July 23, 2014 at 2:10 p.m.
Response to Mitchard column (2/3/04)
Editor's Mailbag
By To the editor:-
I would like to reply to the column that was on page 4 of the Tuesday, Jan. 27 edition of The Commercial Review, entitled, “Hard to be upset over gay marriage.”
I feel that the reader is entitled to know the facts in order to develop their own rational opinion. Since a letter to the editor has limited space, I can only highlight a couple of the basic arguments that Ms. Mitchard laid out in her casual opinions regarding same sex marriage.
In her column, Ms. Mitchard stated that “half of Massachusetts residents care less about same-sex marriage.” A December 2003 poll conducted by the New York Times and CBS showed that 61 percent were opposed to same sex marriages and only 34 percent were in favor. These results differ from the “half”, that was reported in Jacquelyn’s column.
Additionally, a new Zogby International poll (Jan. 7, 2004) revealed that 69 percent of registered voters in Massachusetts want to vote on a constitutional amendment to keep Massachusetts a traditional marriage state.
If you don’t already know, check this out; the tax payers of Massachusetts WANT to vote on a constitutional amendment to keep the traditional definition of marriage. This has become a serious issue because a judge (appointed – not elected), has radically changed that definition. This appointed judge has robbed the power to legislate from 200 elected representatives and senators and ultimately from millions of registered Massachusetts voters.
(This situation opens the door for a whole list of pertinent issues and perhaps I will get an opportunity to discuss at another time.)
Ms. Mitchard also wrote in her article about her lesbian friend, who was not allowed to see her partner in the hospital during a stay in which the poor woman nearly died. An unfortunate circumstance to say the least, but the fact that the mother and sister were allowed to see her (the patient), speaks volumes.
The idea that homosexuals are routinely denied the right to visit their partners in the hospital is nonsense. In 1996, the Family Research Council did an informal survey of nine hospitals in four states and the District of Columbia. None of the Administrators could recall a single case in which a visitor was barred because of their homosexuality, and they were incredulous that this would even be considered an issue.
The only circumstance in which visitation authorization does not rest with the patient is when a doctor places limits for medical reasons or when a patient is unconscious or mentally incapable. In the case of the latter, the visitation authority rests with the blood relatives. In the unfortunate situation Ms. Mitchard mentions, one could surmise that the mother and sister of the patient, were in agreement of the 61 percent mentioned previously.
If same sex couples want to be covered indisputably in such matters, they can obtain a “health care proxy” or a “power of attorney.”
Here is the bottom line folks, homosexuals want the right to “marry” only because marriage constitutes society’s ultimate stamp of approval on a sexual relationship — not because they want to participate in the institution of marriage as it has been historically understood.
If this were not so, then why would fewer than 500 of 6000 registered, same sex, Canadian permanent partners take advantage of the recent legalization of “marriage” for same sex couples. Yep! Two plus months after the legalization of same sex “marriage” in Canada, fewer than 500 out of 6000 took out a marriage license.
To answer the question posed by Ms. Mitchard:Yes I do think that the current agenda of gay Americans, to change the traditional definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman, will make this country more of a moral cesspool than it already is.
General Douglas McArthur once said: "History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline. There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse, or a progressive deterioration leading to ultimate national disaster."
I pray that the reader will be inspired to seek out the facts for themselves, and investigate the gay agenda and other issues that are currently attempting to lead us to apostasy.
We have a choice. General McArthur’s observation is sound and the course is clear.
We must pray for a spiritual awakening to reverse the moral lapse in our country.
Our only alternative is to sit on the couch, do nothing, and watch the current rate of deterioration lead us to ultimate national disaster.
The results of either direction will affect our posterity.
The choice is yours, the time is now.
Sincerely,
David Milligan
Portland[[In-content Ad]]
I feel that the reader is entitled to know the facts in order to develop their own rational opinion. Since a letter to the editor has limited space, I can only highlight a couple of the basic arguments that Ms. Mitchard laid out in her casual opinions regarding same sex marriage.
In her column, Ms. Mitchard stated that “half of Massachusetts residents care less about same-sex marriage.” A December 2003 poll conducted by the New York Times and CBS showed that 61 percent were opposed to same sex marriages and only 34 percent were in favor. These results differ from the “half”, that was reported in Jacquelyn’s column.
Additionally, a new Zogby International poll (Jan. 7, 2004) revealed that 69 percent of registered voters in Massachusetts want to vote on a constitutional amendment to keep Massachusetts a traditional marriage state.
If you don’t already know, check this out; the tax payers of Massachusetts WANT to vote on a constitutional amendment to keep the traditional definition of marriage. This has become a serious issue because a judge (appointed – not elected), has radically changed that definition. This appointed judge has robbed the power to legislate from 200 elected representatives and senators and ultimately from millions of registered Massachusetts voters.
(This situation opens the door for a whole list of pertinent issues and perhaps I will get an opportunity to discuss at another time.)
Ms. Mitchard also wrote in her article about her lesbian friend, who was not allowed to see her partner in the hospital during a stay in which the poor woman nearly died. An unfortunate circumstance to say the least, but the fact that the mother and sister were allowed to see her (the patient), speaks volumes.
The idea that homosexuals are routinely denied the right to visit their partners in the hospital is nonsense. In 1996, the Family Research Council did an informal survey of nine hospitals in four states and the District of Columbia. None of the Administrators could recall a single case in which a visitor was barred because of their homosexuality, and they were incredulous that this would even be considered an issue.
The only circumstance in which visitation authorization does not rest with the patient is when a doctor places limits for medical reasons or when a patient is unconscious or mentally incapable. In the case of the latter, the visitation authority rests with the blood relatives. In the unfortunate situation Ms. Mitchard mentions, one could surmise that the mother and sister of the patient, were in agreement of the 61 percent mentioned previously.
If same sex couples want to be covered indisputably in such matters, they can obtain a “health care proxy” or a “power of attorney.”
Here is the bottom line folks, homosexuals want the right to “marry” only because marriage constitutes society’s ultimate stamp of approval on a sexual relationship — not because they want to participate in the institution of marriage as it has been historically understood.
If this were not so, then why would fewer than 500 of 6000 registered, same sex, Canadian permanent partners take advantage of the recent legalization of “marriage” for same sex couples. Yep! Two plus months after the legalization of same sex “marriage” in Canada, fewer than 500 out of 6000 took out a marriage license.
To answer the question posed by Ms. Mitchard:Yes I do think that the current agenda of gay Americans, to change the traditional definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman, will make this country more of a moral cesspool than it already is.
General Douglas McArthur once said: "History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline. There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse, or a progressive deterioration leading to ultimate national disaster."
I pray that the reader will be inspired to seek out the facts for themselves, and investigate the gay agenda and other issues that are currently attempting to lead us to apostasy.
We have a choice. General McArthur’s observation is sound and the course is clear.
We must pray for a spiritual awakening to reverse the moral lapse in our country.
Our only alternative is to sit on the couch, do nothing, and watch the current rate of deterioration lead us to ultimate national disaster.
The results of either direction will affect our posterity.
The choice is yours, the time is now.
Sincerely,
David Milligan
Portland[[In-content Ad]]
Top Stories
9/11 NEVER FORGET Mobile Exhibit
Chartwells marketing
September 17, 2024 7:36 a.m.
Events
250 X 250 AD