The Republican Party used to espouse the virtues of a smaller government that would be less intrusive in the lives of our citizens. How does that equate with the call for a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex civil unions or marriages? This would be an unjust invasion into the personal lives of citizens.
Is this just a diversion to get our minds off job losses and the war in Iraq and the lack of national health care?
-- Richard W. Madden, Tarpon Springs
A most divisive political card
If false patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, then sanctimony for base political gain must run a close second. This president has made the United States into the biggest bully on the planet, traded ordinary people's security to enrich the already wealthy and large corporations, and gutted protections of clean water and air. He has now played his most divisive political card by urging Congress to pass the first constitutional amendment enshrining discrimination as part of the fundamental law.
The gay couples whom I know, who have been civilly married in Canada after having been together for decades, would only have what everyone else takes for granted. There are more than 1,500 federal- and state-granted legal rights and responsibilities that come with every marriage recognized by law, irrespective of whether it is performed by a minister or a justice of the peace.
Denying equality in civil status to appease those who feel that their religious institutions are threatened says more about the state of their institutions than about the risks of civil equality.
I am mortified and ashamed that friends of mine have had to leave their own country - the "land of the free" - to find respect and simple fairness. It is grotesque and despicable that this president, his cynical advisers and supporters so eagerly exploit fears and uncertainties and block reasonable efforts at dialogue for political gain. "What profit a man that he gain the whole world but lose his own soul?"
-- Carl A. Schuh, St. Petersburg
Be respectful of different views
Does anyone know what the word "tolerance" means anymore? The way people are using the word, you would think it means that you have to agree with and accept whatever they are saying. If you don't, you are being intolerant.
In the American College Dictionary, "tolerance" means: "the disposition to be patient and fair toward those whose opinions or practices differ from one's own."
Respecting one's views does not mean you have to agree with them or condone them. When a person or group tries to force views on me that I do not agree with or condone, I have every right to voice my opinions. This is not being intolerant; it is my right as an American.
Perhaps gay rights' activists, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or any other group ought to be more respectful of other views and beliefs instead of calling intolerant those people who object to the special laws and privileges they are seeking.
-- Dave Bothwell, Seminole
Maybe it's God's plan
It seems that only the very religious are against same sex-marriages. These are the same people who believe God has a plan for each person and who believe abortion is a sin because each child belongs to God. These same people believe God does not make mistakes but acts in mysterious ways. If some of these children grow up to be gay, maybe that is God's plan. If these people want to marry to show love and avoid deadly diseases, as do heterosexuals, then why shouldn't they?
If the religious people believe gay marriage is a sin, wouldn't that be God's business? Let everyone mind that business which is theirs and let God mind that business which is his.
-- Gloria R. Julius, St. Petersburg
Stay focused on real issues
President Bush and his handlers have very cleverly created a diversion in this most crucial election year by making an issue of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Instead, the voters - and the media, which have placed this nonissue in the headlines - need to stay focused on the real issues in this election: the war in Iraq, loss of jobs overseas, Americans without health insurance, an America becoming increasingly isolated from the rest of the world.
The public needs to stay focused on the real issues and vote with them in mind. And the media can help, by playing down the issues that have been created to divert us.
-- Alice Graves, St. Petersburg
President promotes a wedge issue
Re: Same-sex marriage.
Only once in our history has there been an amendment to the Constitution that sought to deny the rights of Americans rather than defend them. The 18th Amendment, forbidding "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors" was adopted in 1919 and repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933.
Now, in a desperate attempt to deflect attention from sinking credibility, a sputtering economy and budget disasters, President Bush calls for an amendment to ban same-sex marriages.
It's unfortunate the president chose to open his re-election campaign by promoting a wedge issue best handled by the states or not at all.
-- Gary Tighe, Melbourne
The way it used to be
Re: Gay marriages.
I can remember when it was illegal for black people and white people to marry.
I can remember when blacks could not go to school with me or drink out of the same water fountain.
I can remember when women could not get a job driving a truck. There were help wanted ads for males and for females.
I'm too young to remember when women could not vote.
I do not remember when women were stoned for adultery.
P.S.: I'm just a happily married heterosexual male.
-- W. Saitta, St. Petersburg
It's about love
Re: Same-sex marriage amendment
President Bush's proposed amendment, the pious right and the semantically challenged left have got it all wrong. Marriage isn't about a civil contract, and it's surely not always about procreation. It's about love. People of all ages and stripes fall in love, and during a marriage ceremony they almost always pledge it deeply.
Man/woman marriages don't have a corner on marital love. It's a commitment many of us feel at all ages and want to partake of with someone special.
I don't for a second believe that homosexual love is any different or weaker or made up than the love of heterosexuals like me. If they want to marry the one they love, then God bless them. Perhaps our pandering politicians should spend more time learning about and loving the American people than lying to them.
-- Michael Blowers, Pinellas Park
It is a struggle for civil rights
Re: Rosa Parks not in San Francisco, Feb. 25.
I do not mean to denigrate Rosa Parks' courage, or to make comparisons between her and those seeking marriage rights for same-sex couples. However, before dismissing lesbians and gays as legitimate civil rights activists, consider the following:
When I entered law school in Miami as an idealistic young man in 1977, the state of Florida had never knowingly admitted a homosexual to the Bar. The Florida Bar questioned whether a homosexual possessed the moral fitness to practice law. The reason for this uncertainty was that in Florida, and in many other states, homosexuals could be imprisoned for their private, consensual behavior - often with prison terms longer than for manslaughter or for taking indecent liberties with a child.
Over the years, gay people have been imprisoned, denied the right to practice their chosen professions, lived hidden lives under intense psychological pressures, or been driven to suicide out of despair.
The struggle for equal rights for homosexuals - in all areas of law - certainly deserves to be regarded as a struggle for civil rights.
-- Bruce Carolan, St. Petersburg
Judges have to be independent
Re: Bush: Ban gay marriage.
What a hullabaloo over what ought to be a strictly private contract between individuals!
This article quotes the president of the Family Research Council as saying, "Nothing short of an amendment [to the U.S. Constitution] will protect the institution of marriage from an out-of-control judiciary." It is only in totalitarian regimes that the judiciary is under the control of other branches of the government. Our founders very wisely set up our system of government to ensure that the judiciary is and indeed must be "out of control." Only when our judicial system is independent can we hope to ensure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
I can understand monkeying around with the Constitution to abolish slavery, acknowledge the humanity of African-Americans and women, and protect the United States from too many years under one potentially dangerous president. I cannot understand monkeying around with the Constitution to sanctify bigotry and discrimination.
The fact of the matter is, when two individuals want to publicly promise to love, honor, and cherish each other forever, we should applaud rather than discriminate against them - unless you believe that the 55-hour marriage of Britney Spears is somehow more sacred than the 14-year committed union of the bishop of New Hampshire, I suppose.
-- Mary W. Matthews, St. Petersburg
Where will it end?
Now that Bush wants to constitutionalize a ban on the benefits of a legal union for couples of the same sex, maybe he could make it a crime for unmarried people to live together. Then he could ban children from living with an unmarried person or persons - and place them into foster homes. Then he could ban people of different faiths from marriage. Then, maybe, only those supporting a particular political party could get married. And, gee, there's no telling what it could eventually lead to.
-- James Reda, South Pasadena
The subject has been changed
Re: Bush: Ban gay marriages.
It worked beautifully.
No one is talking about George Bush's time in the National Guard anymore.
-- Dennis Clarke, Tampa
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.
