- About Us
- Local Savings
- Green Editions
- Legal Notices
- Weekly Ads
Stunned with views expressed by senator
I was stunned when I read Sen. Pam Roach’s column related to gay marriage (Courier-Herald, Feb. 1). How could a state senator sit through the many hours of testimony and have so little knowledge about pending legislation? Sen. Roach stated that “domestic partnership laws provide protections for same gender couples. So, the battle is over a logo.”
Really, senator? Those in same-sex domestic partnerships do not have survivor pension benefits and the same rights of inheritance that a spouse would have. Domestic partners have to carry their health care directives with them whenever they travel, because the partner does not have the same legal rights as a spouse. If one partner works for a company who self insures the employees medical insurance, the employee’s partner could be uncovered.
The senator also said there were not sufficient safeguards to prevent pastors and priests from having to perform ceremonies against their will. The public hearings made it very clear that more than adequate safeguards were attached to the bill. I don’t know if the senator doesn’t have a better understanding of the legislation upon which she is voting or if the senator understands it very well but is intentionally trying to mislead the public.
As a Christian, I do not understand how someone could vote to keep their fellow citizen from having equal rights. These families need protection and their children have a right to go to school and say their parents are married, not merely in a domestic partnership. I know several gay or lesbian couples who have adopted children. In each case, the children were available for adoption because their biological parents did not fulfill their parental responsibilities. A loving home with a father and a mother is simply a fairy tale in 50 percent of our marriages. We can let these children pass through the foster care system until they are 18, providing them with an unstable and often abusive childhood at taxpayer expense or we can provide a legally married couple who will love and protect them.
As this legislation will most likely be on the ballot this fall, it is important that we obtain correct information.
Marcie B. Neuman