Dear Senator

A reader, wishing to remain anonymous, sent in his recent correspondence with Senator Mark Dayton, regarding the debate on the marriage amendment to the Constitution.  It's an interesting look at Dayton's position on this issue, the accuracy of his preparation, and also at the nature of legislator-constituent communications.  

First, our reader sent an email to Dayton asking him to clarify his position on gay marriage.  To which he received this response, which appears to be a form letter (if only because it's entirely coherent, a marked departure from Dayton's normal style):

July 19, 2004 
 
Dear Mr. NAME WITHHELD: 
 
Thank you for contacting me about the proposed Constitutional amendment on marriage.  I did not support the amendment, because I believe that marriage is "an institution created by God," and, thus, should be under the authority of religion. 
 
I am attaching a copy of the remarks I made during the Senate's recent debate on the amendment.  I spent a long time in preparation for it, including rereading The Bible's New Testament and reading the "Defense of Marriage Act."  That federal law, which was enacted in 1996, defines marriage in the United States as only between one man and one woman, and also says that no state need recognize a same-sex marriage performed elsewhere.  Thus, it has already provided marriage in the United States with the definition and protection which the amendment's supporters want. 
 
Please contact me again regarding this or any other matter.   My best regards. 
 
Sincerely, 
 
Mark Dayton
United States Senator

Here are the relevant excerpts of Dayton's July 13 Senate floor speech during debate on the proposed amendment (which ultimately failed to pass):

... in the entire New Testament, there is only one reference to same-sex relationships, in Chapter Two of Paul's Letter to the Romans.  Jesus Christ does not mention them even once in any of the four Gospels. Instead, His overriding instruction was to love thy neighbor as thyself.  That was his Second Great Commandment, which superseded all the rest.  Jesus also warned several times to beware of false prophets. How could they be identified? He said that they spread hate, instead of love.  
 
I do not understand how some religions developed their strong prejudices against gays and lesbians - prejudices which are not only unsupported by Jesus' teachings in the Bible, but which even violate his instructions to love one another, as I have loved you. To judge not, lest ye be judged.  To spread love, not hatred. Yet, the discrimination against gays and lesbians in this country has been filled with judgment and hatred. 
 
. . . . . .
 
It's a tragic day for millions of Americans who are being exploited by those politicians.  This is a hurtful, harmful, hateful debate for America.  One that will only get uglier, meaner, more divisive, and more dangerous, if it moves on to state legislatures, as the Constitutional amendment process requires.  That is why it must be stopped here and now.  That is why I will vote against this Constitutional amendment.

Our reader's response:

 July 22, 2004 
 
Senator Dayton: 
 
Thank you for your reply to my request that you take an unequivocal position on the gay marriage amendment. I understand you undertook an EXHAUSTIVE REVIEW of the New Testament to help formulate your position and support your remarks in the debate before Congress.  The support for your conclusion included the citation of Chapter 2 of Book of  Romans, in which you state the Apostle Paul refers to the only reference to same-sex marriages in the New Testament. 
 
Had you actually read that chapter, you would know that there is absolutely NO MENTION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE  OR ANYTHING CLOSE TO IT in that chapter.  In fact, the most relevant passages in Romans are to Chapter 1, verses 25-32.  Have you read them?  Does that change your view? 
 
Your response reveals that you are truly a fraud intent on deceiving those who will not investigate the veracity of your statements.  Persons such as you cannot be trusted to be leaders of this nation. I could refute many of the points in the rest of your "debate" on the floor of the Senate, but  I choose not to do so.  There is no need.  Enough said. 
 
Best wishes in '06. 
 
Sincerely, NAME WITHHELD

I want to reiterate, this was not written by me, despite the stylistic similarities of calling Dayton a deceitful fraud who cannot be trusted in a position of power, then offering best wishes on his election in 2006.