Letters on public safety, ‘matrimony doctrine,’ NFL greed

Public safety is the No. 1 priority

The Eagle editorial board said City Hall is listening to the citizens as it pertains to purchasing about $1.5 million worth of body cameras for the police officers (Nov. 16 Eagle Editorial). If these cameras are so critical now, why wasn’t public safety included in the recent vote on the sales tax?

I attended my first ACT ICT meeting on Oct. 29, 2013 – one of the meetings that led to the vote on the sales tax. At each meeting I attended, I asked why public safety (police and fire) was not include in the list of priorities.

As I have pointed out in various letters to The Eagle, public safety must be the No. 1priority at City Hall. We need more police officers on the street to prevent crime, as well as more police traffic officers to combat speeders, runners of red lights, etc.

Where will the city get the unbudgeted monies to fund the body cameras, as the mill levy is already fixed for 2015? If cuts are made in other areas, will citizens be able to express their opinions on such cuts at open meetings? If the 2014 and 2015 city budgets are so lean that cuts could not be made in 2014 and for 2015, then where will the city get the monies for public safety?

I hope the election of a new mayor and three City Council members in a few months will focus on public safety as the candidates decide the future priorities.

Matrimony doctrine

A letter writer made the case that the primary reason for marriage should be having children, and because same-sex couples cannot biologically have children they should not be allowed to be joined in matrimony (“Matrimony about becoming a mother,” Nov. 21 Letters to the Editor). It’s an interesting concept.

Let’s explore some changes we need to make to our marriage laws if we use the “matrimony doctrine.” The first change should be to dissolve the marriages of empty nesters. Their children are no longer in the home; thus there is no reason to be married. Widowers whose first spouse has past should also not be allowed to get married if their child-rearing years are behind them. Married couples who have children may not get divorced until their children reach age 18. Young heterosexual couples must sign an affidavit that they will produce children in order for their marriages to be blessed by the state. Young couples who get married with the intent of having children but cannot, for some reason, should have their marriages annulled. Single people who are sterile for any reason should also be barred from marriage.

Societies that have passed marriage equality have not “suffered an irreversible blow.” They have continued growing and prospering, and people are free to marry whom they choose. The United States is rightfully on that path. If our society suffers an irreversible blow, it won’t be from same-sex marriage.

Only young wed?

Using the logic of “Matrimony about becoming a mother” (Nov. 21 Letters to the Editor), only young women capable of becoming mothers and men able to produce offspring should be allowed to marry. Therefore, my lady friend and I, a heterosexual couple ages 81 and 78, can’t be “joined together,” because my lady friend can’t become a mother and I certainly can’t. We’ll just have to continue living in sin, condemned by the letter writer who sits in judgment and speaks for God.

How about a young heterosexual couple in love, the man having suffered grievous wounds in war defending our freedoms? They’re out of luck.

Why should society discriminate against old people and wounded veterans? Why should society discriminate against couples who, for any number of reasons, can’t or don’t want to produce children but who want to get married anyway? Why should these people be denied the right to pursue happiness?

I can imagine the letter writer sitting at the right hand of God on Judgment Day, pointing to the left or to the right for each new arrival. One way is paradise, the other is the fiery pit. If paradise is a world of hate and discrimination, I’ll take the fiery pit.

NFL greed

I have watched the Kansas City Chiefs since the early 1960s, when Lamar Hunt brought them to Kansas City. I was a confirmed fan before high school and rarely miss a game.

Living in Missouri or Kansas kept me where I could watch them on television with little problem. But now, the greed of the NFL owners has changed that.

The new NFL Network kept me from seeing the big game of the year. If you are a Chief fan, you never miss the Oakland game.

I have the same problem with Louisiana State University. Now that the divisions are creating their own television networks, you have to purchase the appropriate channels from your cable carrier – on top of your other cable packages.

These are not cheap additions to your entertainment packages. And they are for limited viewing if you don’t watch wall-to-wall sports. I cannot afford to follow my teams with these packages.

I now feel like I have been disenfranchised by the teams I love. Greed has won once again. It’s a sad day in the Chief Kingdom.

This story was originally published November 24, 2014 at 6:05 PM with the headline "Letters on public safety, ‘matrimony doctrine,’ NFL greed."