Letter to the Editor
| Letter to the Editor | Stewart S. Smith | POLS 2101Maria J. AlboUniversity of North Georgia1/18/2013 | | |
|
January 17, 2013
Matt Birk
Author
Star Tribune
P.O. Box 790387
St. Louis, MO 63179-0387
Dear Mr. Birk:
Marriage is sacred, and everyone deserves to be with the one they love regardless of their sexual orientation. In an article that appeared on October 2, 2012 on the Star Tribune website, you stated that "marriage is sacred" and that it "should be between a man and a woman." Although the former is correct, I hope you can revise your opinion on the latter. In your article there are some quotes that were chosen that state "I am my brother 's keeper" and "love your neighbor as yourself", which are both from the Bible. There is nothing wrong with these being from the Bible, but if the argument is structured for a governmental audience, and if it is fighting against the legalization of homosexual marriage, the Bible is a non-valid source. We as a country "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"(US Const) nor can we associate with any religion as a deciding factor in our lawmaking. These quotes are also used to deride the cliché "live and let live," yet this country was founded on, and still stands for, the freedom from anyone telling another that they can or cannot do something. This principal that the United States tries to stand for is portrayed perfectly in the words "live and let live." The techniques and examples you used to prove your point are fragile, and irrelevant.
If this law is passed, and homosexuals are allowed to marry, contrary to what you may claim, it will have no effect on your children, and it will have very little effect on the next generation. The only people this law will affect are the homosexuals themselves and their families. The argument presented is that if this union is allowed it will have "long term effects" on the children of the homosexual parents. Every study that has
|
January 17, 2013
Matt Birk
Author
Star Tribune
P.O. Box 790387
St. Louis, MO 63179-0387
Dear Mr. Birk:
Marriage is sacred, and everyone deserves to be with the one they love regardless of their sexual orientation. In an article that appeared on October 2, 2012 on the Star Tribune website, you stated that "marriage is sacred" and that it "should be between a man and a woman." Although the former is correct, I hope you can revise your opinion on the latter. In your article there are some quotes that were chosen that state "I am my brother 's keeper" and "love your neighbor as yourself", which are both from the Bible. There is nothing wrong with these being from the Bible, but if the argument is structured for a governmental audience, and if it is fighting against the legalization of homosexual marriage, the Bible is a non-valid source. We as a country "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"(US Const) nor can we associate with any religion as a deciding factor in our lawmaking. These quotes are also used to deride the cliché "live and let live," yet this country was founded on, and still stands for, the freedom from anyone telling another that they can or cannot do something. This principal that the United States tries to stand for is portrayed perfectly in the words "live and let live." The techniques and examples you used to prove your point are fragile, and irrelevant.
If this law is passed, and homosexuals are allowed to marry, contrary to what you may claim, it will have no effect on your children, and it will have very little effect on the next generation. The only people this law will affect are the homosexuals themselves and their families. The argument presented is that if this union is allowed it will have "long term effects" on the children of the homosexual parents. Every study that has
References: Dolan, Maura. "Children Thrive Equally with Same-sex, Heterosexual Parents, Psychologist Testifies at Prop. 8 Trial." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 15 Jan. 2010. Web. 18 Jan. 2013. Birk, Matt. "Let 's Protect Marriage -- and Speech." Star Tribune. Star Tribune, 2 Oct. 2012. Web. 18 Jan. 2013. US Const. amend. III. Print.