I appreciate the respectful tone of Rick McDaniel's op-ed, "Why the Supreme Court and same-sex marriage advocates are wrong," (Views, June 30), yet his logic doesn't hold up.
He states that because "only a marriage between a man and a woman can create a child," only straight people should be allowed to marry. But if marriage is solely for the purposes of procreation, how does he explain marriages of heterosexuals who cannot procreate?
There are many straight people beyond child-bearing age who get married because they love each other (and because they want the civil rights and protections associated with marriage.) There are many straight people who get married despite physical infirmities that preclude them ever being able to have children. This latter group usually end up needing a third-party intervention (be it artificial insemination, surrogacy, adoption or foster-care) to have children. Why should the church find this acceptable, yet preclude same-sex couples from using the same interventions? (The tired argument of gender role modeling really is passe since we know it is far more important to have two loving parents of whatever gender, than two opposite gender parents who may or may not be good gender role models.)
Perhaps Pastor McDaniel should be advocating for the system used by Mexico - where all people must have a civil marriage in order to be recognized as married, and then if they also want a religious wedding, they arrange that separately with the faith community of their choice. Surely this is the answer to the concerns of religious communities who oppose conducting same-sex marriages. It would be fine with me - as a religious person, I only want to be married in a faith community that values my 20-year relationship with my partner.
Pandering to voting blocs (all) is not working for us as a people, or for our local, state, and federal governments. I believe this to be brought on by overusing the term "middle class" as a milquetoast "catch-all" phrase, and not one of reality.
My family ate what we grew, or we didn't eat. Some may see that as "poor," and I can assure you, it was.
But we learned to work hard as a family unit, and I am blessed to carry those principles into my adult life.
Ironically, I will not blame politicians for the blight, greed, or deep descent of social values. I blame us, as a society, seeking the path of least resistance, and dependency. I blame us as a society for the disrespect shown to anyone we wish, at anytime we wish, and without the slightest pause for thought.
We seem to have lost all representations of self respect. When you are unable to respect yourself and others, you may not reasonably expect anyone to respect you. Therein lies the mind of a "defeatist," and a sense of entitlement as a reward for failure.
I will not make any political distinctions, but they all seem dead set on advancing agendas that serve the few and not the many. Pandering to whites, blacks, Latins, Asians and all subsets of each group is gutting us as a human race, and certainly as a country.
Is everyone really a victim? Is everyone really entitled?
Our government is designed to function properly, and fairly, but we are failing, not the huge government we've created.
A government that rewards and punishes at will, because they know we are not united as a people, and subsequently weak.
We have been systematically turned against each other, and herded like cattle. If you allow yourself to be "herded", you may expect the same fate as the cattle.
Respectfully, I will submit to you, as a population, that we may not extract, and not replenish. We must peacefully coexist, or perish.
While I will not diminish the value in "diversity," I will humbly suggest "unity" be given an equal opportunity to succeed.
Robert R. Solomon
TampaRubio's not listening
I find it odd that we the people vote and elect people we think will represent us in federal and state government. How odd that once elected they do as they darn well please.
Case in point: Marco Rubio was elected by the people of Florida and had tea-party backing. He may be a hopeful for president in 2016. How odd that now that he is in D.C. he forgets the people who elected him and sides with the most liberal, progressive Democrats and the biggest RINOs in Congress.
Rubio is not listening to his constituents or the people of America. Instead of helping his constituents in Florida and the people of the United States, he decides to help the immigrants who have entered our country illegally.
I have heard citizens who came from Cuba and are disappointed in his actions for support of the 1,000-page immigration bill (which I doubt anyone read).
Rubio is condoning criminal activity, and until he reverses his ways I will not support him for the next run for Senate or if he runs for president.
Remember, Rubio took an oath; he should try upholding it. He should try reading the thing that he swore to protect and defend or get his unemployment book out.
He will need it if he doesn't listen to the people of the United States.