Re "Justices ponder gay marriage," Editorial, April 2
Same-sex marriage has been overpoliticized and over-intellectualized. What we're really addressing is the question of whether there should be a law dictating what marriage is.
Laws are generally made to keep bad things from happening to good people. In the case of gay marriage, the opponents say that legalizing same-sex unions will lead to heterosexual marriages being diminished. Those who oppose marriage equality deserve the benefit of the doubt; they should send letters to the Supreme Court documenting the thousands of traditional marriages that have been destroyed by gay marriage.
My wife and I recently celebrated our 25th wedding anniversary. We've stayed together living among thousands of same-sex couples. Have we just been dodging bullets all these years?
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg erred when she suggested that the proponents' role in Proposition 8 ended when they placed the measure on the ballot. The proponents wanted the people of California to decide on the matter. Two imperial federal courts decided that their opinions trumped that of the majority of Californians.
The Supreme Court should overturn the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision and return democracy to the people of California.
Robert S. Rodgers
In 1896, the Supreme Court ruled in Plessy vs. Ferguson that segregation was not necessarily discrimination and that "separate but equal" facilities for different races were constitutional.
Looking at gay marriage as an institution, calling some marriages "civil unions" effectively makes them separate but equal. Same-sex marriage may be separate, but it's not equal.
Instead of trying to alienate our fellow Americans, we should instead welcome gay marriage. It's time for segregation to end.
Letters: Pensions and 401(k)s
Letters: Mother Nature vs. Malibu
Letters: All hail the nanny in chief