May 27, 2017

Will Editor Camp Allow People To “Decide For Themselves”?

By Larry Ray Hafley

The following editorial, by Taylor B. Camp, appeared in the Baytown Sun, April 27, 2000.  Please read it and our editorials below which satirically paraphrase and parallel Mr. Taylor’s views. Now, the Taylor editorial, “Vermont law lets people decide for themselves.”

“The state of Vermont appears ready to grant gay and lesbian couples all the benefits of marriage.  It will be the first-ever legislation giving such rights to gays and lesbians.  

“Tuesday, the state House approved a bill on the issue by a 79 to 68 vote.  Last week, the state Senate also approved the bill.  The governor on Wednesday signed the legislation, which will go into effect July 1.

“When it goes into effect, gays and lesbians will be able to engage in civil unions similar to marriage, and will have state rights and responsibilities similar to those enjoyed by married heterosexual couples. Those rights will include such things as health insurance and tax benefits.

“The federal government and other states do not recognize the unions, but they are nonetheless a first step toward a more open society, one where discrimination and exclusion are pushed just a bit further into the corner.

“Certainly, everyone won’t approve of gay and lesbian marriages, and that’s fine.  It’s not a matter that everyone need agree with, nor is it a matter to be decided on moral grounds.  It is a matter, just like a traditional marriage, that should remain between two people.

“Predictably, many churches have opposed Vermont’s new legislation and 31 states have passed laws restricting marriages to male-female unions. 

“The federal government also forbids same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage benefits.  It also has said that states can ignore same-sex marriages allowed by other states.
“Who’s to say, though, whether two people should be married?  It seems a throwback to the days of discrimination, of rights for a few, if we prohibit people from pursuing life, liberty and happiness.

“It’s also judgmental, and much of that judgment comes from factions who say they want the judging left to a higher moral authority.”

At least Vermont is willing to let people decide for themselves.      

Vermont Law Lets Pedophiles Decide 
For Themselves
Taler B. Nonjudgmental

The state of Vermont appears ready to grant pedophile and child couples all the benefits of marriage.  It will be the first-ever legislation giving such rights to pedophiles and children.

Tuesday, the state House approved a bill on the issue by a 79 to 68 vote.  Last week, the state Senate also approved the bill.  The governor on Wednesday signed the legislation, which will go into effect July 1.

When it goes into effect, pedophiles and their love-child will be able to engage in civil unions similar to marriage, and will have state rights and responsibilities similar to those enjoyed by married heterosexual couples.  Those rights will include such things as health insurance and tax benefits.

The federal government and other states do not recognize the unions, but they are nonetheless a first step toward a more open society, one where discrimination and exclusion are pushed just a bit further into the corner.

Certainly, everyone won’t approve of pedophile and child marriages, and that’s fine.  It’s not a matter that everyone need agree with, nor is it a matter to be decided on moral grounds.  It is a matter, just like a traditional marriage, that should remain between two people.

Predictably, many churches have opposed Vermont’s new legislation and 31 states have passed laws restricting marriages to male-female unions. 

The federal government also forbids pedophiles and love-child couples from receiving federal marriage benefits.  It also has said that states can ignore pedophile-love-child marriages allowed by other states.

Who’s to say, though, whether two people should be married?  It seems a throwback to the days of discrimination, of rights for a few, if we prohibit people from pursuing life, liberty and happiness.

It’s also judgmental, and much of that judgment comes from factions who say they want the judging left to a higher moral authority.

At least Vermont is willing to let people decide for themselves.    

(Before he comments [in a non-judgmental fashion, of course], we should like for our inclusive, non-discriminating editor to read another editorial designed to  aid others who, like him, are “pursuing life, liberty and happiness.”)
Vermont Law Allows Both Man And Beast 
To Decide For Themselves
Taler B. Willing

The state of Vermont appears ready to grant gay and beast couples all the benefits of marriage.  It will be the first-ever legislation giving such rights to gays and animals.  

Tuesday, the state House approved a bill on the issue by a 79 to 68 vote.  Last week, the state Senate also approved the bill.  The governor on Wednesday signed the legislation, which will go into effect July 1.

When it goes into effect, gays and goats will be able to engage in civil unions similar to marriage, and will have state rights and responsibilities similar to those enjoyed by married heterosexual couples.  Those rights will include such things as health insurance and tax benefits.

The federal government and other states do not recognize the unions, but they are nonetheless a first step toward a more open society, one where discrimination and exclusion are pushed just a bit further into the corner.

Certainly, everyone won’t approve of lesbian and sheep marriages, and that’s fine.  It’s not a matter that everyone need agree with, nor is it a matter to be decided on moral grounds.  It is a matter, just like a traditional marriage, that should remain between one person and his love-beast.

Predictably, many churches have opposed Vermont’s new legislation and 31 states have passed laws restricting marriages to male-female unions. 

The federal government also forbids gay-billy goat couples from receiving federal marriage benefits.  It also has said that states can ignore gay-animal sex marriages allowed by other states.

Who’s to say, though, whether two species should be married?  It seems a throwback to the days of discrimination, of rights for a few, if we prohibit people and their pets from pursuing life, liberty and happiness.

It’s also judgmental, and much of that judgment comes from factions who say they want the judging left to a higher moral authority.

At least Vermont is willing to let people and man’s best friend decide for themselves.      

(We should like to know if editor Camp now will convert and become a judgmental, discriminatory, moralistic fellow who will deny men, children, and their dearly loved animals the right to seek “inclusion” in “a more open society.”  Even if he opposes us, he should remember that a wise man once said, “Certainly, everyone won’t approve of gay and lesbian (adult-child; gay-animal marriages), and that’s fine.  It’s not a matter that everyone need agree with, nor is it a matter to be decided on moral grounds.”)   

Truth Magazine Vol. XLIV: 17  p20  September 7, 2000
Share