I recently had a constituent who wrote to me regarding the issue of same-sex marriage. I have removed any personal information that would identify the constituent with the exception of his last name. The letter and my response are included below:
Dear Mr. Smack:
Recently the California Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution requires recognition of same-sex marriages, overruling a 2000 law approved by more than 60 percent of the state’s residents. As a member of the Center for Moral Clarity, a national Christian grassroots organization, I’m outraged by this wildly overreaching decision. Voters of all faith backgrounds, and even those of no religious persuasion, have long respected the biblical model of marriage, the union of one man and one woman. My questions for you are simple:
• Do you support the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, or would
you support granting marriage rights to same-sex couples?
• Will you be honest and open about this position in this fall’s campaign?
I am one of many voters who will be anxiously awaiting your answer to these questions. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Mr. Campbell
Dear Mr. Campbell,
Thank you so much for your letter, and I would like to address the very important issue of marriage. I, as I am sure many of our citizens are aware, that the California Supreme Court has ruled that the State Constitution must recognize same-sex marriage. I also believe that this is a gross miscarriage of justice on the part of the California Supreme Court, one that I believe the voters in California will rectify with a Constitutional Amendment this fall, as they have ratified legislation prohibiting same-sex marriage in the past.
Let my moral position also be clear, I personally define marriage as between a man and a woman. I do not believe that same-sex marriage should be recognized by any state, and I would certainly stand against any attempt by Congress to legislate anything besides marriage being between one man and one woman on a Federal level. I would furthermore only confirm judicial nominees that have demonstrated that they would rule on a strict Constitutional basis, and would not vote to confirm any judicial appointment that has proven otherwise. I do not believe that it is the job of members of our justice system to legislate from the bench.
Mr. Campbell, please let me thank you again for bringing this important issue back to my attention. I plan on posting this correspondence on my campaign blog, as I want to ensure that this incredibly crucial issue is addressed by myself and my campaign.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any further questions, or if I can clarify my position on any other issue. You can also investigate my positions further at www.jamessmack.com, and I hope I can earn your support!
Most Sincerely,
James Smack
Republican Candidate for Congress
Nevada Congressional District 2
————————————————————-
A quick addendum: I added my response just as I sent it to voters here in Nevada. My views are my own, and my comments about “I believe that the voters will rectify with a Constitutional Amendment this fall” was strictly my opinion. I have really come into a little bit of a quandary with my own beliefs in States Rights here, and so let me add the disclaimer that if the voters of California decide that they wish to recognize same sex unions, I may fervently disagree with the opinion of those voters, but I will defend their right to do so under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, and I would have to support the decision of the voters of California as a Constitutionalist. I had just this argument with friends of mine and realized that I may have been in conflict with my own beliefs.
Mr. Smack,
First, I would like to compliment you on your willingness to run for office in your home state. You truly are a constitutionalist in the purest form, and Nevada would be better off with you in office.
Now, I’d like to comment directly to your position on gay marriage. Being as you have qualified yourself as a liberty minded individual, I was wondering why you feel the government (either federal, or state, or local) has the right to define what is, at the very core, a religious institution. The way I see it, we should remove all tax breaks given to married couples, remove the issuance of marriage licenses, and leave it as a church matter. I’ve never understood why I need the governments permission to get married if it is a religious institution! Or why married couples need that piece of paper from the government to confirm that they are now married in the eyes of their God. And I have never understood why one group of people (married people) have more rights (tax breaks) than another group of people (unmarried people).
To put it another way, liberty means that we are free to do as we want, as long as we are not interfering on another individuals life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. If there is a church somewhere that believes that a homosexual couple should be allowed to wed in their church, how does that infringe on my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Is passing laws that prevent this not using government to coerce one group of people to conform to what another group of people think is right?
Please respond, as I am very interested in your thoughts on my opinions. And I hope you can rethink your position or show me why my thinking may be wrong and bring me over to your position.
Thank you for reading.
By: Revolter on June 25, 2008
at 4:54 pm
Revolter, thanks for taking the time to share your point of view. My argument was simply on the Constitutional basis of recognizing Same-Sex Unions on a Federal Level, that it is a decision that belongs in the hands of the states, and should not be mandated into Federal Law. My personal views on the entire institution of marriage, whether it be between a man and a woman or two members of the same sex are actually pretty close to your own. I think the overall elimination of the Federal Income Tax, which I aspire to bring about, will also bring an end to the tax breaks that married people receive. It will level the playing field for all!
I also believe, as it seems do you, that if a religious organization of some kind wishes to recognize same sex unions, or plural marriage, or some kind of marriage definition that we have not thought of yet, that is the right of that religious organization to recognize. It should be our stand as Liberty-Minded individuals to recognize and fight for that right. Not that this would be a choice of a religious organization that I would want to be part of, but there it is. Personally, I think the raid on the FLDS Compound in Texas was a gross overreach by government, and it seems as it is being slowly corrected by the courts. We should have left those people, who were practicing their religion as they saw fit, well enough alone…it looked like a witch hunt to me in my opinion, not to mention a violation of those people’s rights! Many of those children that I saw on TV being removed from that FLDS Compound looked better cared for and more well mannered than many of the kids I see running around cities in my state! Who are we, as the government, to be forcing our values onto another group of individuals because of the way they live and the religion they choose to practice? If we did this to a Muslim group in the same manner, there would be outrage on the part of the Liberals and Liberal Media Complex!! The Ayotollah Khomeini of Iran married an 11 year old (he was around 30 at the time), so imagine if that happened in this country?
I was simply addressing the whole legal recognition of same-sex unions as something that should be left to the states, and ultimately to religious organizations as to what their church recognizes. I would have no part of voting to recognize same-sex unions on a Federal Level.
I hope this answers your question! Thanks for your interest.
By: jamessmack on June 25, 2008
at 5:28 pm