First, “a majority of Americans” do not believe in “gay marriage”
if we’re to take every popular vote of the people on this subject into
consideration.  Public opinion surveys
are what they are and can elicit targeted responses; the ballot box is rarely
vague, certainly unquestionable.

Second, our marriage laws are just – any adult man and adult
woman can marry.  Those two categories of
human beings – male and female – comprise the universe of human beings and,
hence, candidates for marriage.  Everyone
fits into one or the other category. 
There are exceptions to our marriage laws (i.e. minors, incompetent
adults without parental or guardian permission, etc.) but adult, competent
males and females are not precluded from the legal marriage opportunity.

Third, fertility does not stand alone in the pantheon of
reasons to keep marriage between a man and a woman.  Marriage laws rightfully encourage and
reinforce child-bearing, child-rearing, the complementarity between men and
women, and intergenerational bonds.  That
an unfertile couple (i.e. a man and woman in the bonds of marriage) can’t have
biological children does not denigrate the personal and societal value of their
marriages.

Fourth, same-sex sexual relations are an inherently selfish
act in societal terms.  No one doubts
that such sexual relationships can be quite meaningful to its
participants.  Similarly, no one doubts
that masturbation can have the same meaning for someone.  But we don’t allow a man to marry
himself.  Why?  Precisely because legal marriage requires a
societal benefit – a benefit that neither a masturbator nor a homosexual can
demonstrate outside of selfishness.

There’s no need to respond that same-sex relationships are
about the people, not the sex.  Some of us believe that you cannot homo without the sexual any more than
you can hetero without the
sexual.  But regardless of whether or not
you agree with that construct, it is more than clear that the law only
recognizes human action.  (Although, in
the crazy world of “gay rights,” I’m well aware that its laws aren’t encumbered
with such boundaries.  Even so, those unique
laws are the exception to historic legal experience.)

Not to be snarky, and I’m not, you must argue something more persuasive than that any
two people can take care of each other, or love each other, to justify that
homosexuals should be allowed to legally marry – at least for someone like me
who understands that marriage is more than love alone, more than the sum total
of personal satisfaction offered to the two adults alone.

And on that note, fifth, adults in a free society can
contract to care for one another, put each other in their wills and all of the
other business that human beings can conduct legally.  That a legal marriage relationship offers
those opportunities without requiring separate agreements is hardly an “injustice”
worthy of destroying the definition of marriage.

We support Marriage Equality, along with a majority of Americans (this is a new development:  according to recent polls conducted by Gallup, The Public Religion Institute, CNN/ORC, and ABC/Washington Post, a majority of Americans now support Marriage Equality.)

Because Marriage is a matter of public policy, with legal consequences, you are correct that this is a question of justice, not compassion.  People deserve equal justice under our state and federal Marriage laws.
We agree with you that “…justice is based on what we ought to do as human beings living together in community.”   
We support the human beings in our community who wish to accept the responsibilities of marriage, regardless of their gender or procreational viability.  We think a world where you and your fiance would have to be tested for fertility prior to getting married would be unthinkable.  We hope you agree.

When you compare your organization’s stand on illegal immigration to your stand on Marriage Equality, you say,
“The former is about the universal aspirations of all human beings; the latter is about the selfish desires of a few human beings.”
Selfish desires?  We disagree, and we see no factual basis for this statement.  The desire to marry, to accept the legal responsibilities that come with marriage, is anything but selfish.  For one woman to accept full responsibility for another woman, and even for her wife’s children — to pick them up from school, to check them into the hospital when they’re sick, to care for them should anything happen to their biological mother — who would consider these to be “selfish desires?”  These are, to use your words, the universal aspirations of human beings in love with one another to care for each other, and to go so far as to accept a legal responsibility to provide that care.

You close with,
“What I cannot do is support personal indignities under force of law.”
We agree.  A woman’s chosen partner in life should be able to visit her in the hospital.  A man who fought and died for our country, if he loved a man in life, should have the right to have that man be his next of kin.  Right now, the opposite is true, and these personal indignities carry the full force of law.

We hope, more than anything, that you will truly consider the position you hold, the influence you have, and the weight of your words.  Please remember that justice and public policy cannot be decided solely on a minority’s beliefs, (even if members of that minority, such as yourself, carry a position of such prominence.)  We must do “what we ought to do as human beings living together in community.”  Allowing couples to marry, to accept responsibility for one another, and to have families equally recognized under the law, is what we ought to do.

Perhaps one day if one or more of your own children turned out to be gay Mr. Mero, you would finally get it and find the love and tolerance in your heart that is missing for other people’s children along with the decency to grant them the same rights and privileges as other human beings.