Letter: Warner and Allen and Representative Moran re: marriage

July 2, 2003
Senators Warner and Allen
and Representative Moran

James Landrith
PO Box 8208
Alexandria, VA 22306-8208

July 2, 2003

The Honorable John William Warner
United States Senate
225 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4601

The Honorable George F. Allen
United States Senate
204 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4604

The Honorable James P. Moran
U.S House of Representatives
2239 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4608

Dear Senators Warner and Allen and Representative Moran:

This measure would amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman, which of course, violates the spirit of the Constitution as a champion of the individual. As the editor and publisher of The Multiracial Activist and The Abolitionist Examiner, I know a little bit about these types of legislative attempts to police marriages.

I have read that this amendment would invalidate all legal protections for unmarried couples — gay or straight. Those protections include basic safeguards against discrimination based on "marital status," state laws protecting unmarried elderly couples who refrain from marrying in order to hold on to their pensions, and even state laws allowing a person, in the absence of a spouse, to oppose the autopsy of a close friend because of the deceased person's religious beliefs.

I do not believe that the Constitution should be amended to limit state's expansion of civil rights. The proposed amendment would prohibit states from expanding their civil rights laws to protect gay and lesbian couples, or unmarried heterosexual couples, and their families. It would forbid states from serving their traditional role as testing grounds for stronger civil rights laws. Further, wouldn't this type of Amendment infringe on states' rights, on which the leadership of both houses of Congress place great importance?

The Federal Marriage Amendment would reverse the constitutional tradition of protecting, not harming, individual freedoms. None of the current constitutional amendments restricts individual freedoms. In fact, the amendments to the Constitution have been the source of most of the Constitution's protections for individual liberty rights. The proposed amendment, by contrast, would deny all protection for the most personal decisions made by millions of families. Just a few decades back I wouldn't be allowed to marry my wife in the Commonwealth of Virginia, where I currently reside (https://www.multiracial.com/government/loving.html). Don't turn back the clock by attempting to legislate hate into the Constitution.

Again, I urge you to oppose this dangerous amendment.

I look forward to hearing your views on this matter.


James Landrith

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *