Straights should fear loss of rights

I found Mr. Jim Finnegan’s letter of July 19 entitled “Defense of Marriage is Defense of Truth” disturbing. Whose truth is he defending?

Whether one is straight or gay, the civil right to marry is not a “special” right, it is a civil right. Mr. Finnegan suggests the signing of a petition to propose Illinois legislation that would define this particular civil right by a limited definition which is found in his and particular other faiths. He asks that we define by law the civil right to marry for all Illinois citizens as being solely offered to a couple comprising one man and one woman. This definition may support his religious views, but if passed into law would infringe on other’s religious freedom.

Next, via this troubling precedent we will be told that we must by law follow some other faith’s specific moral ethic in order to have the right to free speech, or the right to vote, or the right to collectively assemble, etc. because some majority vote tries to define that right by some other singular religious standard.

Why aren’t straight citizen’s just as disturbed at this infringement on their civil right to religious freedom via the Defense of Marriage Act as much as any gay citizen is disturbed at the loss of his civil right to marry? In the same way that law limitedly defines a civil right to marry on singular religious grounds this legislation Mr. Finnegan and his “Defense of Marriage” contingent also proposes would be just as detrimental to the religious freedom of any Illinoisan, and any Illinois citizen with any common sense would refuse to sign his petition.

John F. Page

Libertyville