|
What You've Missed:
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 February
2004 January
Recommended Sites:
Old Blog
The Washington Post
Roger Ebert
The Onion
Dilbert
Unamerican Activities
Dear readers: Thank you very much for your support of Fluorescent Sunshine. Knowing that I have an interested audience keeps me motivated. Please leave your thoughts on the articles by clicking the link at the end of each post. Your comments let me know that my work is not in vain! Thanks, BJK
|
| Gay Marriage |
| 02.05.04 (10:26 am) |
To: Senator John Allen, Senator John Warner, Rep. Jim Moran, Delgate Marian VanLandingham, Senator Patricia Ticer
From: Brandon J. Kriner
Re: Homosexual marriage
I am writing to express my concern regarding recent and possible legislation designed to supress the civil rights of homosexual citizens of the United States. Religious groups, politicians, and even the President of the United states stand opposed to what I feel should be a basic right for all Americans: to enter into a legal, lifelong covenant of marriage, regardless of sexual orientation. The current level of opposition to this basic right is alarming, and is tantamount to the discrimination faced by African Americans during the Civil Rights strife of the 1960s. This generation of legislators seems poised to deny these rights to homosexuals, and like their forbearers, will bear the immutable stigma of bigotry and discrimination for the rest of history. As a leader of Virginia and our nation, please have the forsight to stand up for the rights of all Americans. Please do not let hate and fear guide your conscience or your vote.
Respectfully yours,
Brandon J. Kriner,
Alexandria
|
|
|
| |
posted by: wickedlame
post date: 02.05.04 (10:38 am)
Finally, someone with some good sense. I've been reading some blogs lately and have been struck with the sickening feeling that I've unwittingly joined a cyber klan by getting a tBlog account or something.
posted by: bkriner
post date: 02.05.04 (10:50 am)
Reply to: wickedlame
Thanks for your comments. Feel free to copy and paste my letter verbatim to your own legislators. Embrace democracy!
posted by: jimdoney
post date: 02.05.04 (11:16 am)
The opposition is to definition not to th right of homosexuals. Very simply the change of the word marriage from a man and a woman to a man and a man or womana and a woman is simply another step of moral relativism. How long before the identification of marriage is changed do you think it will be before polygamists begin their "constitutional" crusade? How will it take before marriage is then looked as discriminatory because it only allows 2 people into the equation? Why shoudln't I be allowed to marry a man and a woman and another woman if it is to be seen that marriage is a right that shouldn't have context of being between a man and a woman solely.
Give them civil unions let them do as the please. Be happy have families enjoy the covenant, but don't change the very values that are instilled in the historical institution that is marriage.
posted by: jimdoney
post date: 02.05.04 (11:18 am)
The opposition is to definition not to th right of homosexuals. Very simply the change of the word marriage from a man and a woman to a man and a man or womana and a woman is simply another step of moral relativism. How long before the identification of marriage is changed do you think it will be before polygamists begin their "constitutional" crusade? How will it take before marriage is then looked as discriminatory because it only allows 2 people into the equation? Why shoudln't I be allowed to marry a man and a woman and another woman if it is to be seen that marriage is a right that shouldn't have context of being between a man and a woman solely.
Give them civil unions let them do as the please. Be happy have families enjoy the covenant, but don't change the very values that are instilled in the historical institution that is marriage.
posted by: bkriner
post date: 02.05.04 (12:18 pm)
Reply to: jimdoney
Thanks for your comments. You make a great point. Legalizing gay marriage will certainly challenge historical and societal norms that have long prevailed in this country. I agree that the answer would lead to more questions. I think there is a certain degree of distinction between two homosexuals entering a monogomy and several people entering a polygamy.
As far as civil unions go, I think they are a step in the right direction, but they still represent a curtailment of basic rights. Clearly, civil unions would be constructed as a way to exclude homosexual partners from adopting/having children, accessing certain health and legal benefits, etc. Civil unions could, at worst, represent a wolf in sheep's clothing, used to permanently table the actual marriage issue.
posted by: newbie
post date: 02.05.04 (12:21 pm)
well then you define marriage as a union of 2 people, gets rids of the polygamist argument and people wanting to marry their dog (thanks, Sen. Santorum for that).
posted by: bkriner
post date: 02.05.04 (12:24 pm)
Reply to: kek
Amen...can't tell you how many times I've seen that polygamy/incest/animal argument. It just doesn't hold water.
|
|