Patrick McIlhern is a right wing writer for the local paper, The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.
I've written to him before about the gay marriage amendment that he so strongly favors. This article:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=510459 is his latest on the subject.
I don't know why I bother to reply to him. It's like pounding my head against a concrete wall but not quite as enjoyable.
This is my latest letter to him...
I'm saddened by the fact that the Journal-Sentinel has seen fit to give seemingly only one voice to the marriage debate. Yours. I don't see a glut of opposing viewpoints in the paper. That's just a shame.
However, since we've had this discussion already I'll just leave you with a couple of links that has information about gays and marriage. If you care to enlighten yourself I encourage you to take a look at them. If you'd prefer to be stuck with the self-imposed blinders you've obviously decided to wear then you can ignore them for what they are, information.
An Essay on Gay Marriage
http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm Gay Marriage Helps Improve Marriage for Everyone
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/257902.htm And, finally, since we talked before about the rights that straight people take for granted when you get married (and your contention that this can be taken care of with wills, power of attorney, etc) I strongly encourage you to read this and read it carefully. So many of these things can NOT be given by any of the things you say can grant them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_benefits_of_marriage_in_the_United_States I won't change your mind. I'm sure of this. But I do hope this will at least open your eyes. I won't deny that some gay people want to get married to simply flout it to the public. However, for those in a caring and committed relationship, this amendment moves them to second class, back of the bus types with little hope of change. So many rights that you take for granted we will never know. And for some reason, this is OK with you.
You said:
"But just because we can't go back to the 1950s doesn't mean we should give up. We have to find a way to hold the line.
Law didn't make marriage or invent its woman-and-man nature. But law can screw it up by undermining key parts, such as its permanence, weakened by no-fault divorce. The institution isn't our era's possession, to tamper with as we see fit. We should vote yes to keep it as is.
This may feel mean. Perhaps it is. But how much crueler to alter utterly the meaning of something society needs and can't easily replace."
But, for some reason unknown to me, you seem to ignore the fact that this is what these people want. A sense of permanence. A sense that they're bound together, by law, in the eyes of their family, the community, and, if they so choose, their deity.
You don't need to bother to reply. I know we'll just end up rehashing our last conversations. But I hope come election day you'll remember the lives of the faceless people that you're changing. And I hope you'll at least care a little bit. Though I won't hold my breath.
Will Bowden
Milwaukee, WI
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
