Letters on McConnell, headlines, same-sex marriage

Thanks for support of McConnell

Over the past 16 months, my wife, Lanette, and I have had the opportunity to meet many people in the local area, and we agree that this community offers more support and gratitude to our service members than any we have seen.

On countless occasions, I have had community members stop me, look me in the eyes, shake my hand and say, “Thank you for your service.” Sometimes the gratitude is more understated, offered in the form of retail discounts. Other times it is in the form of anonymously purchased cups of coffee or meals. These gestures are common in the Wichita area, and they are never taken for granted.

This support allows our airmen to continue upholding the ideals and values we are sworn to protect. Your welcoming arms are quick to embrace and comfort Air Force families when they are new to the area and make them feel at home. And the incredibly supportive police, fire and other emergency services personnel provide outstanding support and cooperation that allows us to continue in our mission of protecting the American people.

Those of us at McConnell know how truly blessed we are to be a part of such remarkable community. During this Thanksgiving season, we offer our own sincere thanks and gratitude to you.

Headline thoughts

Without becoming too wordy, I would note some headlines in the Nov. 21 Eagle I found thought provoking.

▪  “Obama to immigrants: ‘Come out of the shadows.’” Just recently, at least one person was arrested and jailed for being an “undocumented visitor” to the White House. If President Obama doesn’t want undocumented visitors in the White House, why is it OK to welcome millions of them into a country already drowning in debt from excessive social programs that encourage a lack of personal initiative?

▪  “Health care enrollment figure overstated.” The public is being asked to believe in the Affordable Care Act, yet it seems at every turn there are site problems, misstatements or outright lies about one aspect or another concerning the program.

▪  “State could divert highway funds.” Local politicians wonder why the recent tax increase was voted down? Look at what their counterparts at the state are considering. Voters tend to believe all politicians are similar when it comes to raiding funds.

These are just quick random observations, but some days reading the newspaper is more thought provoking than other days.

Not ‘marriage’

Names are important identification words. “Same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron.

The definition of “marriage,” according to Webster, is “the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family” (1984 edition). Anthropologist George Peter Murdock defined marriage as a universal institution that involves a man and a woman living together, engaging in sexual activity and cooperating economically. Another anthropologist, Suzanne Frayser, sampled 62 societies around the world and then defined marriage as “a relationship within which a society socially approves and encourages sexual intercourse and the birth of children.”

When gay and lesbian people seek social and legal status, the same as married people, it would be honorable and wise and helpful to name it something other than “same-sex marriage.” Names such as “civil union,” “covenanted friendship” and “legal partners” are descriptive terms.

I think same-sex unions should be defined by a word, or words, that does not use the “marriage” word, because it is a very different kind of relationship. Especially the church should refrain from calling those relationships marriage, because it carries with it the connotation that the church is blessing sexual activity. The Bible denounces that kind of sexual activity.

Technically, the different names shouldn’t change the legal and civil benefit for either, but socially it would, or at least should, make a difference.

Right to marry

In the early days of the United States, marriage was a privilege restricted to heterosexuals with white skin. Over a period of about two centuries, on a state-by-state basis, it was extended. Eventually, all heterosexuals were allowed to marry, provided both parties to the marriage had the same color skin.

In 1967, the “unelected” Supreme Court ruled that the state of Virginia could not send a married couple to prison, even though they had different skin colors. (Loving v. Virginia). Now all states allow heterosexuals of differing colors to marry.

Today, slowly, state by state, people God decided should be homosexual are being allowed to marry.

Much resistance to civil rights is headed by organized religion. So-called Christian churches have waved the first third of the Holy Book as justification for people with black skin properly being slaves of those with white skin.

Also, churches and governments both use the word “marriage” but with different meanings. To government, “marriage” is a commercial arrangement similar to a partnership. Those in a marriage have privileges such as joint tax returns and inheritance rules.

To churches, “marriage” is license for sex, and it can be difficult for churches to agree on who should be granted that license.

In many nations, governments do not recognize “marriages” officiated at by rabbis or members of the clergy. It might make life simpler if Kansas would stop treating religious leaders like civil justices.

This story was originally published November 25, 2014 at 6:06 PM with the headline "Letters on McConnell, headlines, same-sex marriage."