Letters to the editor, May 5
May 3, 2013 2:08PM
SEND US YOUR OPINION: Letters to the editor should be no more than 300 words. The Post-Tribune reserves the right to edit or reject any letter. All letters must be signed and include your name, address and telephone number for verification. To send us your letter to the editor, mail to: 350 N. Orleans St., Chicago, IL 60654; or e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org. If you have questions,
call Diane Aden Hayes, managing editor, at (312) 321-2186.
Updated: June 6, 2013 6:09AM
The majority doesn’t rule when it comes to gun laws
The U.S. Senate just defeated common sense gun control legislation that would have broadened the scope of background checks for individuals wanting to purchase guns. The legislation would not have had a negative effect on Second Amendment rights. It would have simply provided greater safeguards against putting guns into the hands of people who almost everyone agrees should not have them, e.g., convicted criminals and the mentally ill.
According to reliable polls, 90 percent of the public supported this legislation. Heartfelt pleas from victims of gun violence, including parents of murdered Newtown children, were made for its passage. Our president and vice president gave it vigorous support. But it failed to pass.
Wait a minute! The vote was 54 votes FOR passage and 46 against. So it passed! Doesn’t a majority determine passage? No. Arcane rules allow the minority to say, “No, we insist on a 60% super majority for passage.”
So, it appears that 90 percent of the electorate and 54 percent of the Senate is not enough to withstand the power of the gun industry. We suddenly realize we have been transformed from a representative democracy into a plutocratic oligarchy in which decisions are made by the wealthy few and not by the citizenry. Didn’t we fight a war with Great Britain over this issue? Fortunately we now have the ballot box (but beware of incursions here too) to settle these issues. Sen. Donnelly voted in favor of this legislation, Sen. Coats voted against it.
Marriage will always be
between a man and a woman
Words have meaning. This simple phase is self evident, except to the liberals that have become masters of deconstruction and confusion. Take for instance the word “marriage.” As defined in the dictionary it is as follows: “The legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.” Until recently there was no dispute over this. Ever since Adam took Eve as his mate, marriage has been universally understood. It has been the bedrock of the family and integral to western civilization.
Now in the blink of an eye, these so called “progressives” have muddled the meaning of this venerable institution. The last 3,000 years of the tradition of marriage that helped civilize society and was a centerpiece to the ascent of mankind, has been summarily dismissed by the arrogant left as a flawed. According to this revisionist orthodoxy, marriage really means any consensual relationship that people decide to engage in. Those in the past who looked at it otherwise were just hate-filled bigots. Those who currently hold to the traditional view are Neanderthals.
They have now dragged marriage before the Supreme Court. But the nine wizards in robes can no more change the definition and the institution itself, then they can conjure up a dry rain or proclaim that oranges have always been just another variety of apple.