Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsLetters

Letters: Gay in America

March 27, 2013
  • Plaintiffs Kris Perry, left, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo climb the steps of the National Archive in Washington, D.C., on Monday. The four are plaintiffs in the Prop. 8 challenge, Hollingsworth vs. Perry.
Plaintiffs Kris Perry, left, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo… (Jewel Samad / AFP/Getty…)

Re "For gays, a relative success," March 26

I expect the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm same-sex marriage rights. But as a gay man in my 50s, will I hear want I really want — an apology from a court that during my lifetime has belittled gay men? Bowers vs. Hardwick comes to mind.

Moreover, will the Democratic U.S. senators who dropped their support for the Defense of Marriage Act just days before the Supreme Court heard oral arguments ever apologize? Will the Clintons, who supported the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and DOMA, ever apologize?

And will the media that covered these politicians ever apologize for not holding these people accountable for the decisions and actions they've taken that have done irreparable harm to me and my family?

Ray Shelton

Glendale

Gays and lesbians are in a win-win situation. If the court decides that Proposition 8 is constitutional, that wouldn't preclude California from reinstating same-sex marriage, a likely outcome given the shift in public opinion.

Of course, the court won't say that it is unconstitutional to allow gay marriage. The people can vote for same-sex marriage without any interference from the court.

Time is on the side of the gays and lesbians.

Richard H. Smith

Cerritos

Re "A gay marriage backlash? Not likely," Opinion, March 24

It is incredible to suggest that the effect of legalizing same-sex marriage is only "abstract and long term." A normal response to someone who says "I grew up without a mother" or "I grew up without a father" is to say, "I'm so sorry." Legalizing same-sex marriage would celebrate motherlessness and fatherlessness.

If the Supreme Court redefines marriage, we will tell ourselves and every child that women are replaceable and men don't matter. There is nothing more fundamentally equal than marriage as it always has been: You must have a man, and you must have a woman.

Gwendolyn Wyne

Los Angeles

Michael Klarman is wrong to say that a decision favoring same-sex marriage would have few consequences.

Advocates of same-sex marriage confuse equality and sameness. All things being equal, if a same-sex couple can fulfill the

psychosexual developmental needs of a child in the "same" way as a traditional couple, then men and women are not just equal, they are the "same" as each other.

If the Supreme Court supports this, it will eliminate the distinctive legal reality of gender. The consequences of this would be far-reaching and dangerous. Men and women are equal, but they are not the same. Marriage is the unique custodian of this difference.

The Rev. Vivian Ben Lima

Woodland Hills

ALSO:

Letters: Detaining immigrants

Letters: Remembering fallen warriors

Letters: Women's work isn't 'secondary'

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|