Traditional marriage helped America succeed

Re: Taking gay rights personally, by Bill Maxwell.

In his Feb. 15 column supporting same-sex marriages, Bill Maxwell writes that those opposing them are homophobes driven by "raw hatred, ignorance, illogical fear and, alas, crass election-year politics." The arguments opposing same-sex marriages are more elegant than that.

There is a distinctly American culture that has produced an orderly society, arguably the most successful in history.

A great measure of our success can be attributed to the traditional concept of marriage. It implies the mutual commitment of a man and a woman to support each other, socially, emotionally and financially.

That commitment is reinforced by the addition of children, obliging parents to protect them and prepare them for entry into American society as productive citizens.

The traditional family has provided our culture social stability during times of traumatic change. Beyond anecdotal evidence, there are no extant data showing that role simulation and surrogate parenting can serve as well.

Redefining the concept of marriage constitutes a significant cultural change with unpredictable consequences. The free-love generation of the '60s would have scoffed at the idea that their "if it feels good do it" philosophy would bring about as many social ills as it has.

Cultural change should occur slowly, not by legal fiat and certainly not when a minority that by its very gender orientation cannot comprehend the nature of the institution they want to change.

The gay left has spoken. The rest of us should get off the sidelines.

We should end intolerance

Re: Taking gay rights personally.

Thank you, Bill Maxwell, once more, for making so much sense as you present your humane values. Teaching tolerance must be part of the curriculum in our educational system in order to sever the rusty chain of subtle and blatant intolerance. (I, too, am heterosexual.)

An abnormal lifestyle

Re: Taking gay rights personally, by Bill Maxwell.

I am so sorry to hear of the unconscionable treatment of Maxwell's friend so many years ago. How fortunate and admirable that he was able to save his friend from harm and remain safe as well.

I agree with Maxwell's cousin that "people should just leave other people alone." However, I see a big difference between leaving other people alone and legitimizing the gay lifestyle, which is abnormal behavior.

Gay marriages and gay civil unions should not be sanctioned or granted rights preserved for heterosexual marriages. Unfortunately, friendship and familial bonds sometimes cloud our ability or willingness to acknowledge an abnormal lifestyle.

I applaud President Bush for his character of conviction in defending the marital state exclusively as a heterosexual union.

I wish Bill Maxwell, his family and friends well.

Fighting for what's right

Re: Taking gay rights personally.

This is one of the best articles ever written by Bill Maxwell. All gay people should have a friend like him. It was really brave of him to put his life on the line to prevent his friend from being hurt, even killed.

Keep on fighting for what's right, Mr. Maxwell! God bless you.

An illogical gender requirement

Thank you for Robyn Blumner's Feb. 15 column What happened to live and let live? While reading it, I was struck by the fact that civil marriage is the only legal contract that has a gender requirement.

Can you imagine Florida requiring that women-owned businesses must have a male CEO in order to incorporate? After 150 years of women's struggle for equality, that would be seen to be blatant discrimination.

Yet saying that two women (or two men) can't establish a civil contract to conjoin their assets in a civil partnership called marriage is not seen as discrimination but rather as a threat to the validity of the civil contract itself.

There's a failure of logic here. Actually, there's a conflation of religiosity and patriotism. People opposing civil marriage for same sex couples on a moral ground confuse the state's civil contract as being spiritually binding - a concept that is alien to our nation's laws and to our constitutional understanding of equality.

Finding common ground

Re: State ban on gay marriage being tested, Feb. 19.

Thank you for Stephen Nohlgren's comprehensive article related to gay marriage. As one person who was interviewed by this reporter, I can state that he was fair in his interviewing and accurate in his reporting. As a subscriber to the Times, I am pleased when issues that are close to my heart and reflective of my life are included. I believe that a newspaper that serves diverse communities needs to present articles on varied topics that reflect the lives of its readers. The recent article, Can't hurry love by Lane DeGregory was another example of inclusiveness by the Times. The more we read about those we perceive as different, the more we shall find our commonality.

Homosexuals deserve equal rights

Re: State ban on gay marriage being tested.

My views on homosexual marriage have changed substantially over the last few years. At the beginning of that period, I thought that the notion of legalizing gay marriage was silly somehow. Now I feel it is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, and more important, I believe recognizing that right is the right thing for us to do as a free nation.

