Regarding Erika Munson’s piece, with which I disagree, I’d have to counter with some of my own thoughts that come to mind. I agree that we should love our neighbors, regardless of their own proclivities. But this proposed bill isn’t just some “love thy neighbor” feel-good venture into the unknown. Has Mrs. Munson actually read the bill?
This bill also deals with gender identity, meaning that there’s a broad latitude of interpretation and implementation associated with its actual passage. Mrs. Munson, do you want your girls to have to shower with boys in the school’s gym class; or your boys to shower with the girls in their school’s gym class, simply because one student identifies with the opposite sex rather than his/her own visually identifiable sex, like some communities have ordered?
What you described in your well-meaning article isn’t reality, and not all proponents of same-sex marriage are so altruistic and chivalrous. The crux of this legislation isn’t as obvious as the title would suggest. What we are being told as being the gist of the bill doesn’t even come close to what the content and outcome of its implementation would be.
- In our opinion: Disney outbreak sends a...
- Robert Bennett: Obama's State of the Union...
- Letter: Prison nonsense
- Letter: Is hard work unorthodox?
- 16 of the most heart warming and feel-good...
- Ron Clegg: Primary seat belt law will save lives
- Letter: Dangerous societal focus
- In our opinion: Parents reading to young...
- Jay Evensen: Obama must make religious... 56
- In our opinion: Supreme Court rules... 35
- In our opinion: Disney outbreak sends a... 29
- Letter: Prison nonsense 28
- Robert Bennett: Obama's State of the... 26
- Letter: Peanut butter ban? 21
- Letter: Idle elimination 19
- Ron Clegg: Primary seat belt law will... 19