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.
- My View: What I learned about air pollution...
- My view: Has Utah's new election law created...
- Robert J. Samuelson: Let us praise GDP
- In our opinion: The special session supports...
- My view: History of abolitionists teach us an...
- Carmen Rasmusen Herbert: Goodbye, Rickey Smith
- In our opinion: Divided 8-judge Supreme Court...
- John Florez: A father's heartbreaking letter
- In our opinion: Finding – not... 60
- In our opinion: Divided 8-judge Supreme... 46
- My View: What I learned about air... 26
- My view: Has Utah's new election law... 22
- Those intolerable TSA security lines 19
- On Second Thought: A lighthearted look... 17
- Drew Clark: Will 2016 be the breakout... 16
- My view: Patriotic Millionaires urges... 16