Letter to the editor: Let’s keep moving forwardThe arguments for the marriage amendment are often misleading and disturbing. Typical is Kerry Navara’s letter (“Consider ramifications of a failed marriage amendment”) published in the Bulletin on Oct. 10. Yes, let’s consider them.
The arguments for the marriage amendment are often misleading and disturbing. Typical is Kerry Navara’s letter (“Consider ramifications of a failed marriage amendment”) published in the Bulletin on Oct. 10. Yes, let’s consider them. Oh, yes, that’s right, there aren’t any. Non passage will not change the legal definition of marriage. Bu then, as a pro-amendment ad points out, the law could be changed in the courts. Oh, my. Are the producers of this ad aware that our legal system is part of our system of government, as has served us well?
But back to Navara, who apparently believes that if the amendment doesn’t pass we’ll immediately have homosexual marriages and then polygamists push for their share of the marriage pie. Navara doesn’t seem to be aware that polygamy is probably the oldest form of marriage, one that was practiced big time by many of the revered old men of the Bible, not to mention recent ancestors of one of the current presidential candidates, and millions think they turned out just swell.
I could say much more, but I’ll end by asking, do you really want a new form of government called Slim-Majority Rule? Before answering, consider the children. If it had been up to the majority, they would still have no child labor laws and parents would still be able to abuse them with impunity. I think history will bear out that we evolved to a higher level of consciousness through our system of government and I, for one, am not willing to go back to the dark ages; let’s continue the progress. Vote no.
Diana M. Eggert – Woodbury