Court ruling on gay marriage will stir social strife
Published November 25, 2003
Re: The right to marry, editorial, Nov. 21.
Your stance on this issue is disturbing and unacceptable. Contrary to your vain edict that this nation is "on the cusp of fully accepting gay families," such an inflammatory posture only serves to raise the already high level of social discord in this country.
On the weakness (not the strength) of four judges in Massachusetts, once again we find the fearsome pattern from our courts all too often usurping the obligations of our proper democratic legislators. Your editorial failed to recognize this critical point! In effect, they were acting in very presumptive and arrogant ways. Seemingly, editorial thinkers are also taken in by such an oblique rationale!
The Wall Street Journal had a much more acceptable take on all of this last week: Yet another social war has been set in motion for the next 30 years! When the fighting starts, let's all be clear about who fired the first shot!
-- R.G. Pinette, Homosassa
Gays, lesbians deserve legal protection
Re: Gay Marriage.
We cringe every time we hear people say that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Who are they kidding? Some 52 percent of marriages end in divorce and many marriage ceremonies are civil, not religious. The marriage reality shows are the biggest testament to what heterosexual marriage has truly become: disposable.
Meanwhile, we have been together for more than 17 years. We are committed to each other, and have been through better or worse, much of the latter due to warped heterosexual opinion of gays and lesbians. Why is gay marriage such a threat? If we get married does that mean straight people are less married? Ridiculous!
Would we get married if we could? Well, we wouldn't do it just to have our relationship validated by society. However, it would be nice to help make health care decisions for each other, visit in the hospital and not have to worry about biological family "stealing" property when one partner dies. There are a host of other protections that our heterosexual counterparts take for granted.
Gays and lesbians deserve the legal protection of marriage because we have had to work harder and fight more for our relationships.
-- Richard Harland and Anthony Bennett, St. Petersburg
Court undermined family structure
Re: Gay marriage ruling.
Being 55 years old now, I remember that the feminist movement of the 1960s was heavily infiltrated with lesbians who vowed to end the institution of marriage, which they viewed as a form of slavery. (Even Betty Friedan complained of them - that this was not the goal of her feminist philosophy.) Their views were quite explicit, and within their literature, quite openly expressed. Marriage must be destroyed. At that time, anyone who pointed to these articles (at the time they were called rantings), was ridiculed for taking them seriously. No such thing could ever happen. Ever.
Today, the institution of marriage, once a clearly defined concept, is becoming less and less defined. If the trend continues, it will eventually be absorbed into contract law, and lose its distinctive nature and purpose. When that happens, its central function, that of child-rearing, will also be lost, diffused into the worlds of day care and public education.
Despite all the variations on the family theme that have been held up as examples of family amorphism, it remains clear to me that the core biological and social definition of family still consists of a father and mother of their children. While certain degrees of flexibility are tolerable, too much drift, especially in a complex, powerful society, exposes the family to dissolution under judicial fiat.
Families are already disintegrating under the stresses of divorce, cohabitation, lax parenting - and the economic stresses of the two-income game - as well as the social stresses of near-pornographic prime-time TV entertainment and advertising.
The Massachusetts court has not shored up this collapsing structure, but further undermined it, not clarified, but obscured its definition.
If there is any good to come of this, it may be in the form of a constitutional amendment that will remove from the hands of ultra-liberal interpreters of the law any route between the intent of the founders and the whim of the bohemian activists.
An amendment is by no means certain and certainly is not imminent. But once the public becomes galvanized on this issue, the controversy will be settled by them, not by four judges.
-- Robert Arvay, Tampa
Celebrating all marriages
Re: The right to marry.
I applaud your editorial on the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in favor of same-sex marriage. My denomination, the Unitarian Universalist Association, has a long-standing and deeply held religious commitment to support full equality for bisexual, gay, lesbian and transgender people. Last week's ruling is a significant step forward in guaranteeing that the rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples in Massachusetts are also available to its bisexual, gay, lesbian and transgender citizens. The ruling promotes civil marriage, the hope of long-term commitment and equal protection under the law. While we are delighted to marry loving couples, certainly, not all religions have to do so.
Progress on civil rights is rarely easy and comfortable. Cultural change, particularly in relation to bigotry and oppression, is brought about through intentional engagement with issues, mutual dialogue and willingness to listen. For over 25 years, Unitarian Universalist ministers and clergy from other denominations have been conducting weddings for same-sex couples. We keep records, we hand out wedding certificates. Even though we know the state does not recognize these marriages, we celebrate them, because we know it is the right thing to do.
