Stamp my passport when we return to America

Guess what? Just when you thought I was over the Federal Marriage Amendment, I’m back to discuss it again. This time, I’m going to offer communication with one of my Senators, Senator George Allen. Since the Senate is going to consider a Federal Marriage Amendment next week, it’s important to me that I make my opinion known. So I sent a letter. Again. This is Senator Allen’s response:

Dear Tony:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the issue of marriage and a Federal Marriage Amendment. I appreciate your concerns and want my position to be very clear.

As a United States Senator, I will support and protect the traditional, common sense definition of marriage in law as only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. While it was my hope that the existing Defense of Marriage Act could accomplish this goal, I believe that recent events and future court decisions indicate that a constitutional amendment is needed to protect the rights of the people in the States to define the institution of marriage.

To that end, I will vote for a Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when the Senate considers one in July.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. If you would like to receive an e-mail newsletter about my initiatives to improve America, please sign up on my website ( It is an honor to serve you in the United States Senate, and I look forward to working with you to make Virginia and America a better place to live, learn, work and raise a family.

With warm regards, I remain


Senator George Allen

You know I won’t just throw my hands up, roll my eyes and leave that alone. So I responded. Consider:

Senator Allen,

Although I’m thrilled to learn that you’ve developed psychic powers allowing you to know the results of future court decisions, I fail to see how voting for a Constitutional amendment will fix this. Perhaps if you could offer case names and majority opinions from those future court decisions, I could better appreciate the perils facing our nation. Until you’re able to forward me such informative details, you are wrong in your support of any Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman.

The amendments up for consideration do not support American ideals. The U.S. Constitution is our most sacred document. It should not be desecrated to remove rights from the people. It’s most glorious achievement is that it protects the people from government. Any marriage amendment does not meet this ideal. It eliminates the idea of federalism and the right of the people of individual states with respect to marriage. How will you “protect the rights of the people in the States to define the institution of marriage” by removing any option for the people to define the institution of marriage for themselves?

As long as we believe in freedom, the people have a right to make decisions for themselves, however immoral you may believe those decisions to be. With marriage, the only concept open for debate is what will the government of the people allow. Since we believe in equality, the government must not eliminate rights from citizens, despite a presumed majority opinion to the contrary. The government must recognize certain rights, whether or not the churches of the nation support them. The legal definition and the religious definition of marriage may differ, but the legal definition must provide equality.

Based on your support for any potential marriage amendment, please know that you do not serve me in the United States Senate.


P.S. Since you have psychic powers, you can serve me by providing me with this week’s PowerBall numbers. Thank you.

Whatever your opinion of same-sex marriage, a Federal Marriage Amendment is not the solution. The U.S. Constitution is sacred and should not be altered at the whim of a repressive social agenda. If we abandon American ideals with this amendment, this is the true slippery slope that concerns me. Please, regardless of your opinion, let your Senators know that this amendment is wrong.