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.
- Mike Lee: Change is coming to Washington
- John Florez: Utah's prison relocation is like...
- Greg Bell: Socialism vs. the safety net
- Letter: Patriots or sheep?
- Reconnecting with Cuba is a good move —...
- Carmen Rasmusen Herbert: New Christmas...
- My view: In the name of God?
- Charles Krauthammer: Battle must be fought...
- Letter: Patriots or sheep? 62
- Mike Lee: Change is coming to Washington 44
- Greg Bell: Socialism vs. the safety net 43
- Susan Roylance: Definition of the... 35
- My view: Chaffetz named... 34
- Jay Evensen: Cuba not likely to change... 34
- Letter: Patriots or serfs? 33
- My view: Torture, morality and the laws... 30