TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Thirty-nine years ago, my great-uncle, Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., delivered to mindful citizens of America a prophetic dream which envisaged all of this great nation's people living in the full exercise of all rights granted to them by the U.S. Constitution. My forebear's dream was deeply rooted in the American dream wherein the Founders of our Union saw every lawful citizen standing in dignity outfitted by unalienable rights from God to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness free from the tyrannies of personal whim and ideology handed down by kings, dictators, political groups, and yes, some institutions of democratic government.

From the time that Dr. King was taken from us, the dream lived on. In fact, it did more. Through the efforts of wonderful people like A.D. King, Martin's brother, my grandfather also taken from us, and through the continued efforts of my great-grandfather, Dr. Martin Luther King Sr., who helped raise me and shape my values, and through the efforts of so many others of like mind and faith in the immediate intervening years across this nation, people across the world began to see Dr. King' dream and the American dream merge.

Today, progress toward a perfected ascension of civil rights in America continues through the efforts of brave men and women who trace their philosophical lineage to Dr. King. True civil rights advocacy is carried on as well by others who may claim no formal association with Kingian philosophy but are nevertheless members of the true household of American faithful stemming from the Founding Fathers, of whom Dr. King was a rightful heir. True sons and daughters of America have certainly helped her and continue to help her to live out the true meaning of her creed, that all people are created equal.

Yet, inherent in this ongoing responsibility to hold America's promises true to all citizens is a corresponding responsibility to protect the integrity of the American way as defined by free public and private exercise within the preserving borders of constitutional rectitude. Thus, while our forefathers certainly saw the need to equip America to protect the weakest amongst its citizens, they also saw an equal need to protect the American system from the WEAKNESSES of its citizens. Any civic exercise or campaign must therefore square with the constitution or serve as destructive a measure as the denial of the rights America extends to all.

Certainly Dr. King saw the centrality of this need to subscribe to and protect the integrity of the constitution in any civil campaign. Dr. King, in fact, began all considerations for civil reconstruction with an examination of all attending facts to determine whether or not there existed an injustice that necessitated any civil action at all. Following this examination, in his mind, was a necessary period of self purification to ensure that aberrant motives were not at the heart of the impetus toward social change. Drawing from the axiom that not all change is good change, or "if it is not broken, don't fix it", Dr. King and others true to his philosophy sought and seek only to heal discrepancies between constitutional philosophy and institutional practice. All other attempts and civil endeavors must be scrutinized and finally resisted vigorously if found to be out of step with this principle.

After careful consideration of the facts that attend, I have decided to stand with the Massachusetts Family Institute in favor of a constitutional amendment to protect the traditional structure of marriage in this state. This constitutional action has become necessary as groups, in my opinion, have recently attempted to subvert national constitutional philosophy to obtain privileged dispensation that would otherwise not come to fruition if constitutional integrity were preserved.

This is a strong statement. Yet within the parameters of the current situation, I believe that it is an accurate statement for this reason: Within the federalist system of American governance, states may independently establish laws and policies which regulate the activities of citizens within states. So long as Fourteenth Amendment (and other constitutional provisions) protection is not violated, state law and public policy may hold force, by right of the United States Constitution.

Same-sex marriage advocates in Massachusetts have recently claimed that their state has historically violated Fourteenth Amendment provisions by denying marriage licenses to couples of the same sex. Thus, they claim that the civil rights of those seeking same-sex marriages has been violated.

This is truly an explosive assertion, for civil rights have rightfully gained parallel status or even synonymous status with the inalienable rights the Founding Fathers identified as the substructure of the American constitutional system. Civil rights endow all American citizens with the guarantee of equal treatment in all matters of law and policy, and thus civil rights must be protected at all times.

In light of a perceived breach of rights, same-sex advocates accordingly sued the State Department of Public Health in Massachusetts in 2002. Yet given the seriousness of civil rights integrity, may we not rightfully ask whether or not this action was correct under analysis of the attending facts? Was this civil action necessary and proper, as Dr. King would have asked?

Same sex marriage advocates in Massachusetts claim that civil rights were violated because the state historically treated seekers of same sex marriages differently from those seeking traditional marriages.

Yet those reasonably conversant with civil rights law and philosophy understand that civil rights protection seeks not to destroy the government's ability to treat people differently under the law. Anyone who receives tax benefits for dependent children will appreciate the government's ability to make decisions which affect different people in different ways. Instead, civil rights provision with U.S. governance seeks to make sure that different effects of public policy upon different people are not to be found unreasonable or suspect.

Accordingly, through the years, American courts have developed guidelines for defining legitimate civil rights issues. The purpose of this is twofold: one, to establish a clear system of judgement that helps ensure that civil rights provisions are applied equitably despite the passions of those who may stand opposed to civil rights advancement; and two, to ensure that civil rights structures for which my family shed blood, and for which America paid so dearly, are not taken, hijacked in effect, to advance questionable causes for questionable purposes thereby threatening the system of governance that protects all American citizens.

