Letter to the editor:

Let’s just be consistent on issue of marriage

Lee Cagley, Las Vegas

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 | 2:06 a.m.

For years, mainstream America stood by and shook its head while gay men and women marched and paraded and carried on mightily for acceptance.

When the AIDS epidemic swept through our community, the prevailing criticism we were handed as the excuse for mainstream inaction was that we were promiscuous, wantonly sexual creatures unable to maintain a monogamous relationship, for whom this illness was seen as a tragic (but somehow just) retribution. Since then, we have learned the numerous advantages of dedicated relationships, and many of us have been in long-term, committed, monogamous partnerships for years.

Now that we ask those relationships be recognized by the state (not by your religion, mind you, but just the state), we are told that such recognition would violate the sanctity of heterosexual marriage. What?

How does my willingness to attest, legally, to my commitment to my partner have anything to do with your relationship to your wife or husband? I wasn’t consulted on your marriage; why is mine any of your business?

The thought that Gov. Jim Gibbons is going to veto the bill on moral grounds is the absolute pinnacle of hypocrisy; between his alleged adulteries, his extremely adept text-messaging while on our payroll, and his incredibly unseemly treatment of his wife, how much more damage to the sanctity of marriage can any one individual do?

For those of you who are so concerned about the institution of marriage, for heaven’s sake, pass a bill making it illegal to get divorced (but make sure it states clearly that you are only outlawing divorce between a man and a woman). Do something that would affect your freedoms, and kindly leave ours intact; it is all too clear that ours are far more precious to us than yours are to you.

Discussion: 5 comments so far…

By PatriciaLV

4/28/09 at 4:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Bravo!
By annienonymouse

4/28/09 at 6:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

How about banning marriage all together. Problem solved.
By Matois

4/28/09 at 7:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

I agree! Unless the "union" is sanctified by a religious or spiritual organization, it should not be allowed to be called a marriage. Why is it fine to meld church and state for heterosexuals but not for the gay community?

Governor Gibbons, please help me remove this speck from my eye and then I'll help you take the plank out of yours. :)
By KillerB

4/28/09 at 12:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Good to see we're all on the same page here.

Gibbons' threat to veto based on his personal morality has no place in public law and is actually a violation of his official oath (possibly even criminal perjury). But it appears so far as current governors go he ain't exactly the pick of the litter.
By VegasRabbit

4/28/09 at 12:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

<stand and applaud> Bravo, Mr Cagley!