Same-sex marriage decision all wrong
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
John A. Suren
Published: June 24, 2008
I cannot say that I am surprised at the general course of action being taken in this regard. It is the outgrowth or lack of common sense and moral decency being displayed by some judges, some
politicians and some other people. Some people are playing “ostrich,” when they should be playing “tiger.” Instead of standing tall, they have buckled and fallen. They have demonstrated no integrity,
courage, decency, common sense, Christian values or love of country.
I am somewhat amazed at how much publicity this has been given on television, radio and the newspapers. They just document events, without any thought of the possible consequences.
It also amazes me how so few people can make decisions of a legal nature. By a 4-3 vote, the state Supreme Court in California said that tying marriage to a couples’ sexual orientation was a civil rights
violation. So their civil rights were being violated — how about ours? You don’t usually give someone something without taking something away from someone else! The second amendment has served us
well for many, may years. Now there are some who are using it to justify their ridiculous decisions. Our forefathers formulated a sound and sturdy structure, now some want to substitute a structure of
crumbs! We need to constantly strengthen our country, not to weaken it.
This is all part of a sexual revolution and a subsequent decay of moral fiber. What these people do within the confines of their property is their business. When it goes beyond that, it becomes our
business.
What is gay pride? How can they attach the word “pride” to their conduct and behavior!
Do not expect the politician to help us. In a discussion of the same-sex marriage issue, Senator Barack Obama is reported to have said that he does not approve of it, but he also said that it does not
bother him. Of course, he would have said that because we wants their vote! Logic and common sense imply that if you disapprove of something, it also has to bother you! The two obviously go hand-in-
hand.
JOHN A.SUREN
Manassas
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( RonCharest ) on July 09, 2008 at 12:14 pm
I actually find myself in agreement with Cris that I shouldn’t have to pay taxes for things I disagree with.
For example, I should not have to pay my tax money towards supporting the Republican Party’s war on Iraq. Not only should I not pay tax money towards this war, my children, grandchildren, and great-grand children should not have to pay either.
This would be a great Country indeed, if people got to pick and chose what they wanted their tax money to support, wouldn’t it?
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( raywilliams ) on July 09, 2008 at 10:23 am
Yup Chris, I’m right there with you hating my tax money being spent to support someone else’s lifestyle. Why on earth the government continues to give churches tax breaks on their property and income is beyond me. Most churches are for-profit centers and give little back to the community, beyond some activities for their members. They should pay full taxes on property they own. But, I understand I won’t always agree with everything the government supports and that is just the system we live in. As I said before, the world would be a boring place if we all thought alike. With my luck we’d have 3 tennis matches on Sunday TV instead of football games.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( zcxnissan ) on July 08, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Sorry Ray i should not have to pay for someone else’s benefits for things like abortion or alternative lifestyles. It is against my religion and most religions as well. I should have made myself more clear. As i have said what you do in your own bedroom is no concern of mine. However when it affects me monetarily then i have a problem with it. LOL
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( raywilliams ) on July 07, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Chris, I guess I don’t know what a Civil Union is. I assumed it was equal legally to a marriage, but using different terminology so that marriage could remain as between a man and a woman. I state again I have no problem with that. But I do want some legal definition - use any term you want - that provides the same legal benefits between committed life-partners. If you are saying gays should not have the same rights as straight couples, then just come out and say that.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( zcxnissan ) on July 07, 2008 at 11:02 am
Sorry Ray under the law they are still not entitled to benefits. Liberals always right but fail to see the light. Ray no one disallows ones companion to see them in the hospital, or at work, however if they choose no civil union or marriage, then they aren’t legally entitled to those benefits. Ron congrats on a delusional journey. The voters will decide it anyway and most support marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Sheesh aren’t civil unions enough? People are already perverting the laws enough without clouding the laws again. LOL Chris Cummings
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( raywilliams ) on July 01, 2008 at 8:40 pm
I would hate to see my mother’s “companion” of 18 years not able to visit her in the hospital because he is not “family”. No problem with forfeiting the tax benefits of not being married as that is a choice they make. But to be excluded in health care decisions or simply not able to sit and hold one’s hand because you’re not married or in the case of gays, not ALLOWED to be married or “legally committed” is wrong.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( RonCharest ) on July 01, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Cris Cummings,
Common-law marriage can still be contracted in 11 states and the District of Columbia. In common-law marriage, the two parties are legally recognized by the state as married under certain conditions, even without a marriage certificate or witnesses.
Common-law marriage and criteria for states to abolish it were established by activist supreme court justices ruling in Meister v. Moore (96 U.S. 76 (1877)).
Conservatives: So wrong for so long
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( zcxnissan ) on July 01, 2008 at 4:20 pm
If you choose not to get married or civil union then you have no right for benefits under most state laws if not all. Just the law i’m saying with no disrespect to someone’s boyfriend or girlfriend. LOL Chris Cummings
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( raywilliams ) on July 01, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Chris, call it The Odd Couple agreement based on the old TV show for all I care as long as the same rights apply to life-partners as apply to traditional marriages. I get your point about not cluttering the word “marriage” in the Biblical sense and I have no problem with that. These rights should also be available to older couples who choose not to get married due to complicated estatesor tax laws but are in a committed relationship.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( zcxnissan ) on July 01, 2008 at 12:30 am
Just follow the law is all i ask, Ray. In 17 states marriage is clearly defined as between a man and a woman. Civil unions are accepted in most states as well. LOL Chris Cummings
Report Inappropriate Comment