Defining marriage is important

To the editor:

Martin Rust of Rolla, Mo., does not agree with my support for preserving the definition of marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. He should not need to misinterpret my letter to him to make his point, however.

The legal status of civil unions and registries is tenuous and not necessarily linked to a legal definition of marriage. Simply because a state denies the status of marriage to a same-sex couple, that does not mean civil unions are illegal or unrecognized in the same state.

The right for gay men and women to have a civil union is only explicitly available in the laws of a few states. Many states, however, leave the decision up to counties, cities or municipalities whether they will grant civil unions or provide certain rights for same-sex couples. These states allow legal status for civil unions and same-sex partnerships. The Congressional Research Service lists 41 states with no statutes establishing same-sex unions as violations of the states' public policies. It is in these states that civil unions may be granted.

Some Americans will not see the difference between a civil union and marriage. I believe there are important distinctions which must be preserved. I stand behind my decision to sponsor a constitutional amendment to preserve the definition of marriage.

U.S. REP. JO ANN EMERSON

8th District

Cape Girardeau