Dear Mr.

Shirkey,
Hopefully you remember me, Lindas granddaughter, and the girl from
Reagan National and the Grass Lake Traffic Jam (I would like to thank you for always
being so friendly to me.) My name is Alexis Cook, Im 15 years old, and I have an
unwavering passion for modern politics. My father first introduced me to the world
of politics and government, but I have taken it upon myself to research a broad
number of political topics and establish my own opinions (which contrary to popular
belief, usually differ greatly from my dads.) The topic in which I am most morally
affected by and engrossed in is gay marriage (or as I like to call it, marriage.) From
the articles Ive read I understand we have very distinct contrasting opinions on the
issue. Personally, Im always open to hear other peoples opinions on any topic, and
I am extremely interested to hear what you have to say about gay marriage and
your opposition to it. But first, Id like to give you a little insight into my world and
point of view.
It seems that the fight for gay marriage has become almost entirely
monopolized by peoples personal beliefs and concepts of what is ethical and right,
and unfortunately I believe thats completely inevitable. Everyone has an idea of
what is right in regards to two people of the same sex being in love and getting
married. Everyone has different morals. For right now, I am going to bury all of my
morals and beliefs to completely justify my opinion that gay marriage should be
legal using only the constitution and valid court statements.
First, Id like to bring up the Equal Protection Clause in the 14 th amendment.
Nolos Plain-English Law Dictionary describes the Clause as The right, guaranteed
by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to be treated the same,

legally, as others in the same situation. If a law discriminates between one group of
people and another, the government must have a rational basis for doing so. A law
that discriminates on the basis of a suspect classification -- that is, it makes a
distinction based on race, gender, or another trait that has historically resulted in
discriminatory treatment -- is constitutional only if there is a very compelling reason
for the distinction. Now, if homosexual people arent allowed to be legally married,
how are they being treated the same, legally, as others in the same situation? And,
since they cannot be legally married, where is your rational basis? Where is your
compelling reason for the distinction? (Personally, I dont believe that having the
same genitals as someone you love calls for discriminatory treatment, but thats my
opinion.)
In June of 1967 Chief Justice Earl Warren of the Supreme Court wrote that:
Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of a man, fundamental to our very
existence and survival. To deny this freedom on so unstoppable a basis as the racial
classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of
the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to
deprive all the States citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth
Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by
invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not
marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed
on by the State. So, when do we start treating homosexuality as we do race? Is
homosexuality not so unstoppable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in
statutes? If they are both pre-dispositions than why is one constantly being
discriminated against despite the oppression from which we formed this country?

The Fourteenth Amendment has been the deciding factor in a

countless amount of cases (Loving v. Virginia, Romer v. Evans, Chicago v. Morales,
etc) using one simple paragraph All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and
of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. If
marriage is one of the basic civil rights of a man how is the state allowed to create
a law which enforces a prevention of his privilege to marry?
In 1974 during the Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur case Supreme
Court declared: Freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life
is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause. And may I add
emphasis to the personal in personal choice in matters of marriage. Personal is
defined by dictionary.com as:
of, pertaining to, or coming as from a particular person; individual; private: a perso
nal opinion. So, didnt the Supreme Court say every person is allowed their own
personal, individual, private, choice in who they marry?
One of my favorite quotes comes from Martin Luther King Jr., he says:
Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through
continuous struggle. The African American race had quite the battle to get where
they are today: treated equally and accepted. But they did it, right? It took much
longer than it should have for people to realize, hey, theyre not different at all.
They just have different skin color. So how long is it going to take todays people to
realize, hey, gay people arent different at all. They just arent narrow minded as to

who they could fall in love with. The battle for gay marriage may take many more
years, but I do believe its completely inevitable. Its the future. And its happening
right now.
Thank you so much for listening to me,
Alexis Cook