“Mawage is what bwings us togever today.”
Princess Bride's adorable, speech impaired minister summed it up nicely.
There are some huge things going on in the news lately: drones, foreign aid, sequestration, nuclear threats from Korea. And yet, every news station is talking about marriage.
What is the definition of marriage? Who should be married? Should same sex marriage be ruled on by the Supreme Court?
I am a reporter at a little ol’ newspaper in a small town; I am not going to declare an opinion on same sex marriage. You can calm down now. I am simply weighing in on the media’s obsession with the subject.
My opinion is simple; why are we spending time/money/effort arguing about it?
I worked at a day care for several years. There was a child who provided me with a definition of marriage to the best of her four-year-old ability. She said, “marriage is just what happens at the end of a fairy tale, right after the happily ever after and before the end.”
That's been all the definition I've ever needed. (Notice that she did not feel the need to specify any combination of prince and princess.)
That being said, doesn't it seem a little ridiculous to be spending money to give the Supreme Court a go at defining something that a four-year-old summed up nicely in a matter of seconds (for free)?
I feel our country could have involved itself in some sort of scandal and we wouldn't know because the television media is only showing us pictures of courthouses and rainbow flags.
Perhaps this is an attempt to distract the general public from other issues. This is not to say that gay rights are not important. I don't mean to belittle their cause. I am certain the issue of same sex marriage could be handled more efficiently (and kindly). I just don’t see same sex marriage as an issue of national security and therefore do not believe it should be given this much Supreme Court, and media, attention. I would feel better knowing our politicians were fighting over foreign aid and world peace.
Is it possible that the powers that be would rather see citizens arguing over the union of two people than arguing over the governments blatant disregard for budgets?
You want to spend years publicly arguing about a subject, making a mockery of yourself and pushing the country further into debt, good country?
As you wish, I suppose.
- Ladies and Chamber Month
- The spice of legislative life
- Tax cut not for education, it’s for election year
- The hat makes the man
- Government shouldn’t regulate OSSAA
- Justice not blind when it comes to energy
- Consolidation may cost, not save, money
- Refurbishing the Capitol
- Churchill’s ‘iron curtain’ speech
- Putting the fun back in dysfunctional
- More Opinion Headlines