Nelson, ostensibly Democrat

It makes me a little crazy that Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) continues to make headlines as the most conservative Democrat since George Wallace. And in a state that is known for it's independant voices (You all remember Bob Kerrey), it's sad to see such a crass and politically motivated position as Senator Ben's stated support of a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage. He is the only Democrat to support the amendment. Yay, Nebraska. We picked us a good one.

Senator Nelson,

I am writing you today, as a constituent that is very concerned with your declared position on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to define marriage.

I ask bluntly, are there not more important issues of national concern with which the Senate can occupy its time? Let's imagine a United States where any consenting adult could marry any other consenting adult. In this imaginary place, we would still be plagued by poverty, rising costs of health care, crime, an aging population, a faltering Social Security system and an executive administration with a fungible relationship with what may be called the truth.

That you have deigned to even state a position on this issue amazes me. Gay marriage is a non-issue. Whether we have gay marriage or not, very few citizens are materially affected by its presence or absence. I know that I would have still married my wife if my gay friends could get married. I'm sure that you too would not question the sanctity or stability of your marriage in light of a same sex marriage sanction. And yet, here it is, before us again, the least well considered proposed amendment since Prohibition.

Please, Senator, I beg you to not embarrass Nebraska. The amendment isn't going to pass the Senate and liberals in this state have enough to be ashamed of without our single Democrat elected official publicly voting to deny his fellow citizens a right that they are already denied. The gay community has received the message: Nebraska doesn't like homosexuals. Does the point need to be driven home by your vote?

It would be a simple thing to abstain from voting on this issue. You can make you feelings on the issue clear, but I implore you to encourage your colleagues to make a better use of your time as representatives of the people. Passing laws to deny rights to full citizens of this country is as far from the American ideal as I can conceive. Senator, it's statistically likely that someone near to you, a friend or family member, is a homosexual. I ask you, how do you explain your vote the the homosexuals in your life? How do you justify limiting their access to specific rights? And if there are no homosexuals in your life, please consider that just because a vote doesn't directly effect you or your loved ones doesn't mean that it won't effect your constituents.

Please vote against this amendment to the Constitution. This is not a case of homosexuals forcing their lifestyle on us, it's a case of non-homosexuals forcing their intolerance on a small minority of citizens. At very least, abstain from voting, or vote "present." It would mean a lot to those of us still looking for a good reason to support your campaign, other than our discomfort with your opponent.

Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter.

Yr. Obt. Svt. k.michael.f.f

P.S. -- Also, do not support the repeal of the estate tax. Though inevitable, we shouldn't hasten the rise of the new American aristocracy. If you're worried about family farms, propose an exemption.