Regarding Russell Anglin’s Jan. 12 column on gay marriage that a constitutional amendment defined marriage in the traditional sense was contrary to “our freedom as individuals,” and an attempt to “legislate morality” and create a “second-class citizenry”: I respectfully disagree.
Morality is the basis of all legislation and law; whether it is the codified condemnation of child pornography or assault, all law is essentially a moral point made punitive. Murder is wrong for moral reasons, not financial or governmental ones. When the point is made a marriage protection amendment is an attempt to “legislate morality,” it belays the absence of understanding that law is morality legislated.
There is no law that prohibits gays from marrying a person of the opposite gender. Thus, there is no abridgment of the right to marry, or second-class citizenry. However, there is no instrument of law that creates a “gay marriage.” Instead it creates a new institution altogether, exclusively for the benefit of a marginal group, a “super right” to a limited few.
We are on the verge of being bullied into the creation of a class of persons whose presence nullifies the freedom of speech and freedom of religion of others. The column suggested that fears by spiritual people of being compelled to accept homosexuality in their religious lives are baseless. I believe there is sufficient reason to be fearful of “hate speech” laws or “gay marriage” laws when those laws will prohibit me from making the personal, religious decision to reject the gay lifestyle, and to seek to prevent it from influencing my family. I suggest recent history bears this to be a legitimate concern. There have been a slew of civil rights lawsuits against organizations and churches that have not accepted same-sex marriage/partnerships.
— Brian Haines