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.
- Lawrence and Windsor won't trump Utah...
- My view: Balancing personal conviction and...
- Can Hollywood keep the faith in faith-based...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Re-enactment...
- Letter: Policy disagreement
- Mary Barker: The Romney I may have voted for
- My view: Circuit Court's Obamacare decision...
- Letter: Outdated climate
- Mary Barker: The Romney I may have... 69
- Lawrence and Windsor won't trump Utah... 64
- Stuart Reid: Translations of religious... 61
- In our opinion: History will remember... 46
- Dan Liljenquist: Religious liberty and... 46
- Letter: Breeding hate 45
- Letter: Policy disagreement 37
- In our opinion: Use market forces and... 32