Whittier
17-07-2004, 21:03
Gay marriage no threat
Once again there have been letters claiming marriage is under attack by those whose cultures or lifestyles are different from those of the authors.
The authors are trying to convince us to accept a change to the constitution that would set a dangerous precedent. A precedent that would have very lethal consequences for the American heritage of individual freedoms and individual rights.
If we ban gay marriages by constitutional amendment, on the excuse that it is a threat to the moral fiber of society, then it becomes no great leap to say we should amend the constitution to require people to become Christians and donate their hard-earned money to a church they don't agree with.
It becomes no great leap to change the constitution to ban political or religious speech the majority finds offensive.
And as you know, there are many people calling for just that.
It becomes no great leap to use the marriage amendment as a precedent to take away people's rights to choose where they will live and work.
Hell, while we are at it, why not ban certain forms of art that Christians find offensive due to the fact they depict nudity.
Let us ban all strip clubs. Some of your male readers may like to look at Playboy, but under the precedent a marriage amendment would impose, Playboy would be banned and being in possession of a Playboy would be illegal.
Even a woman's right to choose is in jeopardy in this issue. Under this deadly and evil precedent that the supporters of the marriage amendment seek to set, the rights of parents can be and will be stripped away by the federal government.
I must ask readers to answer an important question. What do they value more? The rights of individuals from government intrusion and trespass, or the right of a minority of Christian fanatics to not be offended by other cultures or lifestyles?
Is it more important to have the government enforce Bible laws or is it more important to maintain the constitutional ban against unreasonable searches and seizures? And what of the 11th amendment that basically states that marriage is a state issue?
Are Americans really willing to rescind some of our most fundamental freedoms just so some tiny minority of Christians and bigots don't have to be offended?
I say no.
The religious fanatics that make up this minority have failed to prove that gay marriages destroy heterosexual marriages. Divorce rates were already the highest in the world before the subject of gay marriage even came up. This also goes for the problem of broken homes and deadbeat parents. It also applies to the problem of adultery, yet 80 percent of adulterous relationships is with a member of the opposite sex.
I end with a direct challenge to the supporters of the amendment. You say gay marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage. That it is a threat to your own marriage. Indeed to your whole family. My challenge is this: Prove it.
found this on the web.
Once again there have been letters claiming marriage is under attack by those whose cultures or lifestyles are different from those of the authors.
The authors are trying to convince us to accept a change to the constitution that would set a dangerous precedent. A precedent that would have very lethal consequences for the American heritage of individual freedoms and individual rights.
If we ban gay marriages by constitutional amendment, on the excuse that it is a threat to the moral fiber of society, then it becomes no great leap to say we should amend the constitution to require people to become Christians and donate their hard-earned money to a church they don't agree with.
It becomes no great leap to change the constitution to ban political or religious speech the majority finds offensive.
And as you know, there are many people calling for just that.
It becomes no great leap to use the marriage amendment as a precedent to take away people's rights to choose where they will live and work.
Hell, while we are at it, why not ban certain forms of art that Christians find offensive due to the fact they depict nudity.
Let us ban all strip clubs. Some of your male readers may like to look at Playboy, but under the precedent a marriage amendment would impose, Playboy would be banned and being in possession of a Playboy would be illegal.
Even a woman's right to choose is in jeopardy in this issue. Under this deadly and evil precedent that the supporters of the marriage amendment seek to set, the rights of parents can be and will be stripped away by the federal government.
I must ask readers to answer an important question. What do they value more? The rights of individuals from government intrusion and trespass, or the right of a minority of Christian fanatics to not be offended by other cultures or lifestyles?
Is it more important to have the government enforce Bible laws or is it more important to maintain the constitutional ban against unreasonable searches and seizures? And what of the 11th amendment that basically states that marriage is a state issue?
Are Americans really willing to rescind some of our most fundamental freedoms just so some tiny minority of Christians and bigots don't have to be offended?
I say no.
The religious fanatics that make up this minority have failed to prove that gay marriages destroy heterosexual marriages. Divorce rates were already the highest in the world before the subject of gay marriage even came up. This also goes for the problem of broken homes and deadbeat parents. It also applies to the problem of adultery, yet 80 percent of adulterous relationships is with a member of the opposite sex.
I end with a direct challenge to the supporters of the amendment. You say gay marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage. That it is a threat to your own marriage. Indeed to your whole family. My challenge is this: Prove it.
found this on the web.