Why same sex unions, abortion are gov't issues

Editor:

In a letter to the editor published Oct. 5, Jeff Daly advocates allowing the most intensely personal decisions to remain personally private. Daly lists these most intensely, personal, private decisions as "... both choice of the sex of a marriage partner and birth control, including abortion." While advocating for same sex marriage, he muses, "Why should government be involved?"

Let's take Daly's argument to the next level. Certainly, the decision whether to marry or not is at least as, if not more so, intensely personal and private as the decision of whom to marry. Why then, should government be involved at all in any aspect of the decision to marry?

Going further, why should government concern itself with the intensely personal decision to have more than one husband or one wife? Why should I not be permitted to have two, or three, or any number of husbands and as many, or more, wives? Why should my multiple husbands not be permitted to also marry any or all of my multiple wives or husbands, or any number of others as they may choose? Why should my wives not be permitted to marry as many other men or women as they choose? Why should I not be free to marry, say, my mother or sister or daughter? Or, for that matter, my father, my brother or my son?

The answers to these questions provide us with insight into the answers to Daly's questions. Government exists to provide for the protection, common good and best interests of the society. That is why government raises armies, builds roads and bridges, runs schools and hospitals, provides for police and fire protection, etc.

The nuclear family, one man and one woman and their offspring, has long been the foundation and building block of society. It is within the nuclear family that children are born, raised, educated and prepared to become the next generation of society. The society, and hence government, has a self-interest in the development of the child and for this reason recognizes the nuclear family as a special unit of society and provides for assistance in the rearing of the child.

It is true that same sex unions can become families through adoption, surrogacy or artificial insemination, etc., but not through natural childbirth brought about by the conjugal union of one man and one woman. That is why the one man, one woman marriage is unique, special and different from same sex unions. That is why same sex unions can never be equivalent to one man, one woman marriages. That is why government should not recognize same sex unions as marriage.

I have been married to the same woman for more than 41 years. Together we have raised three children. I have never considered our marriage to be simply a package of tax breaks, insurance benefits or other legal rights and privileges. Extend these legalities to same sex unions if you want. Just don't call it marriage, because it's not!

Lastly, abortion is not birth control, as in the prevention of unintended pregnancy. It is the termination of pregnancy as in the killing of a human life. Society has a strong interest in the protection of all human life from conception to natural death.

Government's allowance, and even facilitation, of the slaughter of millions of our youngest and most vulnerable members is an abomination upon our society. If we allow the murder of our weakest to continue, how can anyone be surprised when next we begin to kill the elderly, the infirm, or the mentally or physically disabled? When we value any human life so little as we do the unborn, then all human life loses value. To paraphrase Martin Luther King, "No life is sacred until all life is sacred."

Same sex marriages and abortion are not private or personal. They affect us all. They shape and define who we are as a society. That, Mr. Daly, is why government must be involved in these
decisions.

Douglas Modrow

Newton

Preserve funding for home oxygen therapy

Editor:

As a beneficiary of Medicare's home oxygen benefit, I pay very close attention to what is happening in Washington with healthcare reform. While many of the "big issues" of reform are widely covered in the news, smaller Medicare benefits, like home oxygen therapy, don't always receive the attention they deserve. But home oxygen is critically important to beneficiaries like me, who may not have a strong voice in Washington.

I suffer from degenerative and irreversible lung disease that makes it difficult for me to breathe on my own. With the help of home oxygen therapy, I can breathe properly, remain independent and somewhat active, and receive therapy safely in my own home. There are approximately one and a half million Medicare beneficiaries across the country who also suffer from debilitating lung disease and fully depend on home oxygen therapy to help them manage their disease.

As Congress looks for ways to improve our healthcare system, I understand that policymakers also are looking for ways to cut costs. I fear that in the process of cost cutting, they will cut Medicare funding for home oxygen.

Just this year, Medicare funding for home oxygen was reduced dramatically, with cuts of 27 percent taking effect in January. From a patient's perspective, cuts of this magnitude are very troubling because such cuts ultimately impact patients by placing tremendous strain on those who provide us with care, equipment, maintenance and 24-hour emergency service.

As someone who relies on my home oxygen provider to breathe, the threat of cuts concerns me greatly.

As members of Congress work to reform the health care system, I hope they recognize that cuts in funding will not result in improved access to care or higher quality services. For someone who relies on home oxygen therapy, preserving Medicare funding for home oxygen therapy is a top reform priority.

Barbara Music

Sussex

High Point homecoming theme attack unfair

Editor:

While it is true that the theme of High Point Regional High School's homecoming was all about cliques, this was not done to poke fun at anyone, but rather to poke fun of the way the media stereotypes the different cliques that are found in schools all over the country.

While I commend Anna Porter for expressing her opinion in such an articulate way, I found it very unfair that the student council, as well as the administration, was portrayed in such a negative light. I wonder if Anna was present at the homecoming game and if she was among the large amount of spectators that watched the half-time presentation. If she was in attendance, then she witnessed a wonderful group of students dressed up in silly, exaggerated ways to poke fun of their particular clique.

She would also have witnessed all the students coming together at the end of the presentation, joining hands to show that stereotyping them into certain cliques means nothing to them -- that they are all equal and that the student body interacts with each other no matter how they might be "labeled" by
others.

Do you think it is possible that Anna felt that her protests fell on deaf ears because no one else found the theme to be as offensive as she did? High Point has a zero tolerance policy in force when it comes to bullying or name calling, or for any other action that would cause any student to feel picked on or made fun of.

I think it was wonderful that the students actively involved in student council collaboratively decided to get together and show that labels mean absolutely nothing. That a "geek" also can be a "jock." That a "redneck" also can be a "geek," etc. I am the proud mother of a "geeky, redneck, jock," and I wouldn't have it any other way!

Bobbi Poyneer

Wantage