My letter to Governor Romney and the house and senate leadership.

[Options Remain]

Sent both email and post-mail this morning. what do you think?


Governor Romney

You have been presented with an opportunity that should not be passed lightly. Massachusetts has been given the choice of determining the first step forward or back in the national debate on marriage. As many of you rush out to present a message affirming the traditional definition of marriage I request you think of your motivations for doing such and the ramifications not only for the Commonwealth but also for the Nation as a whole.

I, and I believe you, want Massachusetts to set the example for the nation. To set this divisive issue behind us and grow, not walk down the well-worn path of “separate but equal”. It is in our State and the Nations best interest that we stop and reflect carefully upon where we are and choose the path forward from this point with the most severity and objective clarity of purpose we can bring to bear. We should not fear the hate of those who can not see that regardless of what the State or any Church dictates these are still families deserving of recognition as such. We have walked this road before and we made the wrong decision before. Even the most hardened against homosexual union must recognize that the state cannot affirm their faith over another lest they themselves have another belief forced upon them. The state must remain neutral and facilitate all equally as our Constitution demands and our American values dictate.

Now we have the opportunity to make the right decisions and pursue a solution that is egalitarian and just for everyone regardless of the structure of their family or their faith. Right now the choices you see before you are to embrace Domestic Partnerships or to allow “non traditional” marriage. I offer you a third choice:

Remove the word “marriage” from the laws of the state.

Change the current language of the commonwealth’s marriage laws by removing the word “marriage” and replacing with “Domestic Partnership” or similar terminology for a committed relationship; in effect removing the word “marriage” from state law.

The intent here is that the state should recognize ALL committed couples and grant them the legal benefits of “marriage” as currently recognized -- such as the right to hospital visitation and participation in decisionmaking during illness, the right to inheritance and spousal benefits, the right to be treated as a family and not strangers in the eyes of the law.

Reserve the term ‘marriage’ strictly for the religious ceremonies held by the multitudes of faiths present in this Commonwealth and in America, and let those faiths determine amongst themselves what they will term a ‘marriage’ -- but this ceremony and this decision shall have no bearing on our Commonwealths laws.

By this solution the Commonwealth can recognize all families, regardless of structure, and respect the “Defenders of Marriage” by denoting a difference between the secular and religious ceremonies by which people may choose to celebrate their commitment to one another.

Thus we embrace the values of our constitution and we allow the faiths to retain their definition of marriage for their own parishioners. Thus we remove state endorsement of any one family structure or faith over another from the laws of the Commonwealth.

I submit this third choice in the hope that you will take the right step and let this divisive issue pass into history. I hope you all recognize the significance of the crossroads we are on and take the road less traveled so we do not repeat our history’s most painful lessons yet again.

I have great pride in the commonwealth. I consider it and honor and a privilege to be a citizen of the state that sets the stage for the national debate on this issue. Please let the example it sets be one we can be proud of. Our nation suffers from enough division lets not encourage it further. Massachusetts can and should lead the way and forge a path that closes this division for the benefit of all.

Respectfully Yours
(name and address withheld)

[MattPinNC]

1. Succinct and well written , but flawed ..

... theoretically, if what you suggest is done, what's stopping laws/legislation being written in eveny more diluted terms eg: "Friends" , "Signifigant Other", et al. Good luck in court with such ambigious terminology. A nightmare for sure.

[newyawker99]

2. Hi vinividivici!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Options Remain]

3. Agreed

That is a risk and knowing legislators penchant for vague wording is always a problem.

However the request is to remove a "title" that certain religions seem to think they have a claim to and replace it with a egalitarian term that reply's to all "domestic" arragements. Thus taking the state out of the arguement entirely.

Its an idea, I dont expect it to be listened to. DPA is the most likely direction we are going to follow at this point. despite its separate but equal connotations.

TearForger