Open Letter

OpenMass.org publishes open letters that are sent to state Representatives, Senators and the Governor. Click here for more information our policy and information on how to publish an open letter.

Dear Representative Marzilli (cc openletter @ openmass.org),

I have some questions regarding Senate 918, currently before the Judiciary Committee. The bill would amend the laws regarding marriage by adding "any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender."

I ask my questions in light of new reproductive technologies that are being developed to allow people to conceive with another person of their same sex. Some researchers expect it to be tried in humans in just three to five years, even though it took over 450 tries to create one mouse in 2004 (Google "Kaguya mouse", or visit my website www.eggandsperm.org ).

Marriage has always conveyed an implicit right to attempt to conceive children together. As far as I know, no government has ever prohibited a marriage from conceiving offspring using their own genes. So, would same-sex marriage also allow the couple to attempt to conceive children together, using whatever new genetic engineering techniques that are being developed? Or will it be possible to prohibit people from attempting same-sex conception even though there are same-sex marriages, according to the constitutional understanding of marriage rights? Could the SJC be queried if this effect of the law is unclear?

It seems to me that same-sex marriage will either give the green light to same-sex conception and make it impossible to stop it, or, if we stop it, SSM would mean that marriage no longer protected the couple's rights to use their own gametes to conceive children. Both results are extremely significant and unacceptable.

Because it requires unethical experiments with genetic engineering, same-sex conception should be not be allowed. Many ethicists agree that all attempts at conception that do not combine a man's sperm and a woman's egg should be banned. Indeed, an amendment was just passed in Missouri that prohibits implanting embryos created any other way.

I also think that all marriages should be allowed to conceive their own children; no marriage should ever be prohibited from combining their gametes.

I therefore have been proposing that Civil Unions be created that would be exactly like marriage in every way, except they would not give the couple the right to conceive children together, using their own gametes. This would be consistent with a ban on implanting genetically engineered embryos, while preserving the "basic civil right of man to marry and procreate," and would also make it easier to get equal benefits, including federal recognition and 50-state recognition, for same-sex couples.

Please consider this issue carefully, as same-sex conception is possible today, and could be tried in humans in only one or two years, and our decisions now about legalizing same-sex marriage might tie our hands when it comes to deciding if same-sex conception should be allowed. Please visit www.eggandsperm.org for links to news reports on same-sex conception experiments.

I'm also wondering if the law would even make sense given the existing laws that restrict specific relations a man and a woman cannot marry. Would those relations carry over to people of the same sex?

Also, unrelated to S918, but I am worried that we need to deal with sperm donor daughter relationships, and half-sibling relationships. Do the laws against marrying daughters and siblings apply to anonymous donors and their offspring reunited at age 18? Given what we know about the phenomenon of genetic attraction, we might need special laws to prevent these potentially harmful and exploitive relationships.

Looking forward to hearing back from you regarding my questions.

Thank you
John Howard
12 Belknap Street
Arlington, MA 02474
john @ eggandsperm.org
(or john.eggandsperm @ gmail.com)