Misleading editorial on gay marriage
Your May 8, 2009 editorial is riddled with false and misleading statements. The first misleading statement calls for Illinois to "join the ranks of 10 other states" supporting the homosexual push for legal marriage. You do not even mention that 30 states have passed constitutional amendments which restrict marriage to one man and one woman. You also ignore the obvious fact that many more states would enact this same rule of law except for the fact that entrenched politicians, supported by the wealth of far left and homosexual lobbies, prevent citizens from having a say in this matter. Illinois is one of those states which has used political chicanery to prevent this choice.
As to your misleading claim that H.B. 2234 seeks civil unions, not homosexual marriage, neither homosexual activists nor far left liberals will be satisfied with such a move other than as a first step toward final approval for legal marriage with no restrictions whatsoever.
Similar misdirection appears in statements that "a quarter of our country now accepts this as a standard legal way of life" and "a majority of people in this country supports civil unions." If you elitists would spend some time away from your ivory towers and out with "normal" people, you would discover how revolting the majority of us find homosexual activities to be.
Your May 10, 2009 follow-up article, "Gay marriage: A look back at past 5 years," starts out with an emotional story about how much comfort a homosexual partner received from his legal spouse in Massachusetts. (Was his pneumonia a result of his sexual activity? Probably.) Buried near the end of the article is the fact that the "spousal benefits" they claim are unavailable to them are, in fact, available to all via powers of attorney. (My wife and I have these for health care and for financial emergencies.)
"Same-sex couples do not seek special rights," you say. Nonsense! They want the rest of us taxpayers to support their addiction! We should pay for their medical treatment? Employers should pay for benefits for two homosexuals when only one is employed? Government should provide "spousal benefits" and each homosexual practitioner gets to choose which one of his several partners is designated as spouse? Those aren't special rights?
Don't try to convince Illinois residents it is an issue of fairness! Give the topic some logical thought instead! The facts about the homosexual lifestyle are well known, especially since some countries have legalized homosexual marriage. Less than 10% of the 3% of the population who are homosexuals choose marriage. They aren't interested in it, other than as a weapon to achieve their long-term goal of destroying traditional marriage and removing any and all restrictions on sexual activity.
Emmit Lehman
Grayslake