Letters to the Editor (May 1, 2013)

Amer­ica needs tra­di­tion­al mar­riage  

Word games. Word games. That was my re­ac­tion after I read the latest screed from Mel Flit­ter (Let­ters, April 17). Spe­cific­ally, in his clumsy at­tempt to ad­voc­ate so-called “same-sex” mar­riage, he refers to “two people in love.” This is pure rhet­or­ic­al sleight-of-hand; among the de­mi­monde, dat­ing to the ‘60s if not earli­er, the word “love” really meant “lust.” The “hip­pies” who made up the coun­ter­cul­ture of that mis­be­got­ten time sought what they called a more “nat­ur­al” way of liv­ing, and con­cern­ing sex, that meant no re­stric­tions on that activ­ity. If noth­ing else, the hip­pies were more hon­est than our mod­ern agenda monger­ers. 

One more point. 

Mel tells us that those who de­fend the sanc­tity of mar­riage “fail to ex­plain how” re­de­fin­ing it harms so­ci­ety. Wrong. 

In an age of wide­spread fam­ily break­down, in an age when many chil­dren lack stable male and fe­male par­ents to form a healthy view of sexu­al­ity, we need strong, stable, tra­di­tion­al fam­il­ies more than ever. I call upon the Amer­ic­an people to act with hon­or, defy the cul­tur­al forces of or­gan­ized ir­re­spons­ib­il­ity, ig­nore those Sen­ate “lead­ers” who have blindly stam­peded in sup­port of the latest polit­ic­al fad, and stand up foursquare for tra­di­tion­al mar­riage. 

What we def­in­itely do not need are word games used to ad­vance an agenda from a by­gone era, an agenda based upon a hope­lessly false view of free­dom and pro­gress. 

So, as Mel flits about run­ning his ideo­lo­gic­al er­rands, I have only three words for those lost in the fog of polit­ic­al cor­rect­ness: “wake” and “up” and “soon.” 

George Tomez­sko

Fox Chase

Rot­ten new neigh­bors

comments powered by Disqus