I recently wrote both of Missouri's U. S. Senators, Christopher Bond who is a Republican and Claire McCaskill who is a Democrat, to encourage them to support an amendment to the U. S. Constitution that would define marriage as being only between a man and a woman. Sen. McCaskill responded thus. "Thank you for contacting me regarding same-sex marriages. I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome the chance to respond. I support efforts to grant legal recognition of same-sex couples through civil unions. Current federal law denies same-sex couples the same rights, privileges and benefits that are granted to heterosexual couples. This unequal treatment is a discriminatory policy, and it goes against our country’s sacred principle that all Americans deserve equal rights under the law." I have to ask a question. If not allowing the same rights, privileges, and benefits to same-sex couples through civil unions is discriminatory, does it not also stand to reason that denying such rights to incestuous couples, such as mother-son, father-daughter, or brother-sister relationships is equally discriminatory? Sen. McCaskill continued, "While I believe that same-sex couples should be recognized in the eyes of our government, I will not support legislation to legalize same-sex marriage." I have to ask another question. Why would anyone support the granting of all the rights, privileges, and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, yet still refuse to call it a marriage? What is the difference? It seems as if Sen. McCaskill wants to eat her cake and have it too. She can proudly present herself to the radical homosexual-rights advocates as supporting civil unions for same-sex couples, but still try to sneak past those of us who oppose the radical homosexual-rights agenda by saying that she does not support same-sex marriages. Well, Sen. McCaskill, I do not think that you are going to fool very many of us! She concludes, "Our nation’s founding fathers had the remarkable sensibility and foresight to protect religious freedom, and as your Senator and a practicing Christian, I will remain committed to upholding every American’s right to freely practice and express their faith as they so choose. Our government has no business forcing a religious faith to conduct or recognize any marriage." At least, she does not swallow the radical homosexual-rights movement's bait hook, line, and sinker. They want to force all Americans, including churches, to recognize same-sex unions and marriages. Well, I suppose that we should be thankful for small favors. Of course, she never did tell me whether she supports the amendment or not!