(no subject)

[pennywhistle]

Here is the letter I sent to the Editor of the Cincinnati Enquirer today regarding Peter Bronson's remarks on homosexual marriages:

To the editor:

I was thoroughly disgusted with Peter Bronson's passing remarks that homosexual marriages are "craziness" (November 7th). He recommended that the rest of Ohio quickly pass a Defense of Marriage Act to stop the craziness from spreading. These words are hurtful and bigoted. Homosexual marriages are not harmful to society, they only strengthen a couples love for each other. We are your mothers and daughters and sisters, your fathers and sons and brothers. We are consumers and taxpayers and voters. We are not going anywhere. We are HUMAN BEINGS. We should be entitled to the same rights as everyone else and that includes the right to have a legally recognized relationship with the one person we truly love. There is no need for heterosexuals to pass a "Defense of Marriage Act," as no one is attacking marriage. Rather, we simply want to celebrate the same joys of marriage that you have been enjoying for centuries. I am glad that the citizens of Cleveland Heights were able to recognize that gay people are normal people and deserve the same rights as straight people.

Comments

[teaandbitchery.livejournal.com]

Have they ever put his article on-line? I keep looking for it but can't find it.

[malanai.livejournal.com]

Nope. Maybe they're ashamed of it.

[teaandbitchery.livejournal.com]

That's exceedingly sad. They put almost everything else on-line these days. I'm surprised they haven't put that up also.

Yes, it's online

[(Anonymous)]

It's linked off the archives, just not off his page; here (http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/11/06/loc_bronson.html)

[mavra-chang.livejournal.com]

Defense of Marriage Acts are a bunch of happy horseshit. They are one of the most asinine things I can think of.

[ex-la-sorci.livejournal.com]

The interesting thing about the defense of marriage act is that those who promote them often do so from a religious standpoint. I would love to argue this to the supreme court, that to "defend" marriage from a religious standpoint by the US government violates the first amendment and the seperation of church & state. Especially when you consider that in the Catholic church, marriage is actually a "sacrament".

I object to the use of the word marriage on this principle alone. We should suspend "Marriage" and instead perform Civil Unions for all.

[sirendream.livejournal.com]

I also think the main problem with not allowing homosexual marriages is the lack of community property or any mutual rights. If one partner dies or is injured or any legal troubles come up, the other partner has no legal rights. They're just like a best friend or a roommate. Nothing. They're screwed. A will and a good lawyer might help, but unless all those things are set up beforehand, even then things can go shitty.