I'm thinking of writing to Senator Santorum -- requesting your input

[Bertha Venation]

and tell me what you think.

Dear Senator Santorum:

I truly hope to receive a reply, even though I am not one of your constituents. I've found that your comments on the Federal Marriage Amendment are the most strident; it's for this reason that I've decided you will be the recipient of my questions. (Both my state senators do not support the amendment.)

In today's news, you're quoted: "If you support ... a mother and a father for every child, you are a hater. If you believe that men and women for 5,000 years have bonded together in marriage, you're a gay-basher. Marriage is hate. Marriage is a stain. Marriage is an evil thing. That's what we hear."

I would like to know, Senator, exactly whom you hear that from, for I am not hearing it from anywhere except from you, a few other senators and congressmen, and your conservative religious base.

Here's what I hear from opponents to the amendment: That it will codify bigotry. I'm baffled as to how you hear these voices saying "if you support the amendment, you hate marriage" or "marriage is a stain" or "marriage is an evil thing." I ask again: Where are you hearing this from?

Marriage is a fantastic, beautiful, wonderful thing, Senator. I have been deeply, richly blessed in my marriage. Sadly, I know many who have not, who have had to endure adultery, abuse, divorce, and other evil things. Sadder still are television "reality" shows -- this garbage passed off as entertainment truly stains marriage, in my view. These are the things that make a mockery of marriage, Senator.

The marriage of two non-related consenting adults is what this debate is about. It's not about immorality. It's not about one group's views of what is right and what is wrong. Most of all, it's not about what the Bible says, as our laws are not based on the Bible. It is about equal protection under the Constitution. That a marriage of a man and a woman receives certain rights -- rights that are so stiffly woven into the fabric of our society, culture, and legal system that it took the General Accounting Office two separate and time-consuming studies to identify all 1,000+ of them -- and the marriage of two men or two women does not is inherently unequal and (as the Supreme Court is bound one day to rule, I daresay) unconstitutional.

Your appeal to tradition is worthless, Senator. Our country's history, from its very beginning to the 1950s and '60s, is bookended by "broken" tradition: Our forefathers "broke" with tradition when they rebelled against the Crown in the 18th Century. Rosa Parks "broke" with tradition when she wouldn't give up her seat on the bus. Americans of conscience have always broken with tradition in the name of equality.

That's all I have so far. I have to wrap it up. I think I strayed too much from my original point with that last paragraph. What do you think of the idea in that paragraph? What do you think of the whole thing? Thanks.