“˜Christian’ does not mean “˜anti-gay’
I recently read the editorial “Same-sex marriage ruling is a triumph” (Viewpoint, May 16) which heralded the state Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the ban on same-sex marriage as a major triumph in civil rights and equality for Californians.
While I have no qualms regarding to the article’s civic implications, I do have a problem with its misrepresentation of Christians, especially since unsigned editorials represent the majority opinion of the Daily Bruin Editorial Board.
The article talked about special interest groups who are trying to get an initiative on the ballot that would undo the ruling. Without explicitly stating what those special interest groups are, the following paragraph made the editorial board’s position clear: “The Netherlands, Spain, Canada and Belgium have allowed same-sex marriage for a few years now. … So far, the four horsemen of the apocalypse have not come stampeding down on any of them.”
My question is: Do the editors believe all Christians want the four horsemen to come and destroy the Netherlands or Canada for supporting same-sex marriage? If not, then why does the article make it a point to portray a fundamentalist view and not give any mention of those who may think differently?
Another interesting question to ask: Would the editorial board have published the same article if it generalized Islam instead of Christianity and paraphrased a verse from the Koran instead of the Bible?
For the record, being a Christian does not stand for being anti-gay; it stands for believing that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior and that salvation is found only by God’s love and mercy.
I’m not surprised by the generalization expressed in the article because many Christians have made the mistake of getting too involved in hot political debates such as abortion and gay rights, causing people to think those issues are all we stand for.
When it comes legalizing same-sex marriage, I whole-heartedly agree with second-year English student Daniel Chung who said, “If (same-sex marriage) is popular enough that people want it, that’s the way democracy works.” (“State lifts marriage ban,” News, May 16).
Hopefully this will open up some minds and show that there are Christians out there who don’t necessarily believe everything that a few fundamentalists may preach ““ just like there are many Muslims who don’t necessarily believe in what
Osama bin Laden stands for.
Cyrus Azima
Third-year, international development studies
Happy marriages can exist outside movies
Though I do agree with Kate Stanhope’s opinion that Hollywood places too much of an emphasis on “perfect” marriages (“Happy marriages only exist in movies,” A&E, May 14), I have to disagree with the jaded attitude she has about marriage itself.
However, I understand why somebody might have that attitude in the first place, since marriage is not given the high view it deserves in pop culture. Instead of portraying marriage as a significant, loving, lifelong commitment between two people, Hollywood’s view of marriage tends to mix trite sentimentality with almost disgusting opulence.
Why would a film company do that? In order to create a good story that can make a quick profit.
Though my view of Hollywood-manufactured marriages is cynical, my view of actual marriages is not. Instead, marriage signifies one of the most honorable things somebody can do. Giving one’s life up to dedicate it to somebody else cannot be summed up in 90 minutes with a big party and a “happily ever after.” Hollywood’s view of marriage tends to cater to people who only look for their own personal benefit while completely missing the point of a selfless commitment to a loving partnership.
In the end, I still have hope for the institution of marriage, however tritely it may be portrayed.
Ted Reinert
Fourth-year, civil engineering