153 E. 53rd St.
New York, NY 10043

Mr. Sanford I. Weill,

I was disappointed to hear of your recent policy change to extend domestic partner benefits to same-sex partners. I’m very concerned where our nation is heading when we have companies the size of (_CO NAME HERE_) giving in to the homosexual agenda. I am very worried about the world my children and grandchildren will be growing up in.

Extending domestic partnership benefits to same-sex couples should be opposed because it:

An orientation toward homosexuality doesn’t make homosexual acts morally right any more than an orientation toward violence makes assault morally right. We can’t excuse criminals for committing acts that have been outlawed simply because they may have been more predisposed to commit a particular crime than other people. If certain conduct is harmful, it must be outlawed or restricted to discourage its incidence and to protect innocent people from its effects. In fact, good laws are designed not only to protect innocent people but also to protect the perpetrator from his own folly. Therefore, laws regarding homosexuality are no different. They are designed to discourage potentially harmful conduct in order to protect society-and those who may wish to engage in that conduct-from unwanted consequences.

Clearly such laws are not, as many in the homosexual community claim, forms of prejudice analogous to bigotry or racism. Racism wrongly discriminates against someone for benign characteristics they have-over which they have no control-such as skin color or gender. Laws governing sexual conduct rightly discriminate against someone for the harmful acts they perform-over which they do have control-such as rape, incest, pedophilia, etc. In fact, the comparison to race is completely invalid: sexual behavior is always a choice; race never is. You can meet many former “homosexuals”; you will never meet a former “African-American. Homosexuality is not a discrimination issue it is a moral issue.

Laws, of course, cannot prevent someone from having a particular skin color or “orientation” (if, in fact, we assume one really can be “born that way”). they can only prohibit unwanted behavior. But that’s the very purpose and scope of the law-to discriminate against behaviors, not persons. As a society, we rightfully discriminate against all kinds of harmful behaviors (e.g., drunk driving, theft, rape, etc.) regardless of the fact that some people may have been “born’ with a propensity to commit those crimes.

At this point, you may be thinking, ‘Nevertheless, we shouldn’t criminalize homosexuals acts because many people feel those acts are natural for them, and sex is a very vital and personal activity.” The problem with this objection is that feelings don’t determine right from wrong. There are many behaviors that may seem personal, natural, and right to some people-such as pedophilia and incest-but they are still morally wrong acts that carry with them devastating consequences. Our society, if it is to survive, cannot condone such activities.

Nevertheless, we are all personally responsible for our own behavior-sexual and nonsexual. The key point is that even if we are “born” heterosexual or homosexual, we are not required to engage in any particular form of sexual conduct. While we may have strong desires, our conduct is not mandatory. A choice must still be made.

Obviously, when you think about it, homosexuals are really no different from heterosexuals when it comes to making choices. We all sometimes make wrong moral choices. Some of us are stronger than other s, but all of us are tempted to make wrong choices because we’ve all been born with imperfections. In other words, we all have an inborn propensity toward selfishness that many of our Founding Fathers called “depravity.”

In light of all this I would like to challenge your company to not pick sides on this issue but to only be fair and tolerant of others views and beliefs. I would like to encourage you to support traditional family organizations such as Focus on The Family, American Family Association, and Family Research Council.