"According to campaign manager Joe Trippi, Dean believes that all people are entitled to equal treatment under the law, but the question of what constitutes marriage is a matter for the states to sort out." (Darren M. Allen, Rutland Herald, July 31, 2003)

Dear George,

I am disappointed in the response of my candidate of choice [Howard Dean] on this issue [of leaving the decision about whether to support gay marriages to the states].

Seems intelligent people have forgotten that the Feds had no problem ruling against bigamy. Of course, those Mormons had to be stopped.

I'm confused - again because I'm liberal - but every state I travel in seems to think my marriage to my female wife is pretty cool. I mean, she's black and I'm white. Is that okay? I mean states can't make rules prohibiting black people from marrying white people [any longer] can they? What if they just prohibited Jewish people from getting married? Passed a law. Seems like it wouldn't be "okay" for states to decide that.

It seems like those kind of state laws might cause some real big trouble - they would be very efficient in keeping people that some people in the state wanted to keep out out, though.

So why does the Federal government have to "not get involved in defining marriage"?

The church and state are separate still, right? Or did we strike that clause from the constitution.

So it just seems to be about what's fair and what's not.

So if people love each other and they want to put their stuff together and try to live together and pay taxes and everything - what's the problem? I mean we're the home of the free and the brave. I know because my President tells me so.

peace,

joe clancy (electronic mail, December 18, 2003)

For related pieces, see Katherine McNamara Comments on George Bush, Howard Dean, States' Rights and Respect for Community Decision Making and Bush Supports Constitutional Amendment Opposing Gay Marriage.