May 25, 2002
|
Letters May 25, 2002 |
|
|
|
|
|
To the editor: I am puzzled that Dr. Hunsinger (letters Friday May 24th) would be surprised or offended by the response to his interpretation of G-6.0106b. In the world of public opinion, an interpretation that relies on a technical or hidden meaning to reverse the plain-sense meaning of a law will always lead to a large number of people wondering aloud about the fairness of the process. This is especially true when this technical interpretation emerges only after several years of debate and a ruling supporting the plain-sense interpretation by the highest court in the church. A large number of people over a long period of time felt that G-6.0106b prohibits the ordination of sexually active homosexuals. These people worked hard for its passage and its retention. They voted and revoted and revoted and now they are told them that their votes mean nothing. It was upheld by the court, and now they are told it means nothing. These people feel tricked, as if there is one set of rules for one side of the debate and another set of rules for the other. It is virtually impossible for a technical, academic argument to be effective in this setting. It just won't work.Faced with this almost inevitable response, Dr. Hunsinger goes on the offensive. "If the interpretation of G-6.0106b that is favored by the "old guard" should fail to be upheld, they will have no one to blame but themselves. Their unwise all-or-nothing strategy will have backfired because of their bungling -- much as Amendment A backfired for the other side. They would do well to examine the beam in their own eye before searching for the speck in another's." I realize that he is addressing those he perceives as his enemies and that he has been addressed in hurtful language. But we all need to examine the beams in all of our eyes. I agree that "both sides will desperately need to keep themselves from inflammatory rhetoric and reckless actions." Inflammatory rhetoric does not need to be coarse or unkind language (and I am sorry that Dr. Hunsinger has been subjected to both), but also includes language that disenfranchises the majority of an electorate. Reckless actions include those that subvert the fairness underlying the democratic process. We saw in the last Presidential election in Florida how the specter of unfairness has the potential to destroy a republican form of government. It can destroy our church too. In moral matters, how you win is more important than winning. I believe that a victory on Dr. Hunsinger's interpretation would be a pyrrhic one. I am not certain whether monogamous homosexuals should or should not be ordained, but I am certain that they should not be granted this privilege on a legal technicality. Harold A. Franch, M.D. Member, Peachtree Presbyterian Church Atlanta, GA Send
your letter to:
editor@presbyweb.com back to Presbyweb's Home Page Copyright (c) 2002 by the author or Presbyweb. All rights reserved
|