My Letter to the Editor: post-Gay Amendment fallout

November 15, 2006

[copied from my old Myspace blog]

So, Virginians have foolishly voted the “Gay Amendment” into its constitution. This is the one that not only says marriage is between one man and one woman, but that no unmarried couples (gay or straight) may have the legal appurtenances of marriage.

The editorial board of my local newspaper in Staunton, the News Leader, came out against the amendment although it still somehow supported the re-election of George Allen to the U.S. Senate. But whatever. The day after the amendment passed, the News Leader‘s house editorial said what the rest of us–at least the educated, open-minded populace of Virginia–was thinking. Basically: I hope you’re happy now, you fucking idiots; we just backtracked to the days of Jim Crow.

Here’s one of the many fece stains that subsequently got printed in the letters to the editor:

Marriage amendment outlaws sin

I am glad the marriage amendment passed. It is a shame, however, that we have to define that which has been from the beginning. Marriage was ordained by God in the Garden of Eden over 6,000 years ago. Marriage cannot be defined by government to mean anything but a union between one man and one woman.

Your argument that we are discriminating against people is absolutely absurd. We are outlawing sin. Homosexuality is sin. It is against nature. It is against what God intended. God intended for one man and one woman to get married and have children. That is how the human race continues to survive. Two men or two women cannot reproduce naturally. If we had to rely on homosexuality, the human race would cease to exist in a generation.

The fact that blacks and other minorities were discriminated against in our history is heartbreaking. I do not agree with what our forefathers did to blacks and other minorities. We should not discriminate against people based on their color or handicap. You cannot change your skin color or handicap. You are born with a certain skin color or handicap. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a choice. People choose to be homosexual; just as the drunk chooses to be drunk, or the drug addict chooses to be a drug addict. A decision was made to do wrong at some point in that person’s life.

I do not hate homosexuals. I hate homosexuality. When we start equating homosexuality with race, we have started down a slippery slope into moral degradation in this country. We must stand for what is right.

Waynesboro

JOHN FISKE

This particular letter was especially reflective of the hypocrisy around here. It sickened me enough that I sent in my own letter, which was printed in today’s paper. The News Leader cut and pruned some verbiage to make it fit within a couple column inches, but it’s essentially how I wrote it:

Stand up for right: Defeat polytextilism!

The time has come for us to enforce what the Bible unequivocally prohibits by writing it into our highest law. I’m referring to Leviticus 19:19, “Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.” How dare we flout the law of God by wearing our cotton-polyester and wool-acrylic-polyester blends? Such perversions of nature are against what God intended, for we know that animals cannot produce such materials. Any argument to the contrary is absolutely absurd. People choose to manufacture such monstrosities, just as the drunk chooses to be drunk, or the drug addict chooses to be a drug addict. A decision was made to do wrong. I do not hate clothing manufacturers, I hate polytextilism. Let us not start down a slippery slope into moral degradation. We must stand for what is right.

Staunton

MATTHEW WARNER

It’ll be interesting to see if there’s any response. I think the News Leader editors, at least, got my point.