Dear Editor:
I’m amazed by the anger emanating from Lisa Pampuch and Dennis
Taylor in their recent columns on same-sex marriages. Pampuch
states that,
”
government should not be in the business of protecting the
sanctity of anything.
”
Dear Editor:
I’m amazed by the anger emanating from Lisa Pampuch and Dennis Taylor in their recent columns on same-sex marriages. Pampuch states that, “government should not be in the business of protecting the sanctity of anything.” In the interest of accuracy, it’s important to remember that the very purpose of government is to legislate morality (not religion). In thousands of ways our government provides for the national defense and common welfare. It does this so well that millions of people worldwide hope to immigrate here. Indeed, our Constitution states that if the government does not adequately protect her citizens from inherent dangers, the people have every right to revolt.
Whether it is in “forcing” us to wear seatbelts or making it a crime to steal or lie in court, the government has the responsibility to protect the well-being of the general public. And herein lies the issue for many who oppose same-sex marriages. Homosexuality can be a threat to the welfare of our society. Studies show that male homosexuality involves practices that are physically injurious to the body and are associated with a high risk of infectious diseases. In addition, studies also show that other dangerous factors increase the overall risk to society through a high rate of promiscuity, substance abuse, depression and suicide. But there is more.
Growing up in the ’60s and ’70s, before the term “homosexual rights” was coined, I remember my teachers correlating the rise of homosexuality with the fall of the Roman Empire. Boy, does that sound intolerant today! Most of us know loving, law-abiding homosexual people. In the same way, many prostitutes also have hearts of gold but are involved in dangerous behavior, which is why prostitution is outlawed.
Why should I care what others do behind closed doors? Because prostitution, which I use here only for example, affects our entire society. The fewer women bound up in that demeaning lifestyle, the better. And it’s certainly healthier for men to have relationships with women than to buy and use‚ their bodies. In this case, government is legislating morality but not for religious reasons. It’s for the greater good, the health of society. I’m not comparing homosexuality to prostitution; it’s simply an example of how our government acts to protect.
Many heterosexuals believe that homosexuality isn’t simply another form of sexual expression. It’s the antithesis of heterosexual expression and a negation of the marriage act. Our government is not in the business of making people “holy” or turning them into Christians, Buddhists or any religion. Thus, gay people have the right and freedom to enjoy their lives as they see fit. Domestic partnerships are their right. But changing the meaning and nature of marriage is not acceptable to the majority of heterosexuals.
Protecting the common welfare of our fragile society is key. And defending the committed union between a man and a woman as marriage, an accepted foundational block of our society, is a civil right on which we must stand.
Pamela Walls, Gilroy
Submitted Tuesday, March 30 to ed****@****ic.com
