LETTER: Author not convinced his letter on gay rights was 'propaganda'

Shirley Anderson’s rebuttal letter (Daily Inter Lake, July 30) seemed to ignore the basic premise of my letter when declaring my opposition to same-sex marriage “propaganda”: namely, that the extremists of the LGBT movement will force this issue to an absurd all-or-none conclusion just like Roe v. Wade has done with abortion.  

I stand by my conclusion, although recently released videos of a physician (I use the term loosely in her case) sipping her Merlot while discussing crushing babies’ skulls to preserve valuable body parts seems to have garnered a bit of sympathy against late-term abortion even from rabid so-called women’s rights liberals.  

The editor’s note attached to her article explained where Ms. Anderson went wrong on a couple of points. She was partially correct about benefits; however, over a dozen states with recognized same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships do grant a number of rights including tax relief, emergency medical decisions, domestic relations laws, and spousal benefits including workers’ compensation, etc.  And, of course, similar rights could be passed by state legislatures and / or Congress for the areas she enumerated without changing the definition of marriage.  

She downplays the outlandish gay parade marchers but these are the same people who will not “walk away” from a photographer who doesn’t want to take pictures at a gay wedding because of religious beliefs and will sue them into bankruptcy.

I have several gay relatives, two in long-term committed relationships, and believe they are entitled to the same LEGAL rights of any couple. Call me old fashioned, but I still believe the term marriage shouldn’t be changed to accommodate a same-sex couple. As warned, a Montana man and his two “wives” have already applied  at a courthouse in Billings for a right to legalize their polygamy. What’s next? Baaaaaaa! —P. David Myerowitz, Columbia Falls