- About Us
- Local Savings
- Green Editions
- Legal Notices
- Weekly Ads
Connect with Us
Letters | Ironic juxtaposition of same-sex marriage opinions
The irony of reading the reasoned argument of Jay Rodne on page 3 (Valley Record, Feb. 15) followed by the emotional letter of Kathy Golic on page 5 concerning the same-sex marriage issue was not lost on me.
What I find less amusing is that the specious reasoning put forth in the letter has entered into the realm of sacrosanct American truth and Rodne will henceforth be characterized as a religious extremist.
I am in awe of Rodne's fearlessness of political expression. Nowhere in his quoted argument did he state specific Catholic teaching, however it was apparent that his logic was based on life-affirming principles. Americans have become so steeped in the culture of death and freedom from religion that the ability to separate the spiritual from the civil feels normal. It is not separate, and I am deeply disappointed that Pflug and Anderson chose the politically expedient path. Rodne's statement that "they're confused and misguided" while referring specifically to the state legislature may, in my opinion, be applied to the entire body politic. Ms Golic's letter attests to the phenomenon on several points.
This law is neither right nor fair as asserted. If there is already a law to cover the rights of co-habiting homosexual couples, why are current domestic partnership protections not enough? Would civil marriage be where the push to re-define American culture and society ends or would the next demand be for church unions?
Second, like Ms. Golic, "some of my best friends" are homosexual, but my experience with their life approach has covered many years of work and play in several of these United States. Like Ms. Golic, my eyes were opened, but I did not perceive an idyllic lifestyle choice. On the contrary, in pursuit of their narcissistic self-gratification, countless families, however you choose to define them, were destroyed by the aftermath of divorce or death, parents, partners, husbands, wives, and children left bewildered. The devastation left in the wake of abandonment was heartbreaking to witness.
It saddens me that our human need for exclusivity reigns over what unites us, yet she applauds homosexuals' continuous lobbying for special status. By her narrative, she demonstrates that homosexuals are not a special class as Anderson argued in defense of his support for a needless piece of legislation, designed for a feel-good moment without regard for any long-term, wide-ranging, unintended consequences.
In Ms. Golic's opinion, churches should have no role in influencing political discourse. She could not have made a more unjust statement. The civil realm does not exist in a moral vacuum. America's constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from it. My expectations include both those who choose government service being truthful about their beliefs so I can cast an informed vote for the candidate who best represents me and moral leaders weighing in on the issues in the same manner that lobbyists for special interests work to influence the outcome. Anything less impoverishes the political currency.
If I fear anything, it is that future generations will ask why did we stand for everything and ultimately stand for nothing, why were we so confused, why could we not recognize and stand up for Truth with a capital 'T'? Where was our political will? Sadly, in the current hysterical political climate, we cannot allow the possibility that those who disagree with the ideology du'jour are neither phobic nor hate-filled. Can Ms. Golic challenge herself to view fear as the good thing that psychologists posit is a healthy mechanism for self-preservation?