Alan Keyes' 'Don’t be tricked by libertarian proposal' (Point of View, Feb. 1) is as unrealistic as Nancy Reagan's 'Just Say No' agenda. His whole premise is erroneous: 'Marriage is an inalienable right'? He claims that the 'recent judicial rulings in Utah and Oklahoma rejected the voters' wishes regarding the definition of marriage.' One of his absurd statements was that 'government exists to secure God-endowed unalienable rights.' I hope the day never arrives in this country when we allow the government to decide rights on the basis of how 'God' endows them!
Again, the editors lazily fail to use hyperlinks-- a basic of web editing-- and so we are forced to go on our own to find the column that is being referred to. But before getting into that, note how Mr McCarthick-Boyd's letter is written: He avoids the use of clichés and tired sports analogies. There is no sarcasm. He doesn't try at using folksy witticisms. It doesn't begin with "Four score and...."
Instead, it does what a letter should do: it refers to a recent column and voices some opinion on it in a succinct way.
The letter concludes:
He presumes that the 'right' to define marriage as being between a man and a woman is a 'God endowed natural right.' The 'natural family' is defined as a man and a woman and their children. Human nature is much more complex. There’s no proof that man is even monogamous. Keyes quotes Scripture: 'Be fruitful and multiply.' He expects us to overlook the biological fact that the species can do that without the 'benefit of clergy.'There isn't much more to say here. Regardless of what you think about Mr McCarthick-Boyd's position (though, he is obviously right), it is the sort of letter the Oklahoman should run. Instead, we get random whining about how we are turning into Nazi Germany, or failed attempts at humor directed toward things like climate change.
No comments:
Post a Comment