To the Editor,
Are you a pawn in your own demise? For years we have heard the slogans “Take back our country,” or “Make America what it used to be.”
What is the real meaning of these sayings? The plan, formulated by the Republican Party, is very much in motion. The premise is simple: Use the popular vote to disenfranchise the minorities until there is once again a super majority of white, Anglo-Saxon conservative Republican males. The way to this is being put to the test right now as we ponder marriage amendment.
If the amendment passes, then there’s proof that with just a simple majority they can go, group by group, to deny rights of citizenry to vast swaths of the population. So if the gays are the first to go, who’s next? Well how about all those people with “funny sounding” foreign names, or the Muslims? Get them out of the way and it’s on to the Mexicans and all the other “illegals.” Then, as the white male Republican majority grows, they can take on the biggies — blacks, women, labor unions, environmentalists and regulators.
Don’t believe it? Who originated Amendment One? Who pushes to re-segregate schools? Who is fighting to disallow women’s rights over their own bodies? Who denies global warming? Who fights labor unions? Who wants to dismantle the EPA and the Department of Education?
Take back our country means this: Push those homosexuals back into the closet, send those foreigners back from where they came, segregate the schools, get those Jews out of our neighborhoods and clubs, put women back in the home, take unwed pregnant teenagers out of school, and put the white man back on top, free of regulations, free to pollute, free of taxation and free of unions. The grand plan is firmly in place.
All they are waiting for is you, the voter, to validate the premise. If marriage is a sacred institution, does it not become even stronger by letting those on the outside in? Does the mere desire of same-sex couples to enter into the union of marriage, reinforce the institution? In several states and many countries, same sex couples have been able to marry. Does that affect your marriage? Think about it.
Sam Lasris
Cedar Grove
You're trying to frame this as a Left vs. Right debate, but that's inaccurate. This is about tradition vs. Progressivism. There are plenty of people who are registered Democrats who believe that marriage is for one man and one woman. Your very own Barack Obama, for example.
You seem to link keeping marriage what it has been since this country was founding to this country becoming your own personal Hell. Kind of a leap.
Here's a slippery slope argument for you. If we allow two men to marry or two women to marry in addition to one man and one woman, then shouldn't we allow three men to marry? What about three women and one man? What about a woman and her 12 cats? What about a man and his car? If you say that's being silly, then aren't you being just as narrow-minded and discriminatory as you try to paint supporters of traditional marriage?