In a letter to New York’s Newsday, Suzanne Mueller of Great Neck counters the claim that marriage only exists for the purposes of procreation.

Not all heterosexual unions result in offspring, whether by choice or by misfortune. Should these, then, not be considered marriages, because they are childless?

Are heterosexual couples who adopt children somehow different from those who bear them naturally? Conversely, many gay and lesbian couples are loving parents to children – either adopted or conceived using the same methods used by heterosexual couples desperate to be parents.

The government needs to recognize all loving and committed relationships equally.

Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith understands that religious opinions about marriage should have no bearing on how the government approaches the issue of marriage equality.

“I look at it as a legal matter… People being together, you know, has no implication on most other people’s lives,” he said. “I think people deserve to be with who they want to be with. Who am I to dictate?”

No religion should have a monopoly on the institutions of government or on the right to marry.

Minnesota State Senator Scott Dibble understands what marriage means to couples–and part of what marriage means is economic security.

“We’re in a time of economic crisis, and it’s difficult for everyone,” Dibble says, “more difficult for those families that don’t have access to those basic provisions for economic security.”

He says examples include the joint ownership of property; joint credit; the ability to share health-care benefits with a partner; and inheritance rights.

“People are beginning to understand that the rights and benefits and responsibilities and economic relationships that couples have with each other as a result of marriage or marriage-type laws are really basic to our ability to be able to provide for each other,” he adds.

“It’s really coming to light in context of this economic difficulty that we’re in the midst of.”

In these tough economic times, all couples deserve the financial and emotional stability that marriage provides.

“After hours of conversations, meetings and reading, I have come to the firm conclusion that all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, should be treated equally Civil unions simply do not provide that equality in more than 1,300 legal categories.”

Republican Assemblywoman Janet Duprey, who voted against marriage equality in 2007, has seen her position evolve after hearing from fellow New Yorkers about what marriage means to them.

“In all of the discussions I have had with my constituents, the ones that moved me the most were the parents of homosexual children whom they love dearly,” Duprey said. “To a person these parents expressed their desire to see their gay and/or lesbian children share the same benefits, protection and love with their partners as their heterosexual siblings do with their spouses.”

Duprey further met with large numbers of homosexual individuals and couples, most in long-term relationships, some with children, and all asking for equal protection under the law.

“After hours of conversations, meetings and reading, I have come to the firm conclusion that all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, should be treated equally,” Duprey said. “Civil unions simply do not provide that equality in more than 1,300 legal categories.”

Only when the public educates their leaders on the issue of marriage equality will we see more courageous politicians like Assemblywoman Duprey change their minds.

Assemblywoman Teresa Sayward make an impassioned plea in 2007 for marriage equality when the issue was first brought to the Assembly in Albany two years ago.

“My son didn’t want to be different.  Lord knows he wanted to change,” said Sayward during the floor debate.  “It is not a life choice. My God loves my son. And as sure as I’m standing here tonight, this is certainly not for me, nor should it be for any of us, anything other than a civil rights issue.”

Assemblywoman Sayward is one of those Republicans who understand that in the case of marriage equality, conservative values like limited government and personal responsibility mean that marriage is a right that should be granted to ALL New Yorkers.