I am a law student, and I have carefully read the opinions of the Massachusetts Supreme Court in Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health. It seems to me that the majority got it right: Denying homosexuals the right to marry is nothing but discrimination without basis in reason.

There simply is no nonreligious purpose served by discriminating against homosexuals. Thus, if we are going to take the First Amendment's ban on the establishment of an official religion seriously, we cannot deny committed homosexual couples the same right to marry that we demand for committed heterosexual couples. We are a nation built upon the notion of freedom. The founders of our nation clearly recognized that a cornerstone of that freedom was the separation of church and state.

I realize that some readers may belong to a denomination that does not allow homosexuals to marry. I would want nothing to change the right of any congregation to continue this denial based upon its heart-felt religious beliefs. (Thankfully, the First Amendment will prove a powerful bar to any attempt of the kind.) But despite the right of churches and individuals to believe as they will, I can see no (nonreligious) reason that our government should discriminate between heterosexuals and homosexuals in the matter of the legal recognition of marriage. And after all, what is to be lost by granting homosexuals this right? How is a single heterosexual married couple denied anything by allowing homosexual couples to marry and receive the same governmental seal of approval that heterosexuals enjoy?

I happen to be a married heterosexual with a wonderful wife and four great kids. My children are all too young to be aware of their own sexuality at this point, but I imagine they are heterosexual. If, however, one or more of them is homosexual, I would be ashamed of my country if someday, when sitting with them and a long-term partner whom they loved, I could not encourage them to get married, I could not tell them what a great thing marriage is, I could not tell them how it would strengthen the love felt between them and what a blessing it would be not only to them, but to our whole society. Instead, I hope that if that day ever should come, that, rather than be ashamed by my country's failure to live up to its ideals, I will be proud to have been alive to see one of the last great discriminations fall in this "land of the free."

Guidance in the Bible

Re: A welcoming church, letter, Feb. 15.

Churches do need to be hospitable, and any that would not welcome a homosexual would not be practicing the love of Christ. However, any that would condone that which is contrary to what the Bible teaches would not be sharing the love of Christ either - painful as truth is sometimes. The letter writer's position is that homosexuals were created that way by God. He also stated that many churches take five or six verses from Scripture out of their historical context and use them to practice a harsh inhospitality toward persons who are homosexual.

From the "God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" school of thought comes the position that God would not create people in a way as to set them up to fail eternally. Disregarding Old Testament verses against homosexuality, which would qualify in the letter writer's thinking as historically irrelevant, at least two interesting New Testament verses deserve consideration:

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (I Corinthians 6:9-10 NASB)

The next verse goes on to remind us that "such were some of you," and I personally qualify as being included under more than one category before my conversion to Christ.

My question to the letter writer then is how these New Testament verses can be taken as historically out of context when they refer to one's eternal state? One of us is wrong, since God either created homosexuals that way or he condemns their choice. I hold no hatred toward homosexuals and may God forgive me if I read and understand the Bible incorrectly.

Kid vitamins should be adult controlled

Re: Sugarcoating nutrition, Feb. 17.

The article on how companies are manufacturing vitamins to look and taste like candy really irritated me. I buy Vitaball Vitamins, and it's the only vitamin my 8-year-old will eat. I've tried all the "old style" vitamins through the years, but no luck. If making it look and/or taste like candy gets her to eat a vitamin every day, that's great and thanks to the companies that manufacture them!

Of course, you have to put the vitamins up in a cabinet away from tiny hands. The article made it seem as though you would put them in a gum ball machine or in a candy jar! Vitamins should be treated like a poison and put out of reach. Adults dispense the vitamins.

Please don't hurt the tourists

I recently followed a vehicle that sported a bumper sticker that read, "If it's tourist season, can we shoot them?"

I am not a tourist but a part-time resident, and I was offended by this display of humor (pretty warped), if that's what it was intended to be.

Do people lose sight of the fact that tourists help Florida's economy and Florida does depend on tourism?

I say we should pick and choose our bumper stickers or, better yet, eliminate them. They can also prove to be a traffic hazard.

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 through our Web site at: http://www.sptimes.com/letters/

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.

Opinion

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times 490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 Contact the Times | Privacy Policy Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright