Re: Tom Rupp’s article entitled, “From Where I Sit: Who is closed-minded on gay marriage issue, supporters or opponents?” The Supreme Court historically have ruled on issues that effects the freedoms of one particular group versus the rights of another group to withhold those freedoms. There was a time in this country’s past when there were laws that banned interracial marriages.
Some of the arguments against those marriages used the bible and the current customs of the time to shout down and discriminate against those that thought those laws and practices were “closed-minded”. Segregation laws, or Jim Crow statues, were another example of denying legal citizens full rights for the sake of the majority’s view against integration.
We’ve walked a fined line in this country of who is right versus whose “Rights”. Can we stop homosexuality? How? Then, if we cannot stop homosexuality, can we stop two, moderately intelligent, mature adults from pairing off together? No, not really. Therefore, why cannot two consenting adults of the same sex get married, enjoy each others’ company, share property and employment benefits? An opened-minded person, in my opinion, could see this court fight for what it was. It is a fight for freedom. It’s a fight for obtaining the rights that they have earned as a couple and for legitimacy. When an interracial couple wanted to marry in Virginia in the mid-50s, they were put in jail for disobeying the law at the time. It wasn’t until the 1970s that interracial marriage was legal in all 50 states.
The churches and anti-gay rights groups can still keep their doctrines. I don’t believe the laws will affect any church from teaching against homosexuality or from denying to marry anyone gay. They just cannot block two people from legally becoming married if the Supreme Court of the U.S. says so.
We are an evolving country of multiple cultures, lifestyles and political thoughts. Some say that this country is an experiment and an example to the world on how people should behave. Name calling and taunting one-another is just one method of dialogue. Attempting to embrace an open-minded set is putting yourself in another person’s shoes. I agree that it doesn’t help either side when we label one side as mean-spirited or intolerant. However, the people in our society must understand that when one group attempts to repress the rights of another group, it makes us all look closed-minded.
History and the law proved that denying rights to some groups were wrong.
Roderick Hunt, Folsom