I hope that one day, citizens of Florida will decide it is time for the state to celebrate and honor such unions as well as affirm gay and lesbian parents adopting children and not hinder family-making.
I am not gay, but I hope to be a person of good will, seeking to celebrate mature, committed love where it is to be found. After all, what greater thing is there than people who love each other, and choose to commit their life to one another? Marriage ought to be available to consenting adults who are willing to make a public commitment of what they found inwardly.
-- The Rev. Abhi Janamanchi, Unitarian Universalists of Clearwater
Could three be a marriage?
Re: The right to marry.
Your point, that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples denies them equal protection under the law, does have merit. That being so, you had best be prepared to support three or more people wanting to marry each other. Allowing same-sex marriages while disallowing polygamous marriages would still result in denying people equal protection under the law.
If you decide to change the current rules of marriage to allow religiously unrecognized marriages, you must allow other marriages that are similarly unrecognized. That being said, marriage would then be nothing more than a business arrangement. The number of partners could not be legally bound.
-- Andrew J. Stier, Palm Harbor
It's not the court's business
So, who cares what the court says about gay unions? It's all well and good if the courts wish to support the idea of the committed relationship of two people and that they authorize the civil authority to carry out their paperwork nuptials. But it's none of the court's business. While the civil authority in most nations has taken it upon itself to be the font of all unions, it is still and always was a sacramental rite between two people and God.
I am proud to have been able to perform this sacrament between two men, two women and a man and a woman. I will continue to serve God and humanity in this capacity without regard to the machinations of courts and constitutional fine tuning.
If there was ever a church-state issue, it is this. God gave humanity the rite of the committed union and has perpetuated it in our religious traditions. Next they'll want to tell me whether or not I can use wine in the Holy Communion service. I appreciate the court recognizing rights that already exist in the eternal universe, but I and many other clergy are out there blessing unions regardless.
-- The Rev. Richard L. Mence, Clearwater
Write about real misery
Re: Where did Gooden's millions go? Nov. 16.
Researcher John Martin and reporter Jeff Testerman produced a lengthy, front-page story airing the woes of a famous baseball player with a career any athlete would envy. His problem and misery? He can't get along on a humongous salary.
A very nice job they did in writing this story. However, it's one that has been told before with some frequency. A more welcome effort would be if they wrote as much on how a family of seven or more can get along with a breadwinner in a career paying only minimum salary, or less, and also feeling the sting of misery.
The above athlete and worker have a common thread running through their lives. They're both miserable. However the first has the advantage because he can be more selective as to the type of misery he lives with. He's already at the end of his rainbow and the pot of gold is still there for him. In the other career, misery is probably a predominant factor.
If your staffers were looking for misery to write about they should look for it where it really exists and write about it so someone caring might be able to pick up on it and do something. I'm sure the letters of sorrow this troubled athlete receives will be few.
-- Hartley Steeves, Tampa
Haiti desperately needs deliverance
Re: Black America ignores Haiti's crisis, Nov. 18.
Having recently visited Cap-Haitien, Haiti, I can only hope that Raoul Peck's call to action has the desired effect. While I saw none of the political repression to which he refers, the appalling living conditions bear witness to a nation desperately in need of deliverance.
It appeared that the Haitians don't live so much as they exist. People and goats wandered the runway at Cap-Haitien International. Airport workers were happy to receive a dollar in compensation for unloading our plane. Children in the airport parking lot begged for money from travelers.
The streets of Cap-Haitien are largely unpaved, and had no traffic controls or street signs. The streets were an endless succession of potholes and craters and were choked with vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles and the occasional mongrel dog. Many of the people I saw appeared to have nowhere to go, no purpose of any kind.
Garbage was everywhere, and it was not uncommon to see pigs or humans rooting through the stuff, looking for anything edible or of value. Stripped cars littered the streets; sometimes only the frame remained.
Many of the "houses" were simple cinder block sheds with corrugated metal roofs, perhaps 10 by 20 feet. Shacks erected on the river were even worse, rude contraptions of rusty, corrugated metal which defy description.
Haiti is a breathtaking country, with mountains and steep hills rising up from the ocean in many places. But such beauty was tainted by the crushing poverty and pervading sense of hopelessness among the Haitian people.
-- Durk A. Gescheidle, Dunedin
Share your opinions
We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to 727 893-8675 or by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com (no attachments, please).
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.
