The Woodstock Independent Editorial - Divisive issues require civility
The Woodstock Independent Editorial - Divisive issues require civility
Copyright by The Woodstock Independent Editorial
(Serving Woodstock, Wonder Lake & Bull Valley)
June 20, 2006
The past few weeks have been adventurous for the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Illinois.
In Washington, Congress debated the Marriage Protection Amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman. A group called Protect Marriage Illinois is attempting to get a similar measure on the ballot in Illinois for voters to recommend an amendment to the state constitution.
The literature and press releases declare that marriage is "under attack by activist judges" and describes Democrats as "the party of perversity."
Advocates for the amendments decry the "gay agenda," describe a polyamorous family in Massachusetts — the only state where marriage between same sex couples is legal — and "pro-homosexual activists" who want to derail the referendum because they fear its passage.
Proponents of homosexual marriage in Illinois and elsewhere accuse the other side of bigotry, hatred, intolerance and evil. When one labels the other side as evil, there can be no compromise.
Neither side is demonstrating the reason required for making changes to the documents by which we are governed. While the morality of homosexuality can be debated — as can extramarital relations of any kind — what cannot be debated is the vitriolic rhetoric that has marked the debate. And for that reason we are opposed to the proposed referendum.
When civility and reason are abandoned to emotionalism and name-calling, the business of the people stops both in Washington, D.C., and Illinois.
The Constitution is a model of statesmanship and the art of compromise. Its every word was chosen one hot summer in 1787. In the 219 years since, it has only been amended 27 times including one amendment, the 21st, which repeals another, the 18th.
In each case, the rationale for the amendment was clear and, with the exception of the 18th, seemed important to the maintenance of the nation. This proposed amendment is something wholly different.
Marriage is a contract between two people, an oath of allegiance sworn by one to the other; in many cases this oath is made before God. What business does Congress, the state legislature or anyone else have interfering or interjecting in such a contract?
There are well-meaning people on both sides of this issue with deeply held beliefs and honest points of view. Our fear is that this issue is being used as a political football, as a distraction from the serious issues that confront Illinois and the Union.
Schools are under funded, teachers' pensions are in trouble and medical care is in crisis. These issues are far worthier of the attention of Illinois voters than whether or not Illinois' homosexual unions are sanctioned by the state or continue unsanctioned but nonetheless committed.
Copyright by The Woodstock Independent Editorial
(Serving Woodstock, Wonder Lake & Bull Valley)
June 20, 2006
The past few weeks have been adventurous for the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Illinois.
In Washington, Congress debated the Marriage Protection Amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman. A group called Protect Marriage Illinois is attempting to get a similar measure on the ballot in Illinois for voters to recommend an amendment to the state constitution.
The literature and press releases declare that marriage is "under attack by activist judges" and describes Democrats as "the party of perversity."
Advocates for the amendments decry the "gay agenda," describe a polyamorous family in Massachusetts — the only state where marriage between same sex couples is legal — and "pro-homosexual activists" who want to derail the referendum because they fear its passage.
Proponents of homosexual marriage in Illinois and elsewhere accuse the other side of bigotry, hatred, intolerance and evil. When one labels the other side as evil, there can be no compromise.
Neither side is demonstrating the reason required for making changes to the documents by which we are governed. While the morality of homosexuality can be debated — as can extramarital relations of any kind — what cannot be debated is the vitriolic rhetoric that has marked the debate. And for that reason we are opposed to the proposed referendum.
When civility and reason are abandoned to emotionalism and name-calling, the business of the people stops both in Washington, D.C., and Illinois.
The Constitution is a model of statesmanship and the art of compromise. Its every word was chosen one hot summer in 1787. In the 219 years since, it has only been amended 27 times including one amendment, the 21st, which repeals another, the 18th.
In each case, the rationale for the amendment was clear and, with the exception of the 18th, seemed important to the maintenance of the nation. This proposed amendment is something wholly different.
Marriage is a contract between two people, an oath of allegiance sworn by one to the other; in many cases this oath is made before God. What business does Congress, the state legislature or anyone else have interfering or interjecting in such a contract?
There are well-meaning people on both sides of this issue with deeply held beliefs and honest points of view. Our fear is that this issue is being used as a political football, as a distraction from the serious issues that confront Illinois and the Union.
Schools are under funded, teachers' pensions are in trouble and medical care is in crisis. These issues are far worthier of the attention of Illinois voters than whether or not Illinois' homosexual unions are sanctioned by the state or continue unsanctioned but nonetheless committed.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 3:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home