A recent letter to the editor in our regional daily
newspaper made it quite clear that anyone holding an opinion on the subject of
Marriage different than that of the author was clearly a bigoted and hate-filled
individual and should not be allowed any input into the public discussion now
underway in Minnesota about the upcoming vote on a constitutional amendment stating
that Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Since even raising a
question about the issue will fail the letter writer’s criteria I will grit my
teeth and raise a few points despite his disapproval.
-
Is a conservative plot
-
Its a Republican idea
-
Its an attempt to prevent homosexual individuals
from having a loving relationship
-
It’s a religious issue that has no place in
politics
-
Its not fair that homosexual individuals be
denied the benefits of marriage
The middle point in the above list seems the strangest. It claims
that the historic definition of marriage, restated in the amendment, will
prevent all other persons from entering or having loving relationships. Since,
in history, the current definition of marriage was universally held yet other
loving relationships existed, even thrived, why would it suppress them now?
Among my friends are same sex couples who have freely chosen
to make long term commitments to each other, purchased homes together, given
each other healthcare and/or financial power of attorney without seeking government
license to do so (such license is requirement of heterosexual couples under
current State marriage regulation). Likewise those that have decided to end
their relationship have been able to do so without government approval (getting
government approval of a divorce is required of heterosexual couples, however).
The benefits referred to in the fifth item on the list must be so attractive
that government control of your personal relationship is a price you are
willing to pay.
No comments:
Post a Comment