July 09, 2020

Citizen’s veto divisive

I think it’s worth pointing out that there are some Christian, active church-going folk who support the governor’s bill to extend protections based on sexual orientation. I am one of many individuals that consider themselves Christian and am an active church-going individual and I support the law as is – without going to referendum.

Sending this bill to a referendum will only give those so inclined, the opportunity to promote false claims, say slanderous things, and act in a very un-Christian like manner while trying to divide the state into left and right. As it is, we will probably be subjected to the Christian Civic Leagues’ efforts to once again spew hatred all over the state by means of a citizen vetoing process.

I encourage all citizens to refuse CCL’s efforts and live life happily ever after because giving sexual orientation protected status will not affect you unless of course you want to be free to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation.

I also find it fascinating that the strongest opposition to the bill appeared to come from those who consider themselves “religious.” When of all the protections we currently enjoy, religion is the only one that is really a choice, just as sexual orientation is often seen as a “choice” by those who would oppose a bill like LD 1196. Your race, your gender, your ethnicity; those are all things you have no control over and deserve protected status.

Since I don’t see anyone being discriminated against because of their religion, and, it is a choice that one is free to make, it may be time to introduce LD 1197, a federal bill to remove religion from the list of otherwise inherent protections.

After all, if I shut my eyes to the reality, it hasn’t really been an issue since the Revolutionary War.

Sandra Wilborn


Have feedback? Want to know more? Send us ideas for follow-up stories.

comments for this post are closed

You may also like