Definition of marriage

By Damon Olson

I’m a 21 century bigot (I guess).
I just read the commentary of Liza Roocroft in the Nov. 13 Sentinel and felt the need to respond on behalf of those who disagree with her position and are offended at her accusation that I/we are “veiled modern day separatists and bigots”.
To the contrary, I agree 100% that every individual and any legal partnership is entitled to equal rights and protections. That said, Proposition 8 is an issue as to the definition of “marriage.” This word, in my opinion, has been specifically defined for millennia. That is, one man and one woman.
Other partnerships can and should be appropriately defined. Civil union is one that I hear consistently. I believe that any couple in a legally defined marriage or civil union should share equal rights and protections. Again, “equality” is not limited to a word. Marriage, however, is specifically defined.
If there are, and I suspect there are many, specific issues which are disproportionate in these alternate relationships, then these should be corrected. If the consensus goal is to have such balance, then these should be individually addressed legislatively.
Don’t typecast me and be disrespective of my personal feelings and contemplative positions. I have a logical and rational opinion that is considered and non-judgmental. I have a problem with Ms. Roocroft’s position interpreting my vote in favor of Prop 8 as to being not accepting of non-traditional relationships and, therefore, I’m a bigot. I am totally supportive and respective of those of different race, creed, religion, sexual orientation, politics, you name it.
I juxtapose her comments with those of Donna Savage who speaks of the harassment her daughter received in a school election process when her candidate of choice was not the same of the larger group. I’m not certain of her daughter’s choice, and that is not the point. Any personally preferred candidate should not be derided.
My position on Prop 8, which is not shared by my wife and many of my family, by the way, also should not be derided in this matter.
I also read the comments of Megan Escolona and understand her position on this proposition. Again, I contend that it should not be interpreted as a denial of “fundamental rights.” It is a referendum on the “definition” of marriage. All referenced equalities can be and should be provided. However, these need not be achieved through the name of “marriage.” There are acceptable optional definitions that can achieve the desired outcome.
Now, as far as those idiots who helped pass Proposition 2, they’re totally stupid and ignorant — just kidding (I guess).
Damon Olson is a Ramona resident.

Related posts:

  1. Some soul searching needed after election
  2. Open meeting law and 1st amendment
  3. Four tips to empowerment

Short URL: http://www.ramonasentinel.com/?p=2811

Posted by admin on Nov 19 2008. Filed under Archive. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

Leave a Reply

Facebook

);