Dear Sir,

I was most disappointed with the opinion dated June 2, 2017 regarding the Preserve Marriage demonstration recently held on the grounds of the House of Parliament, where the support for not redefining marriage received huge backing. In terms of numbers, that was truly significant. What was most striking was the unfair bias in which the editorial was written.

I am most grateful for the way in which my letters have been received by your publication and published much to my satisfaction, given it is not my right to expect that everything I write has to be printed and published for public consideration. I have the found The Royal Gazette commendable in its attempts to be fair to all those that use the Letters to the Editor platform and face the music as it comes, good or bad.

It is with this in mind that I struggle with one errant poster and its objectionable message becoming the lightning rod for highlight and receiving a sensational headline replete with a large, revolting picture. This lone individual with a self-made poster now becomes the narrative and the way in which this peaceful and lawful protest should be judged.

This is exactly the kind of thing Preserve Marriage wanted to avoid; now comes the intolerance refrain that seems to apply only to one side when reasonable objection is given to a revision of long-held morality in a good society.

In our democracy, we have the right to take strongly held views and positions with great passion and vigour without the name calling by those who disagree. This should apply to both sides of the same-gender marriage issue without any unpleasant and hostile attitudes in play that denigrate us all. The editorial said nothing about the heckling and loud behaviour of the Rainbow Alliance at all; in fact, they wait for Preserve Marriage to protest and show up apparently to simply agitate and obstruct Preserve Marriage’s goals. Yes, it is their right to show up, but what is in question is the intent and spirit.

The opinion was grossly unfair and did not represent what was truly a great show of support for the majority view; to use the poster as a spoiler is unfortunate for a much worthier intended goal. With that said, was it not his right to display his disagreement? Notwithstanding the very repugnant sentiment.

Words have evolved to castigate the heterosexual majority group of being homophobic, driven by homophobia and of being hateful for standing for what will always be right for humanity.

The straight citizens that hold to what has been on the right side of history and the family unit is being altered to be defined as whatever we choose in the serial madness of liberal thought running amok in our postmodern world.

This issue will never go away as we retain God and his Word; that will not change unless we go down the road where values once sacred are simply dismissed. The United States now finds itself in this amoral abyss.

We are not hateful or intolerant as the opinion so matter-of-factly stated. Admittedly, some attitudes and actions can always improve. Surely we do not believe that all in the LGBTQ community wear all the white hats and those in the Preserve Marriage group wear all the black hats.

We need to be fair and rational to both sides; after all, no one has the monopoly on bad behaviour to the exclusion of all others. In the end, we are fellow citizens on this planet with every right to be civil and decent when we stridently disagree.

This is not to be seen as Preserve Marriage being mortally wounded and demoralised, but just to be given the same respect and sympathy that the Rainbow Alliance group enjoys with a stout application of fairness.

WAYNE B SCOTT

Editor’s note: Sir, there may not have been a need for such an editorial had Preserve Marriage effected due diligence and, having courted public attention in the most public place in Bermuda, then scoured the ground with as few as ten of the 3,000 gathered to ensure that no one was going off-message to stain the wider effort.