NOM BLOG

LTE: Rhode Island’s Elected Officials Gave in to Bullying

 

Marla Parker writes to The Westerly Sun:

The SunThis is in response to the April 22 letter to The Sun by Chris Irwin in which she charges the National Organization for Marriage and the Rev. Raymond Suriani with “bullying.” I ask “who’s bullying whom?”

It is Ms. Irwin’s baseless complaint to the IRS against the Rev. Suriani that constitutes bullying.

She contacted the IRS alleging that the Rev. Suriani engaged in political lobbying when he reminded his parishioners of church teaching on homosexuality and marriage, and encouraged them to exercise their right as American citizens by contacting their senator, whose duty is to represent them and their views at the Statehouse.

This harassment leveled against the Rev. Suriani is a typical intimidation tactic designed to silence all those who disagree with the gay agenda, and it is just the tip of the iceberg. In Sweden and Canada, ministers were jailed for quoting from the Bible and preaching against homosexual behavior once marriage was redefined there.

The redefinition of marriage impacts personal lives well beyond same-sex couples. One’s choice of a partner does not concern me, but when they come to our legislatures and courts and force the rest of us to recognize and accept their relationship as identical to that of a man and a woman, it affects everyone.

7 Comments

  1. Ken
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    The headline is incorrect. It should read, "Rhode Island’s Elected Officials Gave in to Intimidation."

    "Bullying" is directional, "intimidation" is not. Only the more powerful can bully the less powerful, but intimidation can go either way. You aren't getting sympathy from fence sitters when you say "bullying," because to them it would mean that you are either playing the victim or singing your swan song.

    The word "intimidation" is not only correct, it would evoke more sympathy for your cause.

  2. Posted May 13, 2013 at 10:04 am | Permalink

    The words, "who cares" come to mind.

  3. Ken
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

    @Seth, that's why I like the choice of "bullying." It is a confession of weakness and defeat.

  4. Ash
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 11:48 pm | Permalink

    "One’s choice of a partner does not concern me, but when they come to our legislatures and courts and force the rest of us to recognize and accept their relationship as identical to that of a man and a woman, it affects everyone."

    Well stated.

  5. Ken
    Posted May 14, 2013 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

    @Ash

    It doesn't affect people who just ignore it and go on with their lives.

  6. Forrest
    Posted May 14, 2013 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

    Taking time honored and valued institutions and redefining them on the emotional tantrums of a small and dusgruntled yet effective minority hurts everyone.

  7. Ken
    Posted May 15, 2013 at 1:31 am | Permalink

    @Forrest

    Like taking time-honored and valued institutions, such as the God-given divine right of King George to rule, and redefining them on the emotional tantrums of a small and disgruntled yet effective group of colonists hurts everyone.

    I think not. The institutions you are trying to protect aren't nearly as fragile as you think.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.