Post by Seany-D on Jul 17, 2004 10:30:30 GMT -5
I thought I'd pass these along because they were succinct and I thought they made their points well. --SED
---<snip>---
Lesbian couple seeks only to live in peace
In recent weeks, our governor has denounced the quest for equality in Maryland as being against "common sense" ("Lawsuit challenges state law barring same-sex marriage," July 8). And our president continues to fan the flames of division by calling for a constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage to save families and the very institution of marriage ("Bush backs constitutional amendment on marriage," July 11).
Last August, my partner of 13 years and I were forced to leave the land of our birth and travel to Toronto, Ontario, to be married in a civil ceremony at the city hall there.
In the last year, we have continued working to support ourselves and care for my 80-year-old mother-in-law.
We paid our taxes -- indeed we paid more than other married couples because the federal Defense of Marriage law prohibits us from filing as a married couple. Like other couples, we tend to the yard, play with our two cocker spaniels, go to the store and pretty much lead a normal, law-abiding life together.
How in the world is our marriage going to undermine the fabric of the United States?
We're not a sleeper cell of lesbians looking to topple the government. We don't want to force mandatory homosexual relations on all Americans. We simply want to live in peace, receiving the same benefits and rights of American citizenship that heterosexual couples not only expect but demand.
Marriage can be a religious sacrament, but it must be a state-sanctioned institution. No one seeks to force churches to perform marriages not approved by their faith. They have the right to turn people away, and that will not change.
Granting gay and lesbian citizens equal rights would only strengthen marriage. People don't want to destroy an institution they want to join.
Victoria Jewell
Baltimore
Yes, civil marriage is a secular matter
Contrary to the claims in the letter "Marriage predates civil institutions" (July 12), civil marriage, as defined and regulated by the government, is a secular institution. This is distinct from religious marriages as defined and regulated by churches. The two categories overlap but do not exactly coincide.
For example, in secular marriage, divorced people and priests are allowed to marry. In Catholic religious marriage, they are not.
And it is not true that "discrimination only applies to people who are treated differently because of something they have no control over, such as the color of their skin." If that were true, it would be OK to discriminate against fundamentalist Christians based on their chosen faith -- after all, it's a lot easier for a Christian to become a Jew or a Muslim than for a gay person to become straight.
You have full control over your religious choices -- but that does not mean I can deny you your right to practice your faith because I dislike your personal choice.
The same is true of your choice of spouse.
Catherine Birzer
Burke, Va.
---<snip>---
Lesbian couple seeks only to live in peace
In recent weeks, our governor has denounced the quest for equality in Maryland as being against "common sense" ("Lawsuit challenges state law barring same-sex marriage," July 8). And our president continues to fan the flames of division by calling for a constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage to save families and the very institution of marriage ("Bush backs constitutional amendment on marriage," July 11).
Last August, my partner of 13 years and I were forced to leave the land of our birth and travel to Toronto, Ontario, to be married in a civil ceremony at the city hall there.
In the last year, we have continued working to support ourselves and care for my 80-year-old mother-in-law.
We paid our taxes -- indeed we paid more than other married couples because the federal Defense of Marriage law prohibits us from filing as a married couple. Like other couples, we tend to the yard, play with our two cocker spaniels, go to the store and pretty much lead a normal, law-abiding life together.
How in the world is our marriage going to undermine the fabric of the United States?
We're not a sleeper cell of lesbians looking to topple the government. We don't want to force mandatory homosexual relations on all Americans. We simply want to live in peace, receiving the same benefits and rights of American citizenship that heterosexual couples not only expect but demand.
Marriage can be a religious sacrament, but it must be a state-sanctioned institution. No one seeks to force churches to perform marriages not approved by their faith. They have the right to turn people away, and that will not change.
Granting gay and lesbian citizens equal rights would only strengthen marriage. People don't want to destroy an institution they want to join.
Victoria Jewell
Baltimore
Yes, civil marriage is a secular matter
Contrary to the claims in the letter "Marriage predates civil institutions" (July 12), civil marriage, as defined and regulated by the government, is a secular institution. This is distinct from religious marriages as defined and regulated by churches. The two categories overlap but do not exactly coincide.
For example, in secular marriage, divorced people and priests are allowed to marry. In Catholic religious marriage, they are not.
And it is not true that "discrimination only applies to people who are treated differently because of something they have no control over, such as the color of their skin." If that were true, it would be OK to discriminate against fundamentalist Christians based on their chosen faith -- after all, it's a lot easier for a Christian to become a Jew or a Muslim than for a gay person to become straight.
You have full control over your religious choices -- but that does not mean I can deny you your right to practice your faith because I dislike your personal choice.
The same is true of your choice of spouse.
Catherine Birzer
Burke, Va.