Dear Editor,

Gay ‘marriage’ is a hot topic these days. I am reminded of the Rodney Dangerfield comment, “I get no respect!”

Some conservatives I’ve dialogued with don’t have a problem with gay relationships. While they may not agree with each other, they are consistent in their disdain for calling a gay-marriage, a ‘marriage.’ Conservatives sometimes don’t take to any change so easily, especially when it comes to their biblical beliefs. Clearly, this is a civic issue, and the separation of church and state makes this very clear. Still, people will act and vote on their life experiences, biblical or secular.

The gay elitists, Democrat and Republican, feel it is necessary to demand nothing less than calling it a ‘marriage.’ They support this idea by claiming anything less will keep us as second-class citizens. One argument for this defense was a result of The Supreme Court decision in Brown v. The Board of Education, a racial issue stating that separating ‘institutions’ is not constitutional.

Conservatives believe a marriage consists of a male and female relationship as they have a biblically based foundation for doing so. However, some do think that a ‘union’ between same-sex couples is okay, so long as they are not forced to accept it as the religiously based institution known as a ‘marriage.’ There is non-religious support for responsible ‘relationships’ as a healthy way of living.

The gay militants, publicly displaying every facet of sexual diversity in the streets, with an ‘in-your-face’ attitude much like “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it!” continue to antagonize communities where there are children present, all under the guise of tolerance. A clear example of this was after the sodomy ruling was handed down by the Supreme Court, guys were donning their g-strings and jock straps and celebrating in the streets and shown on the evening news as representative of how the gay community is celebrating this decision. What we have here is failure to communicate effectively. These public displays, though some are well within our ‘rights,’ are not always appropriate with the issues of the day. Let’s not be so liberal that we lose our sense of what is right and what is wrong!

Would the naming of gay relationships as ‘unions’ or ‘partnerships’ be such a bad thing if they come with all of the rights and responsibilities as a marriage? After all, a rose by any other name is still a rose. Are we willing to let the gay militants and elitists through their sometimes outrageous actions set us back 20 years over this issue? Keeping the oppressed ‘oppressed’ might serve their interest more than ours. I urge more gay citizens to speak their minds instead of sitting back and letting others speak for us.

Respect has to be earned by respecting others and their opinions in a civilized manner.

Bill Lullo

Mission Hills