Letter favoring marriage amendment ‘myopic’

To the editor:

We found Cindy Trebus’ Nov. 25th letter to the editor regarding her support of discrimination in the marriage amendment myopic and unethical.

Ms. Trebus describes marriage with loose and loaded terms, like “age-old” and “sa-cred.” Does Ms. Trebus truly know what marriage used to mean for people? In various historical and cultural contexts, marriage has been tantamount to slavery, sexual domination and economic exchange.

The definition of marriage has been fluid; it has, like our society, evolved.

Who owns “sacred?” We can accept that Trebus and those of similar mindsets cannot understand romantic love and devotion between two individuals of the same biological sex. This inclusion is the beauty of democracy. However, we challenge her to stop hinging the argument with misinformation and bolstering it with hyperbole.

This is not a “war” or a put-upon “politically correct agenda.”

Our branches of government are in place as a system of checks and balances for a reason: The progenitors of this country knew that minority rights had to be protected.

Vote as you will, but don’t call it an attempt to render marriage “meaningless.”

That is dehumanizing to gay and lesbian couples, their families and their supporters. It has meaning to them.

How could anyone say to a fellow citizen: “You should have less rights than me” — especially in America.

Alicia Boelhauf

Ron DeVinitz

Crestwood