Letters to the Editor

Gay marriage based on basic civil rights, not illegal bias

With the recent explosion of LGBT marriage rights sweeping the country, it's refreshing to see it finally hit home. The unrealistic and futile arguments that homosexuality is an "affront to God" and "violates nature" fail as no victims of these so-called "offenses" exist.

Arguments incorporating children through fear that homosexuality will be "forcibly taught in schools" and that "children do better with a Mom and Dad" are absurd and untrue. The concept that "religious liberty will be destroyed" exists only in the minds of those whose faith is corrupted or abuse religion.

The polygamy, tradition, redefining, procreation, and "homosexuality is a choice" arguments are ludicrous and irrelevant. The "rogue judges violating the law" argument is a hypocritical inverse of rogue ballot initiatives that violate the U.S. Constitution.

The above is merely an appetizer to the truly illogical poison being fed to society with the assertion by presidential hopeful Jeb Bush that gay marriage should be a "local decision." How can that possibly work? Why should civil rights be available to some but not others based only upon where one resides? How is that ethical? What is ultimately accomplished?

For those who believe that civil rights should be decided via public consensus and only be selectively available in some localities and not others, I can only ask this: Would you accept having a drivers license being valid only in one city and not another? And would you accept others making that decision for you regardless of your driving ability and needs?

I implore all Americans to carefully consider a presidential contender who believes civil rights can be both legal and prohibited at the same time based only upon public opinion and jurisdiction and not by reason, fairness, righteousness and certainly not by the Constitution. Jeb Bush obviously isn't equality or constitutionally minded.

Gerrard Wilbur