ultimate hypocracy. Marriage is either between one man and one woman as it has historically been, or it's not. Pick one.

Sensei Ern said...

First, in my religion, Fundamentalist Baptist, the only union God allows is one man and one woman, and it is for the life time of the first to die.

The United States has already shown that the Law of God has no bearing on the laws of man, since the state long ago allowed violations of God's Law by allowing divorce.

Having said that, I do not think the state(government as a whole, not the state of Maryland) should have any say in marriage. There should not be any benefits, penalties, or anything concerning marriage.

Marriage is a religious practice. The state has no business in religious practice.

The state could recognize unions as partnerships. The state has a definate interest in the interaction of two or more people in a business sense...such as joint ownership of property, finanacial commitments, etc.

It should have no business in the emotional interaction of people, except in the case that emotions elevate to injury of law breaking.

That is, unless the United States wants to re-assert, as it did in the 1800's, that this is a Christian Nation, then it could once again adhere to what God says. Until this nation is ready to return to serving God, it should not pick and choose what religious actions it wants to enforce as law.

But, so long as it is a nation that does not put God first, it should be willing to suffer whatever ills and evils come its way without the protection of God.

Zube Girl said...

Just wanted to say I love this letter. Really.