This is a letter I wrote to my legislators regarding SB6329. Anyone who reads this, I urge you to take a good look at where you stand on this issue, taking these views into account.
Dear Legislator,
I would like to first begin by saying that I am against unjust discrimination in all its forms. Second, I would like to bring forward the issues I have with the bill as it now stands:
1. It attempts to change the true meaning of the English language.
2. It undermines marriage as an independent family unit.
3. It attempts to turn a social agreement into a civil right.
4. It attempts to legitimize unsustainable practices.
5. It assumes that there is discrimination in the current laws where there is none.
I will defend each point in turn:
1. The law states that the terms husband and wife will be construed as gender neutral. The roots of the term wife means woman in its original form. To force it to lose its gender specificity, you are undermining our language's foundation, which, as a fundamental pillar of society, destabilizes said society.
2. Marriage, as originally conceived, was to solemnize the creation of a new, independent family unit. By the laws of nature, a same-sex couple cannot independently bring children into this world, which is by definition what a living unit is: a living unit can reproduce itself. Same-sex couples cannot do this, and so they cannot call themselves marriage.
3. Marriage has never been a civil right. It has always been a social agreement between a husband and wife, so attempting to turn a social contract into an inalienable right is counter-intuitive. Same-sex couples are not deprived of any of their inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In fact, one could argue that liberty (the right to independence from outside influences) is undermined by being in a same-sex relationship per argument #2.
4. This state is constantly pushing itself toward sustainable practices, but a same-sex couple is anything but. They, as a whole, cannot reproduce, never have been and never will be unless they have serious intervention on their behalf from science and/or someone of the opposite sex. If you believe in sustainable practices, you will not support this bill.
5. Even in the face of all these arguments, the fact remains that marriage has never been deprived from any group in this state. All adult persons are able to get married as the law currently stands, with all the rights and privileges that come with it. They simply need to conform to the gender specificness of that law. Now some may say that is unfair, and that they cannot comply with that portion. To those I say, can you also choose which parts of other laws you can or cannot comply with? If a person suffers from impulsive stealing, does that mean we should allow such acts in those instances, or, taking the stance of this bill, that we should repeal or change all laws related to stealing to accommodate said persons? What of the many other acts and behaviors that are currently illegal, but it could be proved scientifically that in some cases, the person could not help but commit those acts or behaviors? Should we allow our laws, designed to manage peace to be changed by an ever-shifting minority? Where do you make a stand? Or do we constantly retreat, hoping someday the minority will stop calling out for justice where there already is justice? I tell you it will never stop until you make a stand. And even then it will come back unless you stand firm in true principles.
Please, take a stand and vote against this proposition. If you can find any faults in my logic, please bring them to light. However, if you ignore these arguments, and brush them aside without a moment's thought, you are practicing bigotry in its purest form. I and many others in this state will continue to fight for this cause with all our energy and commitment.
Thank You.
I stand,
A Concerned Citizen
No comments:
Post a Comment