Time for compromise on marriage is past

Your editorial, "Time to talk, not judge," is cynical and naive, disgusting in its blatant ahistoric context. A beloved choir director loses his job because he does what every lover wants to do, affirm in a public way his commitment to his lover. The church affirms this for heterosexual couples, but finds homosexual unions a scourge, not because of a clear biblical mandate, but because of its patriarchal beliefs.

The church's history during the first five centuries of its existence is replete with doctrinal choices based on economic and political considerations, not on biblical texts. Those churches who oppose homosexuality and gay marriage are no different from those churches who supported slavery long after the world consensus affirmed that slavery was inhumane. How many examples of the Catholic Church's self-interest might the editorial board need in order to question the church's position on homosexual unions?

The editorial would have us use Colin Collette's suffering as a public occasion for the discussion of gay marriage and compromise. The time is long past for such nonsense. Do gay people chose their sexual identity? Science says no. What is the compromise that this editorial would have us consider? By endorsing a media mien advocating that there are always two sides to every issue, we end up with this Daily Herald repulsive position. Yes, all issues are complex, filled with nuance and difficulty, but some things are clear, i.e., every human being is entitled to the full rights of achieving full human happiness in a society with as much opportunity as possible. By supporting patriarchy, ignoring the church's institutional history in regard to sexual matters, and by spurning science and history, the paper that proclaims, "Our aim: To fear God, tell the truth, and make money," honors none of those claims in this editorial.

Ed Plum

Barrington