As a candidate for Congress, I've lately been receiving letters from a number of my prospective constituents, routed via a special interest group calling itself "the Center for Moral Clarity." These letters decry the California Supreme Court's recent ruling ending marriage apartheid in that state, and pose two questions to me as a candidate:

• Do you support the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, or would you support
  granting marriage rights to same-sex couples?
  
• Will you be honest and open about this position in this fall's campaign?

I'll answer the second question first:

Not only will I be honest and open about my position on marriage, I consider it a priority issue in my campaign.

In answer to the first question:

I don't believe that rights are "granted." Rather I believe that rights are inherent in personhood. Some might refer to this as the belief that rights are "God-given" or "natural." I've seen no evidence that sexual orientation or gender identity in any way does or should diminish rights. I reject the notion that government has any legitimate power to "define" marriage on those criteria.

Let's take this from the top:

I am a pro-family Libertarian. I believe that the family is one of the main pillars of human civilization, and that its preservation is of paramount importance.

Therefore, I oppose the political exclusion of families from the equal protection of the law, regardless of the gender composition of those families. It is logically impossible to be "pro-family" while simultaneously demanding that government suppress families.

My strong preference is for government to get out of the business of "defining" marriage -- and licensing it -- altogether. Marriage should be treated as a civil contract with no sexual orientation or gender identity exceptions by government, and any religious or spiritual ramifications should be left to those involved, in consultation with their chosen religious or spiritual advisors, to consider.

So long as government does "define" and license marriage, it is not constitutionally empowered to do so in ways that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Some politicians -- including, sadly, some of my own party -- have attempted to turn this into a "states rights" issue. The Full Faith and Credit clause and the Equal Protection clause of our Constitution (not to mention common sense) say otherwise. In fact, states don't have rights -- only people, including Americans of all sexual orientations and gender identities, do.

As your representative in Congress, I will work hard to end marriage apartheid in America. I will oppose any constitutional amendment intended to perpetuate it, and any legislation intended to "get around" the Constitution in order to do so. I will sponsor and support legislation requiring the federal government to recognize all claims of marriage pursuant to its functions (joint tax returns, Social Security benefits, etc.) absent strong evidence to the contrary (such as one listed party to the marriage being non-existent).

Pro-family means pro-marriage, and pro-marriage means pro-freedom. I'm proud to be all three.