Marriage must be for all

  • Follow Letters

On behalf of the Board of Directors of Augusta Pride, I wanted to commend The Augusta Chronicle and especially Staff Writer Steve Crawford for a beautifully written commemorative piece on the tragic death of Aiken Public Safety Officer Master Cpl. Sandy Rogers and the ongoing struggles of her unofficial spouse, Officer Frances Williams.

While their relationship was never recognized in law, and possibly not by some members of their family and community, they were very much a couple, though maybe not one as common as those they served to protect on a daily basis.

While Frances and Sandy chose to live a quiet, unassuming life – be it out of either fear of, or respect for, their community – it is nice to see this community coming together to acknowledge that many people make sacrifices to protect the safety of our families and friends, be they straight or gay, and they deserve our respect. The individual religious choices each of us makes for ourselves should not influence how we treat one another in the public square, where people of many faiths and beliefs come together.

Relationships such as theirs deserve to be protected because they make our community stronger, not weaker. Frances and Sandy would not have weakened the institution of marriage, and they would not have destroyed it – but instead they serve as an example of why marriage is still an important institution for our society.

While we agree with local radio show host Austin Rhodes that “gay folks need the same protection under law that married people have,” we disagree that this legal protection can truly come in a separate but equal institution called legal domestic partnerships. There is nothing religious about the word “marriage” when a straight couple marries at City Hall, two atheists marry at a seaside resort or a convicted felon marries his prison pen pal.

Instead, in Georgia and South Carolina it means they are straight. Marriage is an institution of commitment, born in love and recognized by society. We don’t need two institutions – straight marriage and gay domestic partnerships – to recognize our families. Officer Williams lost her wife; she did not lose a housemate.

(The writer is public relations director for Augusta Pride.)

Comments (83) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 01/30/13 - 03:35 pm
3
3
burninater....that would be
Unpublished

burninater....that would be true, but gays CAN be married. I know one who is, and was married legally in SC. They just have the same restrictions as everyone else. YOUR example would mean that Christians could not get married. In the current law, a gay person CAN get married.

Nice try.

jic
352
Points
jic 01/30/13 - 03:40 pm
3
4
sure Harley, tell us why you
Unpublished

sure Harley, tell us why you "refuse to accept them." Give us one reason how they adversely affect your most perfect and righteous lifestyle or marriage. Explain to us who is hurt. Oh, and how often have you been married? I suppose a broken home of man and woman where the kids live with marginally employed Mom is vastly superior to a stable, loving gay/lesbian home raising one or more of your unwanted "accidents."

jic
352
Points
jic 01/30/13 - 03:41 pm
3
4
No Angela, nobody was
Unpublished

No Angela, nobody was "legally" married in South Carolina. It may have happened in a church but it isn't recognized by the state. Stop making up stuff.

burninater
9580
Points
burninater 01/30/13 - 03:48 pm
3
2
Jic, I suspect she means they

Jic, I suspect she means they married someone of the opposite sex.

HA, you are incorrect. In a system where Christians could not marry one another, they STILL can get married, just like anyone else.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 01/30/13 - 03:50 pm
3
4
I'm not making a thing up
Unpublished

I'm not making a thing up jic. He is a gay man and he married a woman. A gay man has the legal right to marry a woman, just as a straight man does. EXACT SAME RESTRICTIONS. He can't marry a woman that is already married...EXACT SAME RESTRICTIONS. My point is that they are NOT being denied rights. You may not agree with the restrictions, and you are free to lobby to have the law changed.

burninater
9580
Points
burninater 01/30/13 - 03:51 pm
3
2
Let's make this simpler. By

Let's make this simpler. By your argument HA, if we made it illegal for opposite sex couples to marry, noone's civil rights would be violated.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 01/30/13 - 03:54 pm
4
4
Gay men can marry gay women,
Unpublished

Gay men can marry gay women, Burninater.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 01/30/13 - 03:55 pm
4
4
"Let's make this simpler. By
Unpublished

"Let's make this simpler. By your argument HA, if we made it illegal for opposite sex couples to marry, noone's civil rights would be violated."

Agreed. I didn't say I agree with the restrictions...just that they are not a civil rights issue as it is usually presented.

burninater
9580
Points
burninater 01/30/13 - 03:57 pm
4
2
So the question becomes --

So the question becomes -- what is a "civil right" if making marriage between a man and a woman illegal does not violate it?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 01/30/13 - 04:08 pm
2
4
OK. Could civil rights
Unpublished

OK. Could civil rights issue...but the law is applied equally to everyone. Not a discrimination issue. Are we getting closer?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 01/30/13 - 04:13 pm
2
4
I'm sure we will meet
Unpublished

I'm sure we will meet somewhere in the logical middle.

burninater
9580
Points
burninater 01/30/13 - 04:15 pm
3
2
I don't agree that equal

I don't agree that equal applicability of the law nullifies the discrimination issue. It did not do so in the eyes of the Supreme Court in the overturning of anti-miscegenation laws.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 01/30/13 - 04:19 pm
3
4
Well....I don't ALWAYS agree
Unpublished

