I’m feeling bored and contentious, so here we go. So we will just summarize the first six paragraphs with this.
“Groups like ours saw that law not as a solution but only a stepping stone toward civil unions, and indeed the new civil unions bill mirrors marriage in all but name only. That is why we opposed the 2009 bill.
So, basically, the first half of the argument is that civil unions are bad because they are too much like marriage. Which is bad why, exactly?
“But the impact goes much further as it jeopardizes the rights of parents to have a say in what’s taught to their children in school — even as young as kindergarten — about sexuality and marriage.”
I am pretty sure that the bill has nothing to do with education, public or private. Furthermore, there are definitely PLENTY of religious schools in Colorado that would be happy to teach your children that the only thing worse than gays is their marriage, as well as that the Earth was created 4000 years ago, that condoms are murder, or whatever misguided ancient creed you happen to be into. Plus, I don’t remember too much of my kindergarten teachers talkin’ about straight fuckin’ and whatnot; so I don’t know why the gay stuff would suddenly be coming up then.
“It endangers business owners who are sued for not photographing or renting facilities for same-sex ceremonies.”
I am pretty sure there is no legal footing here, and the rights of business owners who post signs about their right to refuse service are pretty firmly established in this state; and there’s definitely nothing in there about forcing people to hold gay weddings if they don’t want to, so….we’ll just move on.
“Mostly, it impacts children who deserve every chance to be raised in a home with their own married mom and dad rather than the intentionally motherless or fatherless home created by same-sex unions.”
Hah, this is ‘mostly’ what civil unions will do. Now, first, we’ll just throw out all this about kids doing as well or better in same sex households, Next, where are all these children who are getting deprived coming from? The kid store? Apparently, there aren’t orphanages across the globe filled with kids that they can barely feed and clothe? Or is he saying that if civil unions aren’t allowed, then once and for all gay people will just get over it and have straight families? Either, I guess.
But we also join those whose voices are seldom heard, those of the children. As we have seen in California, the passage of civil union legislation will eventually threaten marriage. And if we say that marriage no longer means one mom and one dad, then we have denied children at least a chance to live in that special environment that gives them the best opportunity for success in life. This is one more reason why legislators should reject this bill.
Now, I am just going to go ahead and say it, this guy is the Executive director of the public policy arm of Focus on the Family, writing a letter to Colorado’s largest newspaper. A letter in which in his closing paragraph he begins the paragraph with ‘But’ and two sentences later begins the sentence with ‘And’, so clearly Tom Minnery is not terribly bright or well versed with the pen, or perhaps he is fifteen. He implies that children are calling out for the blocking of civil unions, with their voices, and this is news to me. Apparently, marriage was eventually threatened in California, which I would love to see some statistics, or any kind of proof, or really anything, about. Particularly since divorce rates are actually dropping. Next, he basically restates his earlier ‘save the kids from gay parents’ argument. You know what, that was just bad writing from an uninformed bigot, I don’t know why I wasted my time with it, but I guess I feel a little better.