Letter to the Editor: Parks Board Made Right Choice on Natatorium Rates
The following was submitted by Pastor Chris McCombs of Broadman Baptist Church.
Natatorium Rate Structure Debate proves Cuyahoga Falls is a Great City with Great People despite differing opinions:
For months Cuyahoga Falls discussed the sacred, constitutional, historic, and financial aspects of marriage pertaining to the Natatorium rate structure. The media coverage, overall, was slanted toward the “gay” marriage position, so please consider another perspective.
The citizens who were involved in this process represented our community well. Those supporting traditional marriage argued for the sacred and Constitutional definition of marriage, between one man and one woman, while remaining compassionate and considerate toward differing views. Proponents of “gay” marriage attempted to suppress the value of traditional marriage, with little to no regard for those who espouse such a position.
One would think the “gay” marriage proponents would reciprocate the tenets of their own arguments of equality, tolerance and consideration. But instead, they attempted to impose “gay” marriage upon our community.
This truly proved to be a complex problem with no easy solution. However, a valiant attempt was made to solve this problem with several pastors and city council members providing the Park and Recreation Board with a possible solution. This proposal resolved the Sacred, Constitutional, and Social elements, but not the financials. It maintained the traditional definition of marriage, Biblically and constitutionally, while resolving the social issue by adding a second adult rate, other than spouse, to be included in the rate structure.
The one downfall of this proposal was that it required allocating approximately $50,000 a year, indefinitely. This proposal was considered and moved upon as a motion, twice. Ultimately the Park and Recreation Board did not pass this motion, but made a fiscally responsible decision, keeping the rate structure the same. Regardless of whether we agree or disagree with the decision, we should all be proud of the efforts everyone put into this from the community and board. Hopefully we can now move forward supporting this decision as being made in the best interest of our community.
Pastor Chris McCombs
Broadman Baptist Church
Wendy Woodburn-Ing
9:52 am on Monday, May 21, 2012
"One would think the “gay” marriage proponents would reciprocate the tenets of their own arguments of equality, tolerance and consideration. But instead, they attempted to impose “gay” marriage upon our community. "
No, I would never force anyone to marry someone of the same gender. But then again I would never force my personal or religious ideas about marriage on anyone else.
bill brown
12:16 pm on Monday, May 21, 2012
Wendy, you have hit it right on the nose!
Concerned taxpayer
12:49 pm on Monday, May 21, 2012
What is scary is how involved the pastors and religion were in this matter before the Parks Board. They were even involved in drafting the "compromise" that failed. One of the Parks Board members was speaking about the bible and marriage in voting against giving the discount. Hasn't the Parks Board ever heard of separation of church and state? This is a government matter not a church matter.
Larry Kinnan
4:30 pm on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Your interpretation of separation of church and state is incorrect. The Constitution of the United States clearly states the following in Amendment 1:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It also prohibits "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government, for redress of grievances".
The original separation statement came from a letter written by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state". Separation of church and state was intended to prevent the government from forcing a state run and endorsed religion. It was not intended to remove religion from the public square as you indicate.
Clearly Pastor Chris is exercising his First Amendment rights and to say this is hateful and/or intolerant is not correct and frankly intolerant itself. Pastor Chris and others (myself included) became involved after the Park and Rec board voted on the motion put forth by Mr. Gorbach which was also voted down 3-2. This was a very good thing since as written the Gorbach motion, if passed, would have placed the city in legal jeopardy since it was in conflict with the definition of marriage as stated in the State of Ohio Constitution.
Kate Bigam
1:50 pm on Monday, May 21, 2012
I'm so tired of listening to this bigoted man & his equally bigoted (or, at best, tragically misguided) followers espouse hateful views while hiding behind a guise of "faith." There's nothing even remotely resembling "love thy neighbor" in this pastor's intolerance. Man of God, my foot.
Fortunately, I believe Pastor McCombs is in the (annoyingly vocal) minority - and that the Parks & Rec Board is, as well. How disappointing to be represented by a mayor who is widely known to be homophobic and by city officials who are too afraid to contradict him.
