America - The Land of the 'Waiting To Be Free'

This is my son-in-law. Drew is an intrepid guy and I love him! I am so happy that he chose to be a part of my family - his marriage to my daughter is a source of great joy to me as I watch them both grow in sharing a life's journey together.

I hate that moniker though, preferring to think of him as an adopted son - for once you become part of my family you're an in-love, not an in-law. I don't really see what the law has to do with it at all. We marry because we want to declare to the world that our chosen partner is the one whom we intend to spend our living days with. Hopefully that declaration goes for the physical, spiritual, emotional and intellectual parts of us, although the notion that the full satisfaction of all those entities can be found in a single human being is dangerous and unrealistic. Why the government has to have a stake in that relationship is beyond me.

That it wants to legislate who can and who cannot form these partnerships leaves me dumbfounded!

This nation, the supposed beacon of liberty to the world, is attempting to delineate the confines of a 'legal' marriage. For what purpose, one might ask? What right does the government have to limit my marriage choices? Surely a good libertarian or republican would baulk at any intrusion of the secular government into his personal affairs. Yet today a presumed majority of Americans still support the withholding of human rights by legislators wanting to define the word marriage in a authoritarian fashion.

Marriage is a Christian sacrament, not a legal institution. For decades the Roman Church refused to marry outside it's communion. Let them continue to set their own standards. That's the essence of freedom of religion and the separation of church and state! If a wedding was proclaimed by the participants alone, the government's only role would be to recognize the partnership and confer the universal benefits and responsibilities occasioned by the arrangement. The end.

The word marriage, as with any other word, is defined by usage not by law. Let's face it, if the government authored the dictionary then the words 'for the people, by the people' would quickly have the originally intended interpretation replaced! If gay people choose to declare a permanent alliance in communities of faith and fellowship that support such arrangements then the government's role must be simply to accept that right with respect and let them name it as they wish.

To all people, of all political parties I say: Let the people declare who they want to share their lives with and let the people claim the inalienable rights that are guaranteed by the constitution - and thankfully still documented by Webster! Whoever you are, if you believe in liberty and justice for all, vote NO on Florida's Amendment 2 this fall. Do not abdicate to a secular body the power to dictate the boundaries of a spiritual union. Unfortunately voting 'no' will not permit the State's recognition of committed gay relationships but it will prevent new obstacles to their future acceptance. At this time such rights are already 'verboten' in this bastion of faux-freedom that we live in.

Many more years of discrimination are likely until Florida and these United States finally reenact the tenets of our forefathers who declared that our inalienable rights included equality and the pursuit of happiness! My friends Bruce and John, who just celebrated 50 years of unacceptable fidelity, are holding out hope for future generations - they will likely live and die as illegals even after a lifetime of public service to America - the land of the 'Waiting To Be' Free.

With love and peace - Geoff