Writer is stunned by Boehner’s actions
To the editor:
John Boehner to block the use of the Capitol Rotunda to honor the last veteran of World War I, Frank Woodruff Buckles. There are events that should never be politicized, and honoring our nation’s veterans is one of them.
Mr. Buckles and his fellow WWI veterans — indeed, all veterans — deserve our gratitude and recognition for their sacrifice and defense of our country and its values. It is abhorrent to make this a partisan issue. It is irrelevant what politics Mr. Buckles held or to what party his two senators or his congresswoman belong. This should not be a time for political payback.
Mr. Buckles deserves the rare and high honor of lying in the Capitol Rotunda in addition to a ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery. I urge the citizens of the four-state region to contact Speaker Boehner’s office (202-225-6205) to demand a reversal of his decision. If you are Republican, please make sure he knows that so that he is aware his fellow Republicans expect him to allow our veterans to be appropriately honored without partisan politics. This has undoubtedly added to the grief and heartache of Mr. Buckles’ family at a time when our nation’s leaders should be honoring the sacrifice of this man and his fellow veterans.
I rarely find myself agreeing with Congressman Bartlett; however, I wholeheartedly support the statement in his letter to Boehner in which Bartlett noted that approving the Capitol Rotunda honor “is the last opportunity that Congress has to honor the selfless sacrifice of the nearly five million individuals who served in the military for the United States during WWI ...”
Please make sure Speaker Boehner knows we expect our veterans to be respected and honored. Thank you.
Chairwoman, Washington County Democratic
Writer disagrees with facts from previous letter
To the editor:
Mr. Steve Herndon’s letter of Feb. 22 in The Herald-Mail, “Keep your religion out of my government,” claims that the authors of the U.S. Constitution “unmistakably guaranteed” the right to same-sex marriage and that states recognize this “right” under the oxymoron title “same sex marriage.”
He also writes that changing the meaning of a word has no consequences. How ingenuous can he get? He needs to go back and read Orwell’s “1984” or remember how “killing” a child in the womb became a simple “choice.” He also says that this same Constitution, after giving these special rights, bans the religious believer from the public square and political discourse. “Check your history,” he tells us.
I did just that. Nowhere do I find a right to same-sex marriage listed in any of the articles. I also know that the founders would have been the first in line to confine — to say the least — anyone who suggested the idea. But I do see that the First Amendment guarantees the “free exercise” of religion. Mr. Herndon should notice this freedom is grouped with all those that apply directly to the active participation of citizens in the actions of their government.
At a more basic level, Edward Feser puts the metaphysical argument succinctly in his book, “The Last Superstition.” He states, “natural law theory entails that marriage is, not by human definition, but as an objective metaphysical fact determined by its final cause, inherently procreative, and thus heterosexual. There is no such thing as same-sex marriage any more than there are round squares. No legislature or opinion poll could possibly change these facts, any more than they could repeal the law of gravity or Pythagorean theorem.”