|
|
|
ACTION ALERT: We are forwarding these letters to the editor of the NYTimes to encourage you to write letters to your local papers and asking that you give your families and friends copies of the recent editorials and some of the article that we have provided and you will find on our website, especially the February 20th article by Walter Cronkite: "Gay Marriage Shouldn’t Be Political Issue. John Crowell CampbellGay Marriage, the Constitution and Culture Wars TEN LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NYTimes from the Web, February 26, 2004 To the Editor: Re "Bush Backs Ban in Constitution on Gay Marriage" (front page, Feb. 25): The sanctity of marriage doesn't depend on keeping same-sex individuals from calling their union a marriage; the sanctity of marriage depends on what individuals put into it. Why are we attacking the sanctity of our Constitution with an amendment that would prevent individuals who wish to commit to each other through marriage from doing so? We need to remember that we have a separation of church and state and that "marriage," as a right allowed to all under the Constitution, may be different from "marriage" as performed by a church. KATHY WALCH,.Madison, Wis., Feb. 25, 2004 To the Editor: Re "Bush Backs Ban in Constitution on Gay Marriage" (front page, Feb. 25): My partner and I go through life loving, respecting and caring for each other, and we try to do the same with every other person whose path we come across. That is also our legacy to Anna, our daughter. In the six years of our committed relationship, we have never been told by anybody that our love and commitment are different from that of heterosexual couples. Until this week. Now I can't help but feeling worried, pained, upset and alarmed. MARIA MINGUEZ, Fremont, Calif., Feb. 25, 2004 To the Editor: President Bush's proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (front page, Feb. 25) is the step of a courageous politician. Too many of our elected officials are afraid of alienating voters on this issue. The president's stand is morally correct and right. Gays can call their union by any other name. But no! They want it to be called marriage. Marriage is a contract, thousands of years old. It is meant to recognize the contract between a man and a woman. Gays can have their legally recognized commitments and unions. But they must go by another name. The term "marriage" is taken by heterosexuals. Don't rewrite the dictionary, the Bible or ancient laws of mankind. MIKE GUTIERREZ, New York, Feb. 25, 2004 To the Editor: President Bush's support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is a shrewd political move (front page, Feb. 25). In one stroke, Mr. Bush has shored up his extreme right wing and unleashed a powerful culture war calculated to divide and dispirit his opponents. And true to form, he once again abandons his states' rights principles and exploits the basest, most divisive elements of American culture at the expense of tolerance, compassion and a sense of national community. This is a skillful and shameful harbinger of the nasty general election campaign that is to come. MARK L. MOSLEY, Berkeley, Calif., Feb. 25, 2004 To the Editor: Re "Bush Backs Ban in Constitution on Gay Marriage" (front page, Feb. 25): The proposed amendment would do grave harm to many and nothing to protect marriage. The amendment would not only forbid gay marriage but would deny its "legal incidents." That could include health benefits, hospital visitation, inheritance, child custody and much more. In more than 20 years of pastoral ministry, I have seen many threats to marriage, but these threats haven't come from gay men and lesbians. I'm certain that a survey of pastors, priests and rabbis would confirm that adultery, abuse and addictions are far more destructive. Economic hardship could be added to the list. There are many people of faith whose voices haven't been heard in this debate. Now is the time for more of us to speak. (Rev.) BARBARA K. LUNDBLAD, New York, Feb. 25, 2004 To the Editor: Re "Bush Backs Ban in Constitution on Gay Marriage" (front page, Feb. 25): Perhaps all marriages should first be civil unions, and then if the couple wishes to have their "marriage" blessed, they can go to their church, temple or mosque of choice. LAURENT A. FISHER, New York, Feb. 25, 2004 To the Editor: President Bush opposes gay marriage (front page, Feb. 25). John Kerry opposes gay marriage. I oppose gay marriage. The majority of Americans oppose gay marriage. Gay marriage is wrong and will be destructive to our society. Most people can look at nature to figure this out. Gay marriage would threaten the domestic tranquillity, general welfare and be a injustice to a large majority of "we the people." Gays should have a right to civil unions, but not marriage. JAY CARLSON, Fayetteville, N.C., Feb. 25, 2004 To the Editor: Regarding a proposed amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage, you write that "President Bush proposes to radically rewrite the Constitution" (editorial, Feb. 24). Since when is adding an amendment radically rewriting the Constitution? And what is "mean-spirited" about reaffirming the definition of "marriage," an institution that has formed an essential part of human society for centuries? Once you tamper with the definition of "marriage," any combination of members can constitute a marriage, and who is to say it can't? How exactly will one argue against this? Also, if the definition of marriage changes according to society's fluctuating views, what is to keep society from redefining other words, like "slavery" or "religion"? Just because we all agree on what these words mean now doesn't mean that they cannot be redefined to conform to one particular group's agenda. It's not about gay rights but about tampering with established definitions in law. MARY DEL RIO, Falls Church, Va., Feb. 25, 2004 To the Editor: Re "Putting Bias in the Constitution" (editorial, Feb. 25): President Bush, like millions of his fellow Americans, is opposed to legally changing the definition of marriage. Unlike his executive counterpart in San Francisco, who is breaking his oath of office, Mr. Bush is appealing to the rule of law and allowing the people of the United States to have a say. If a majority wants to make marriage gender-neutral, then Mr. Bush will be voted out. Representatives in Congress and the state legislatures can vote down the amendment, and the issue will be settled. If a majority wants to keep marriage as it has been throughout the ages, Mr. Bush will be re-elected. The members of Congress and the legislatures should follow the will of the majorities of their constituencies and the amendment should pass. Why is this editorial page against the grand workings of democracy all of a sudden? Judges and maverick executives are making their own law in the land. It is about time to get the legislative branch to do its job! CHRISTIAN ELLISON, Westfield, N.J., Feb. 25, 2004 To the Editor: Re "Keeping Faith With His Base" (news analysis, front page, Feb. 25): While I understand the political calculus that would lead the anonymous House Republican leadership aide quoted to say that a gay marriage ban "gets you . . . churchgoing Democrats," it is profoundly insulting on a more personal level. As a "churchgoing Democrat," I chafe at the implicit attempt of this person to associate me with supporters of this amendment. From the perspective of my faith, I see this proposed amendment as a convergence between blatant hatred and half-considered theology. Please spare "churchgoing Democrats" from being tarred with this brush! BRIAN CUBBAGE, Louisville, Ky., Feb. 25, 2004
|
Send mail to
email@gaypasg.org with questions or comments about this web site.
|