The Union newspaper published a "Voices" opinion piece on the issue of homosexuality and marriage and I must admit, Mr. Pohorsky has made his point very clear. He must be a very religious man and his reading of the Scripture has educated him in his opposition to two men being married and having sexual relations. Same for women.
HERE is the opinion piece.
I consider myself as a Christian but I try not to wear my religion on my sleeve. I am not one to proselytize and I think I am too much a sinner to tell others what to do. But I do have some standards that are fairly unshakable. One of them is "marriage" is only allowed between a man and a woman. So there. That is my opinion and I am firmly in that camp. I do not think that position makes me "intolerant" however. I have always tried to discuss these kinds of issues and sometimes I win my points and sometimes I don't. What I have discovered in real life about these things though is it is so volatile that people will do acts which are not acceptable in a fair society to get their way. (violence, intimidation etc.)
The "politically correct" crowd that has taken over the discourse in America are now the subject of mainstream Americans outrage at their tactics. Americans are inherently a fair people now and when they are faced with these issues they usually keep their opinions to themselves so the "peace" is maintained. However, our country has a "victim" mentality fostered by a bunch of activists for a issue dejour, name your poison. These activists pus hard to propel their agendas into the hearts and homes of America but now they have started to overreach and are starting to create a backlash.
The backlash I see is the inherent hypocrisy of these people. They are telling the rest of us that now that they have bludgeoned us into submission they now have become that which they said we were. They are whiny, intolerant fascists (we never were). No opinion allowed unless they approve them. The homosexual activists have reached the "tipping point" of acceptance. The fellow from Mozilla, Mr. Eich, is the latest example of the homosexual lobby's intolerance to varying opinions. Seventeen states have "homosexual" marriage "rights" now. Many of those rights are established by judicial "fiat" and not by vote of the people or a Legislature. (I call it the tyranny of the black robes) In California and now some other states, the "Judge" tossed out the votes of the people and established a "right". These "tossing out" of the people's voice has angered many people. Term limits for Federal Judges is in order.
So here in our little neck of the woods we have some folks who our local newspaper has allowed to print their objections to homosexual marriage and related "rights". This gets the minority supporters of the theft of the "traditional" definition of marriage all upset. They even do the favorite tactic of the fascists by stating that opponents voices should not be heard and must be stifled! Now I ask, what are they afraid of? Why can't a contra opinion be voiced? Why can't the local paper publish a contra opinion? It would be like me asking the Union to forbid fat people from posting a comment on eating. 33 states still require marriage to be between a man and a woman. Seems the polls I see are still supporting Mr. Pohorsky's position. Why would a local blogger state that position should be disallowed or voiced?
I supported Prop 8 here in California and am proud of my victorious vote. I, along with a huge majority of black voters, opposed homosexual marriage. When I see a argument trying to equate homosexual marriage with the black civil rights movement I just shake my head. How can the struggle to gain the rights a black person was entitled to under the Constitution have to do with two men or women having sex? How did the issue become political? Because they knew it would eventually get into the courts and the "Judges" would overturn the will of the people. It has proven out they were correct.
So unlike the hypocrite liberals who want to stifle speech they don't like, I and most of those on the "right" urge more speech. All opinions should be heard. Then the adults of our country, using their own brains and ability to reason, can decide what they want to believe and support. Don't pay attention to those who want to stifle your opinions or the right to express them in any format, even the local paper.