Even more fortunately, two new gyms are going up in the area, so there is ample opportunity for civil rights-minded Fallsites to avoid the Natatorium & get their workouts elsewhere. I am so sorry to see that it's come down to that.
Earl Elevant
3:15 pm on Monday, May 21, 2012
They're bigoted about your beliefs, you're bigoted about theirs.
So what? Your bigotry makes you no better than them, no matter how you try and spin it.
Wanda Minor
11:35 pm on Tuesday, May 22, 2012
I don't think it works this way Earl. When bigotry slaps you in the face, you have to respond. Whose beliefs were being infringed on here? Any other out of state marriage license would be honored at the Nat. BUT someone's religious bigoted beliefs say that this particular, perfectly legal, out of state marriage is not valid.
Kate isn't the one forcing "beliefs" into policy. If there is a marriage rate, the May's qualify. Kate's "belief" of "live and let live" i.e MYOB doesn't meet the definition of bigotry. McCombs "belief" of "live the way I interpret the bible" does. In case you disagree, here's the Merriam-Webster Definition of a bigot:
Bigot~ a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
Earl Elevant
3:24 am on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
"Kate isn't the one forcing "beliefs" into policy."
She's trying to. That's what this whole thing is about--changing policies from something Kate doesn't like to something Kate does like, but others don't.
Kate is simply on one side of an argument. She isn't any more correct than anyone else, yet calls others bigoted when she, herself, is bigoted.
Let's break it down using your own definition:
"Bigot~ a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; "
Kate is intolerant toward any belief other than her own. Religion is wrong, pastors and ministers are wrong, and everyone with a belief that doesn't fit with her beliefs is wrong.
"especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."
Like her constant bashing of religious folks? She is intolerant toward their beliefs and treats them with hatred.
Thanks for the definition to help more clearly define her bigotry. Of course, it's not just her bigotry, but she's not the innocent do-gooder she tries to portray herself as. She is just as bigoted as everyone else, as you've shown here. As usually happens, the person calling others names and throwing out accusations is the person most guilty.
MaryAnne Kolton
5:02 pm on Friday, July 6, 2012
So happy to hear a like-minded voice here. As the mother of a beautiful, intelligent, independent, caring, loving and compassionate Lesbian daughter and happy "adopted" mother of my daughter's wonderful partner, I will never be heard here. So I'm saving my voice to tell them both how much I love them and how proud I am of the truly loving relationship they have created. I AM very glad they don't live in this town where prejudice of all kinds is the norm and sanctioned by the people and the city government. . .
Wendy Woodburn-Ing
5:04 pm on Monday, May 21, 2012
I'm not a bigot. I don't care who you marry or do not marry. My beliefs are open and tolerant enough to allow my fellow human beings to decide for themselves who they want to marry. A bigot is someone so zealous in their beliefs that they don't allow others to do what they believe is right, because the bigot believes only he is right.
Mike Penta
5:08 pm on Monday, May 21, 2012
This letter-to-the-editor was not well thought out, which somewhat surprises me considering McCombs is someone who, instead of listening to the concerns of others, spends his time thinking about ways to prove them wrong. I'm also confused as to how he can praise the Park Board for shooting down a compromise that he himself agreed to. It seems like he just enjoys being in the spotlight. It wouldn't surprise me if he shows up to the next Park Board meeting to insist Water Works make changes to its rate structure to be more discriminatory. There was a great letter to the editor in the Beacon recently which very accurately describes how McCombs operates: http://www.ohio.com/editorial/vop/letters-to-the-editor-may-20-1.308201
Pastor Chris
9:04 pm on Monday, May 21, 2012
Thanks John for posting. I think my post and the remarks being made toward me and my remarks prove my point of how the tenets of tolerance and acceptance are not equally applied. I am not making personal remarks but am simply standing up for what I believe is best for our community. I believe proponents of "gay" marriage are doing likewise. It is sad to see such negativity, anger and intolerance toward people of faith being expressed. I understand the emotional connection of this, as it hits home for many, for we all know someone who has chosen a homosexual lifestyle. But this does not mean we do away with the social value of traditional marriage. My article was written to simply show a differing opinion and move all of us forward. I am not in the minority, but even if I were, I would hope you would welcome my comments as much as we welcomed differing views throughout this discussion. Overall, I am proud of the community, both sides that discussed this civilly. I unashamedly promote the teachings of the Bible and Jesus about marriage and I thank the many other pastors and congregations who stood up for marriage. As for the Natatorium, even though the proposal that was fair failed, I am still big enough to support the legal decision the board made. This was a big decision, I am fine with the board not passing the proposal made by several of us involved, I hope we all can come together with the board's decision for the good of our community.
