Well, it’s really only one gay person and he’s only apologizing for ruining one heterosexual marriage, that of Minnesota Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch, who cheated on her husband with a married (male) lobbyist. Coincidentally, both Koch and her partner in adultery campaigned to amend the state’s constitution to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Still, the apology seems sincere to me:
An Open Apology to Amy Koch on Behalf of All Gay and Lesbian Minnesotans
Dear Ms. Koch,
On behalf of all gays and lesbians living in Minnesota, I would like to wholeheartedly apologize for our community’s successful efforts to threaten your traditional marriage. We are ashamed of ourselves for causing you to have what the media refers to as an “illicit affair” with your staffer, and we also extend our deepest apologies to him and to his wife. These recent events have made it quite clear that our gay and lesbian tactics have gone too far, affecting even the most respectful of our society.
We apologize that our selfish requests to marry those we love has cheapened and degraded traditional marriage so much that we caused you to stray from your own holy union for something more cheap and tawdry. And we are doubly remorseful in knowing that many will see this as a form of sexual harassment of a subordinate.
It is now clear to us that if we were not so self-focused and myopic, we would have been able to see that the time you wasted diligently writing legislation that would forever seal the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, could have been more usefully spent reshaping the legal definition of “adultery.”
Forgive us. As you know, we are not church-going people, so we are unable to fully appreciate that “gay marriage” is incompatible with Christian values, despite the fact that those values carry a biblical tradition of adultery such as yours. We applaud you for keeping that tradition going.
And finally, shame on us for thinking that marriage is a private affair, and that our marriage would have little impact on anyone’s family. We now see that marriage is more than that. It is an agreement with society. We should listen to the Minnesota Family Council when it tells us that marriage is about being public, which explains why marriages are public ceremonies. Never did we realize that it is exactly because of this societal agreement that the entire world is looking at you in shame and disappointment instead of minding its own business.
From the bottom of our hearts, we ask that you please accept our apology.
Thank you.
John Medeiros
Minneapolis MN
This article appears in Dec 22-28, 2011.
I don’t think the writer of this article knows what sarcasm is. This letter was taken out of context and is meant to make fun of her for being a hypocrite.
I don’t think the writer of the first comment knows what sarcasm is. The full letter was printed, so it can’t not be in context, and you’d have to be pretty dense (or rabidly anti-gay) not to realize it’s satire. I don’t know Dan Gibson, but I’m assuming he’s not that dense…
@shadow_man – The author himself is being sarcastic and knows full well the letter was written tongue-in-cheek. It only took me a few seconds to see from halfway across the country that this particular section of this online publication (to which I’ve had no previous exposure) itself is political humor. Rather amusing that I — with Asperger Syndrome and a difficulty in discerning humor at the best of times — could figure this on my own. Chill out, count to 10 and think before you post something next time. =) – Michael A. (Atlanta, GA)
Hetero marriages have a 50% failure rate. If anything else failed this often there would be a national recall. Me thinks that gay and lesbian marriage vows would probably reduce the current marriage failure rate substantially there by strengthing family values and reducing single parent homes. What business is it of the federal or state any gov’t to only provide licenses to some individuals but not others? Completely irrational to think that I as a hetero have any more or less rights than anyone else regardless of their sexual orientation………my libertarian take on a completely private matter that should not be decided by anyone other than the ones getting hitched. I withdrew from the Repub party because of bible thumpers and immigrant haters and yes if I find a demo candidate that is not interested in giving my money to people that don’t work as hard as I do……….I mean are less fortunate (because I make my money by what being lucky?) I would vote for them. That being said Mr. Obama is not that individual.