Thinking about sending this letter to the editor. (The FMA)

[Meldread]

I am thinking about sending this letter to the editor in regards to the FMA. I'm posting it here to get a general opinion of what I've wrote. I want to know what you think, if I should send it, and if I should change anything to improve the way it sounds. Thanks! It's been a long time since I've sent any letters off to the editor. (And considering I'm gay I have a great deal at stake and am interested in seeing that it is exposed for what it is. ;))

--------
Pot Meet Kettle: the "Sanctity" Of Marriage.

Editor, Times-Dispatch: It is truly a remarkable and ironic world we live in today, to hear such arguments by the far right extremists who stand in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). They proclaim that allowing consenting, adult homosexuals the right to marry would destroy the "Sanctity" of Marriage – a truly ominous statement, but when brought into the context of reality becomes truly laughable.

Every time I hear this statement I have to chuckle to myself and reflect back to Matthew 7:1-5 where Jesus states: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.” This is certainly food for thought, for those who proclaim the sanctity of marriage, considering that in the 1990’s that one out of every two heterosexual marriages ended in divorce, and the large majority of those within the first year. Then they would do well to reflect upon Matthew 5:31-32.

The FMA’s purpose is to define what exactly marriage is within this country. The far right would have you believe that it is a religious institution but they are wrong. Marriage, at least in the eyes of government, is a civil contract between two persons that is recognized by the State. The Government cannot force any church or religious institution to recognize same sex marriage, and it would be wrong for any government official to attempt to do this. So what we really have here are far right extremists trying to influence the government, and through the government the rest of the country, in hopes of forcing others to conform to their view of the world.

I believe in three simple principles that were bestowed upon us by a divine creator: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry as long as they love each other, because I believe in allowing others to pursue happiness. I know that Marriage grants more than 1,000 rights to couples, such as allowing them the ability to visit their sick or dying spouse in the hospital. It also ensures that upon the death of their partner their partners family cannot take away everything that person owns, essentially leaving them homeless and without a penny to their name. Who am I to deny happiness to someone? Who am I to stand against freedom and liberty? Who am I to question God?

What goes on in someone else’s private life has no or very little effect on my own. If someone does not believe in homosexual marriage then it might be in their best interest not to have one. If someone feels that allowing homosexual marriages will somehow undermine their own marriage, I say that they have much deeper issues that need to be resolved, issues that have nothing to do with people outside of their own marriage.

For quite some time homosexuals have been stigmatized with being promiscuous people. Now that it seems that this stereo type is untrue, and that there seems to be a large number of homosexuals who have been in committed monogamous relationships for years, there seems to be a great push from the far right to see that their relationships are not recognized. It seems hypercritical at best and bigoted at worst.

If all of this talk of “traditional values” and “family values” had any substance it would seem that the far right would be championing homosexual marriage rather than opposing it, considering that marriage fosters monogamy. Although one cannot truly say that the far right has very much credibility these days, especially the Catholic Church, which is still recovering from their sorted scandals. Which reminds me of something else Jesus said… something about… you will know them by their fruits? (Matthew 7:15-23)

In closing I think it’s time to call a spade a spade. There is a certain person out there who is seeking to use a divisive wedge issue during an election year to divide people. A person that previously campaigned on being a uniter not a divider. A person who previously said that he would leave such issues up to the States. Mr. President it seems that your opponent isn’t the only one who is changing sides on certain issues when the political winds shift. I hope the majority of reasonable, rational, and reality-grounded voters of this great nation see you for exactly what you are. Best of wishes in November, your going to need it.

Thomas Matthew Crews
Blackstone, Va.

[hackwriter]

1. It's too long

Typically, letters to the editor only get published if they are 150-200 words. A piece like this is an op-ed piece. If the papers you're sending it to welcome unsolicited op-ed pieces, and you don't want to cut it, then submit it as an op-ed piece. I have about a 90% success rate in getting my letters printed, and that's because I limit them to 200 words.

[BurtWorm]

2. I agree wuth hackwriter. Too long.

I'm an editor. Believe me. It won't even be looked at.

[Meldread]

5. Asking about making it an op-ed.

I just e-mailed them asking. Today they have two op-ed pieces one by a Columnist and another by Kenneth Starr (yes the same Kenneth Starr that is more obsessed with penises than a horny homosexual hooker). We'll see what they say. ;)

[nickinSTL]

3. pretty good

I don't know about the length, never really read the paper, haven't sent in a LTTE before.

one comment, on-

'the Catholic Church, which is still recovering from their sorted scandals'

I think the word you want is 'sordid', not sorted ;-)

[asjr]

4. This would make a wonderful Op-Ed piece.

You have done a marvelous job in setting out exactly what is wrong with FMA. It has crossed my mind that if it takes an amendment to the Costitution to solidify heterosexual marriages, those marriages are in deep trouble. We know what the agenda is. They are anti-gay. Pure and simple. They do not want gays to have rights. Hypocrisy, thy name is Republican.