Updated: May 8, 2014 at 6:19 pm
ENGAGE: Write a letter to the editor | Comment on this story
A debate offer
Someone once said, “Enough is enough and too much is no good for anyone.”
The time has come when opponents of gay rights and same-sex marriage realize they can no longer deflect tough questions by coercion, intimidation, and lying by omission.
The time has come for me to step out from the shadows that offered semi-comfort to me and volunteer to be the sacrificial lamb for people — gay and straight — who know we are not perfect in the sight of God.
Therefore, I here and now offer to debate any and every recognized religious authority on homosexuality in America. But, I respectfully caution those who consider accepting the challenge that my first question will be, “If God views homosexuality as being as much a threat to mankind as you do, ‘Why did He specifically cite fornication and adultery (but did not use the word homosexuality) in the Ten Commandments?’.”
I await the response of those who deem themselves worthy to answer the harder questions which may have prompted some in Jesus’ day to walk away without casting a stone at their own glass house.
— Frank, April 22, letter
Church files lawsuit
Readers respond to news of the United Church of Christ’s lawsuit challenging Amendment One (goqnotes.com/29099/).
I have never felt so gratified when I heard of the filing of this suit. I have been posting for a year that when these amendments were passed people just stomped on my 1st Amendment rights. The 1st Amendments clearly states “prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion (or) impeding the free exercise of religion. See my church marries gays, lesbians, and their families. Did I miss the word of “majority’s religion”? I think not.
— Jeff, April 28, goqnotes.com
I applaud The United Church of Christ for their actions and I personally thank you for recognizing us and me as full members of the body of Christ
— J. Wesley Thompson, April 28, goqnotes.com
While I am a supporter of gay marriage, and any other voluntary contract, I find this challenge to the law to be based entirely on the wrong argument. Amendment One is a religious law and challenging it on religious grounds will yield nothing but irrational squabbles over religious peculiarities and legitimate religious claims.
The proper grounds for a legal challenge is that of universal individual rights; specifically, right to contract and equal protection under the law.
The state, I would argue, may not interfere with an individual’s right to enter into voluntary romantic contracts between free adults, and when they choose to do so, the state may not impose special categories for unequal treatment.
The solution is a complete separation of marriage and state. The only proper role of government is to protect individual rights and in its banning gay marriage it does the opposite: it violates the rights of individuals who use their judgment to determine what is in their self-interest. The government’s role in marriage, as with any other contract, should be limited to enforcing contracts and settling disputes.
Furthermore, the protection of rights should not be subject to consensus or majority opinion. A majority or faction cannot vote to violate the rights of another. This subjective way of determining which rights are to be protected and which are to be violated is precisely what this nation was established to confound.
— Tim Peck, April 28, goqnotes.com
This is about Religious Liberty.
A growing number of Religious institutions are in support of Marriage Equality. They & their Congregation have just as much right to fight for their Religious Liberties that Include Marriage Equality!
— Jim Clark, April 28, goqnotes.com
You can support independent, local LGBT media!
Give a one-time gift or sign up for ongoing voluntary online subscription to support qnotes' nearly three-decade long community service and keep our publication's dynamic, hard-hitting and insightful news and entertainment coverage alive. Click here to support us today.