Well....I don't ALWAYS agree with the Supreme Court either. overturning anti-miscegenation laws, however I DID agree with.

carcraft
25743
Points
carcraft 01/30/13 - 04:33 pm
3
3
Still waiting for one of the

Still waiting for one of the supporters of "gay " marriage to explain how those pushing for multiple marriages are going to have their "rights" denied while allowing gay marriage. Before you say it won't happen lets look at cigarett smoking. 20 years ago peole smoked ever where. Then they couldn't smoke in resturants. Now the Georgia Regents Health care employes huddle by rail road track (if you are at the Dental School), by the BoJangles if you work in the old Sears building or across the street by the VA. Look at Social Security. The number was never supposed to be used for identification, well try to get your property sold, get your utilities hooked up, open a bank account with out it. Look at the income tax. Originally only the top 1% wage earners were going to pay etc. Well look whats happened. So how do you draw that line or should who ever be allowed to marry who ever and as many what ever as one wants?

burninater
9580
Points
burninater 01/30/13 - 04:38 pm
3
3
To many, miscegenation is an

To many, miscegenation is an exact analogy to gay marriage, with the genitalia being imbued with some divine separation rather than race.

It appears that younger generations have embraced the idea that the essence of being human is in the mind and heart, not in the crotch -- and that crotchly determinations of right and wrong are a prejudice whose time has passed.

(As a side note, this obsession with crotch inspection tests for appropriateness of marriage gives the word "crotchety" a whole new meaning!)

jic
352
Points
jic 01/30/13 - 04:42 pm
3
2
Angela, your argument that a
Unpublished

Angela, your argument that a gay person is legally married in SC is condescending at best and doesn't make a case for or against a marriage between two men or two women. Frankly, you know as well as I that a gay person in a heterosexual marriage is a lie and a legitimate case of harm being done to both parties and children if involved. It lacks integrity and living a lie is one of the ten commandments.

burninater
9580
Points
burninater 01/30/13 - 04:44 pm
4
3
Still waiting for one of the

Still waiting for one of the supporters of "gay " marriage to explain how those pushing for multiple marriages are going to have their "rights" denied while allowing gay marriage.
-----
Carcraft, the same slippery slope fallacy applied to miscegenation. How can we allow different races to marry without opening the door to multiple marriages?

There's a reason why they call it a fallacy.

scoopdedoop64
2366
Points
scoopdedoop64 01/30/13 - 05:06 pm
3
2
Good One

that was good angela! I agree totally!

harley_52
23159
Points
harley_52 01/30/13 - 05:10 pm
4
2
"To many, miscegenation is an exact analogy.....

....to gay marriage, with the genitalia being imbued with some divine separation rather than race."

"To many?" No kidding?

Oddly enough, until just now I've never heard anybody make that odd comparison.

As a matter of fact, I'll bet not one percent of the people I've ever known can tell you what "misgenation" even means. Now, I'm pretty sure that will draw some kind of "you're pretty stupid" comment in reply, but I'd prefer to think of it more as proof that somebody spent a lot of time trying to put together an argument as to why homosexual behavior isn't all that abnormal and that to oppose it is just about the same as being "racist." Liberals love to somehow tie "racism" into every discussion.

I mean even though it's practiced by only about three percent of the population and is way outside the "normal" range of behavior.

jic
352
Points
jic 01/30/13 - 05:29 pm
3
4
Go on and keep repeating the
Unpublished

Go on and keep repeating the "3 %" thing. As long as Ga and SC reserve the right to allow companies to fire someone for being gay you're lucky to even get 3% willing to admit they are. Maybe it will stick. "Racist" depends on your definition, but once again, "bigot" is more accurate. So far all anti-gay comments come from hate and making up lies to fuel fear. That is clearly what "conservatives" and fundamentalists excel at. Apparently only liberals care about justice for minorities. So I'm proud to be one even if it is repeatedly used as an epithet here.

harley_52
23159
Points
harley_52 01/30/13 - 05:39 pm
2
3
Maybe Three Percent....

....is a gross overestimation.

***"Mr. Gates‘ best estimate, derived from five studies that have asked subjects about their sexual orientation, is that the nation has about 4 million adults who identify as being homosexual, representing 1.7 percent of the 18-and-over population."

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/7/study-sees-gays-as-17-per...
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

GiantsAllDay
9572
Points
GiantsAllDay 01/30/13 - 05:41 pm
4
3
Angela and Harley,Good old

Angela and Harley,
Good old fashioned homophobia. I use the word "old fashioned" carefully but t
hat is what it is. My hope is, that in a coming day, we will all grow up as a human race. I will not remark any further on either of your comments. I'll just let them stand on their own. Perhaps the AC can put this in a time capsule and pull it out in 50 years?

Sean Moores
313
Points
Sean Moores 01/30/13 - 05:51 pm
5
1
There are too many insults

There are too many insults flying around to let this thread continue without close moderation so I am turning off comments. Have a good day.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Commission to discuss administrator position

Two significant city appointments return to the forefront at a regular Tuesday meeting of the Augusta Commission. Commissioner Ben Hasan, just appointed to the District 6 commission seat last ...
Search Augusta jobs