Wanda Minor
11:12 pm on Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Thanks Chris for posting. I think your post and the remarks being made toward you and your remarks prove your point of how the tenets of tolerance and acceptance are not equally applied. I am not making personal remarks but am simply standing up for what I believe is best for our community. I believe proponents of religious doctrine are doing likewise. It is sad to see such negativity, anger and intolerance toward any people being expressed. I understand the emotional connection of this, as it hits home for many, for we all know someone who has chosen a religious lifestyle. But this does not mean we do away with the social value of the Golden Rule. Your article was written to simply show a self righteous opinion and move all of us backward. You are in the minority. Three members of an appointed park board do not make for a majority of Cuyahoga Falls. So even though we’ll probably never know what a majority of Cuyahoga Falls residents think about this issue, I would hope you would welcome my comments as much as I welcomed differing views throughout this discussion. Overall, I am disappointed in the park board and the so-called good Christians that couldn’t discuss this rationally. Picking and choosing which bible verses are valid today and which ones are antiquated and no longer to be followed is not dealing with the issue rationally as the Ohio.com letter to the editor, cited above, points out.
Matt Sargent
11:05 pm on Monday, May 21, 2012
"while remaining compassionate and considerate toward differing views"
-Many people did this, but there were many that posted hateful messages toward homosexuality.
"Proponents of “gay” marriage attempted to suppress the value of traditional marriage,"
-Look at the divorce rates in this country. I highly doubt that proponents of gay marriage are the only ones suppressing the "value" of traditional marriage.
"One would think the “gay” marriage proponents would reciprocate the tenets of their own arguments of equality, tolerance and consideration. But instead, they attempted to impose “gay” marriage upon our community. "
-They do reciprocate, they have no problem with "straight" people getting married. They aren't even asking for homosexual unions to happen in the Falls, only that they can get the spousal rate at the Nat.
"It maintained the traditional definition of marriage, Biblically and constitutionally"
-I was unaware the Nat was a Christian organization.
Wanda Minor
11:36 pm on Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Chris-
Is your next move to ask planning & zoning board to rezone the other side of State Road for a public stoning arena? What about enslaving those Canadians? I unashamedly promote the teachings of minding your own business, “cause if you mind your business, you won’t be minding mine.”~ Hank Williams.
I’m also disappointed in the many other pastors and congregations who stood up for straight marriage only. As for the Natatorium, even though the proposal that was fair failed, (lol, I still can’t believe you said that and I don’t have to change this), it’s no sweat off my back (pardon the pun).I am still smart enough to support the YMCA like I always have. This was a big decision; I am disappointed with the board not passing the proposal made. If the sanctity of marriage is important to you, why don’t you clean up your own back yard before you worry so much about the entire city? Excommunicate your divorced and deflowered congregation members and flog the disobedient teens before they get loose. When your “majority” sees that God’s love goes beyond your man made views of right and wrong, I hope we all can come together with a new board's decision for the good of our community.
John McMillan
1:02 am on Sunday, August 5, 2012
LOL hear hear Miss Wanda!!! Loved your post...very entertaining, as well as right on the money!!!!