So immediately, the question arises, does the cause for the legalization of same-sex in marriage meet civil rights criteria as it claims to?

In order to answer that question, we must establish that, in order to attain civil rights legitimacy, any represented person or group must specifically show:
· A history of economic disenfranchisement
· A history of political disenfranchisement, or
· Unfair legal discrimination based upon an immutable, intrinsic trait or characteristic

Thus, in order to legitimately claim that a denial of same-sex marriages equates to a denial of civil rights, same-sex marriage advocates must prove that marriage licenses to same sex couples were denied for one of the above reasons. Let's weigh the facts accordingly.

As to the issue of economic disenfranchisement, though the poverty and unemployment rates among blacks in America remains roughly two times the national average, economic performance in the gay community is roughly 1.5 times greater than the general population. Complaints against gay discrimination in the workforce barely register against the backdrop of minority and gender based discrimination complaints. Homosexuals in this nation have never been able to claim economic disenfranchisement or oppression.

As to the issue of political disenfranchisement, homosexuals have always enjoyed free access to America's voting system and show increasing access to and exercise of political representation absent civil rights initiatives. So again, where lies the complaint?

As to the issue of unfair legal discrimination based on an immutable intrinsic trait or characteristic, the gay rights agenda again falls pitifully short of civil rights legitimacy. Science can offer no proof of intrinsic homosexual orientation. Yet, practical experience and testimony that homosexual practice is a purposeful, and therefore not an immutable or intrinsic behavior, is offered by the many who have willingly left the gay lifestyle to practice celibacy or heterosexuality.

Again, to be exact, and to avoid appearing to be uninformed, there is certainly growing evidence that many human impulses have some impetus in genetics. Some people are more disposed or attracted to substance interactions, some people are more responsive to heterosexual pleasure than others, some are more sensitive to food consumption than others, all by virtue, as the evidence suggests of small degrees of genetic predisposition. Homosexuality falls into this category according to the research of many respected scientists such as Angier, Bailey and Pillard, Levay et al.

Yet, there is a larger body of science represented even by the above scientists that agrees that mature behavior patterns rely much more on social shaping and choices than genetic predisposition, such that these behaviors may be successfully modified by a variety of means. The food addict may eat responsibly, the alcoholic may drink responsibly or not at all, and the homosexual may live according to a wide range of choices as well. Thus, binge drinking, overeating, cocaine abuse and other behaviors do not have to be granted public latitude as a matter of right in this great nation. Certainly, these and other mutable behaviors may be practiced; they may be under constitutional protection in fact (under our privacy clauses), but they may not be granted civil rights or public protection.

Again, if behavior or other aspects of personhood may be altered, then those aspects fail to meet civil rights status. Homosexual practice clearly falls into this category. As my mother, Alveda C. King has said, "I have met many ex-homosexuals just as I have met many ex-husbands, ex-wives, ex-drug addicts and ex-lawyers. Yet I have never met an ex-Negro, ex-Caucasian or ex-Native American." The politics of preference does not jibe with civil rights legitimacy.

So we have established that same-sex marriage is not a civil right because, simply, homosexuality is not a civil right. The argument is direct and powerful. Yet, does the issue stop there? Unfortunately, no. Because same-sex marriage advocates have sued the Massachusetts Public Health Department for dispensation, a huge threat has been unleashed.

The U.S Constitution gives each the right to set public policy for the good of the commonwealth within its borders. As long as the Fourteenth Amendment is not violated according to civil rights theory, a state may set policy as it determines the policy to benefit its general commonwealth. Marriage between a male and female has historically been held and has been scientifically proven to provide specific benefits to society not limited to its being the most effective system of procreation and species extension.

A state may therefore determine that a marriage between a man and a woman, as a state recognized institution, will be the model accepted to the exclusion of other models, with all rights and benefits attending the accepted model being lawfully applicable to the accepted model only. All males and females in this country may marry a person of the opposite sex providing that there is a consenting adult on each end of the contract. No one is excluded therefore, on the basis of immutable or intrinsic characteristics, and so all states are well within constitutional purview in setting policy accordingly.

It is therefore wrong for any court to, in effect, legislate from the bench to force same-sex marriage dispensation. There is no constitutional imperative or provision for such action. Law and policy generation are the domain of legislators, not adjudicators.

Given all of the attending facts, it is clear that an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution is necessary to prevent the usurpation of the Massachusetts policy-making system by the judiciary.

In the name of those who fought to establish a true legacy of civil rights in this nation, in the name of all citizens everywhere, ladies and gentlemen of the Massachusetts General Court, please protect the policy-making system in Massachusetts so that the system may work to protect the interests of all through the rightful actions of the citizenry within the system. Please pass the Marriage and Family Protection Amendment. We thank you.

Respectfully,

J. R. Ellis