From the Loudoun Times-Mirror:
Russell Muños, a business management consultant with IBM, and Trey Sargent, a merchandising manager for Wegmans, live in Potomac Falls in a committed relationship. They remain vocal in their opposition to the proposed amendment’s limiting the definition of family and marriage to heterosexual couples.
“So many things are taken for granted when a family has the protection of a lawful society,” Muños said. “You can bring religion into it. You can separate religion out of it. Whatever. We are a society based on a rule of law.”
One of the issues Muños addresses is the basic premise of the supporters of the proposed amendment.
“No one has accepted an invitation to sit down and explain to me in a rational sense why my committed relationship threatens them, why my committed relationship is not welcome in a community by their standards,” Muños said.
Muños explained that he and Sargent share the parenting responsibilities for Trey’s 16-year-old daughter by a previous marriage.
“I am committed to her. Why shouldn’t I also have that acknowledged? If I’m committed within the context of a relationship and committed to the welfare of a child, why should anyone have a problem with that? Why shouldn’t I be able to have the full protection of my family or my children or my stepchild that everybody else has? If [the supporters] are so pro-family, how would they explain to my stepdaughter that her family has no value, or has lesser value?
Anybody out there have an answer?