DeoOmnisGloria.com

Senator Saxby Chambliss' Stance on Same-Sex Marriages

I received via email a response from Sen. Chambliss' office in reference to a recent petition I filled out opposing same-sex marriages. Below I have copied that email and then my response. I sincerely believe that in these morally dark times that we live in it has become absolutely necessary for us to stand up for the truth. I can assure all of our readers of one thing....I will not be voting for Sen. Chambliss when his term is over. We need morally upright leaders and any politican who can be for such a thing does not need to be in a public office. The following is the email I received:

Thank you for contacting my office to share your views on same-sex marriages and S. J. Res. 26, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution relating to marriage (the Federal Marriage Amendment). It is good to hear from you.

In 1996, I co-sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which provided that each state could determine whether or not to recognize same-sex marriages, and that states were not bound by the decisions made by other states on this issue. The DOMA overwhelmingly passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and was signed into law by President Clinton.

Recent court rulings have given me concern that activist courts will not honor the DOMA. For example, last June the United States Supreme Court ruled that private, homosexual consent by adults is constitutionally protected. In addition, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts recently decided that under the equal protection clause of the Massachusetts constitution, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts cannot bar an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of a civil marriage solely because that person married a person of the same sex.

On November 25, 2003, S. J. Res. 26 was introduced in the Senate and was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member. S. J. Res. 26 would add the following language to the U.S. Constitution as the Federal Marriage Amendment:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

I recognize that this is a very sensitive issue, which is why, as a co-sponsor of the original DOMA, I believe it should be left up to the elected representatives of each state. However, I will keep your comments in mind when the Judiciary Committee considers the merits of S. J. Res. 26 and the Federal Marriage Amendment it proposes.

I appreciate hearing from you. If I may ever be of assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

Saxby Chambliss
United States Senate

The following is my response:

February 18. 2004

Senator Chambliss:

My single concern with your position on this matter is, what I perceive to be, the total neglect of the potential ramifications of such a position. By holding that such a decision should be made by each individual state, you make same-sex marriages a matter of moral relativism. Basically, what is good for one state might not be good another. This fails to recognize the fact of moral truth, the very essence of right and wrong.

I was utterly disappointed with the ruling by the Supreme Court last June in regards to homosexual consent. I believe that with any "act" a truly just system of law will consider not only the individuals involved but also the potential consequences of such an "act." The homosexual act bears no good. In fact, contrary to the heterosexual conjugal act, the homosexual act show a complete lack of respect for the human person and the human body. I say the human body because the very act itself is acted out through the use of one member's reproductive system and the other member's digestive system. It is a matter of functional and biological abuse. The anus in no way contributes to the reproductive system. The fruit of the conjugal act is life, whereas the homosexual act can never result in anything but death. It doesn't even contain within itself the slightest possibility of bringing forth life, therefore it can not be considered "reproductive" in any way, shape, or form.

I sincerely hope you will consider these things. In a time when our country seems to be morally falling apart we need leaders who are willing to look for and recognize the truth of such matters. Standing up for truth and what is truly right sometimes demands of us to not to be so sensitive but rather morally upright.

I would be very interested in learning why you hold the position you do. Why should each state have the "right" to determine if homosexual marriages should be recognized or not?

A concerned voter

Posted by Joe at February 19, 2004 12:18 AM | TrackBack