No gay marriage rights
As a civil matter, there is no inalienable human right for the union of any two of duplicate gender to be referred to as marriage and there never has been. Any state’s constitution interpreted to the contrary will be contested accordingly.
To suddenly redefine marriage to suit a contemporary political fad is as aberrant as reinterpreting the Bill of Rights to include all silicone-based life forms after the fact.
Simply put, marriage has only ever been solely between male and female; and we hold that fundamental truth to be self-evident like any other axiom of the Declaration of Independence. Nowhere in the U.S. founding documents are same-sex marriage rights enumerated.
And the popular assertion that “marriage has evolved historically over time” is fundamentally without merit because even in its most unusual and nontraditional form, marriage has always been exclusively a male-female relationship. Even when fathers forced or sold daughters into arranged marriages, or when mixed races married, or when patriarchs and potentates had multiple wives, the essential sexual relationship has always and forever been male-female. Any historical exceptions were referred to as a form of social contract, not marriage.
So when a self-obsessed gay lobby asks, “How could a perverted new definition for marriage possibly affect anyone else?” we can only incredulously respond, “How could you possibly need to ask that question?”
Jeffrey K. Jacob
• • •
Invest in life
Eighteen thousand people die in this country every year as a direct result of not being able to afford medical care. When Americans argue against funding national health care for everyone, aren’t they really saying that they are not willing to live on a little less so 18,000 people could live, too?
Why has the “Party of No” consistently voted against national health care since 1947? Since then, we have invested trillions of dollars and millions of lives in wars that we have not won. How about investing in people’s lives?
Perhaps there is a clue to be considered as to why our economy is caving in on us and our future is questionable. Most of the civilized world has free medical care for its citizens, but not the United States. We have more churches per capita than any other country in the world. We also have the largest percentage of our population in prisons than any other country in the world.
Are we doing something wrong? We like to say, “One country under God,” and yet we are not benevolent to one another. This country has about 8.9 million millionaires and 312 billionaires. Why can’t they give just a little back to lessen the needless suffering and deaths of their fellow citizens?
My Bible has about 300 verses that deal with helping the poor and sick.
Don’t let negative advertising and gossip talk you out of supporting national health care.
Curtis L. Fordyce
• • •
Thank God for courageous heroes like Peter Alexander (“Health plan, abortion,” BDN letters, Sept. 4). If every child were a wanted child, what would our nation’s 1 million mental health workers, not to mention our law enforcement and prison industries, do to survive?
For heaven’s sake, we’re down to our last 307,356,753 people in this country! And we’ve only got 6,781,992,636 left worldwide. How could anyone dare to assert that a woman has a right to self-determination when faced with this dire shortage of people? With folks like Peter on the case, women won’t have to worry about having to choose.
We should probably make them wear burqas, too. For their own good, of course, since men cannot possibly be expected to control their sexual urges.
In fact, sharia law looks like the way to go. Maybe we could bring back the caliphate, too?
Food for thought.
• • •
In his Sept. 2 OpEd column, Bob Emrich asserts that no society has given anyone an unqualified right to marry, children do best on every measure of health and welfare when they are raised by their biological parents and the “radical redefinition of marriage” would harm society.
The unanimous 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision Loving v. Virginia stated, “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
Emrich’s second assertion is false. More children fair well under mixed gender couples only because there are more of them; studies show having same-sex parents has no significant negative effect on children. In any case, the statute Emrich assails is about marriage, not parenting. Even if his erroneous assertion were used to ground public policy, the “greatest good for the greatest number” would lead not to prohibiting equality in marriage but to mandatory marriage upon conception and the abolition of divorce. Asserting such propositions reveals their absurdity.
Third, the reality is the American family has already undergone radical reformulation in the past century. It is time for the definition of marriage as a civil matter to catch up to that change.
The real but concealed premise underlying his argument is religious.
Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. Emrich’s views are fine for his church, but have no place in state law.
In the interest of full disclosure, my youngest son is gay. So is my goddaughter. Is it too much to want for them and their long-term partners the same opportunities I have enjoyed?
• • •
I realize the president is being pulled in many directions regarding health care.
Republicans are demanding that he leave it alone. The conservative Democrats are suggesting that he fake a health care reform by pretending to come up with a plan while actually including only what he believes he can easily get through Congress. That way, if it passes, he and the Blue Dogs might stave off a calamity in the mid-term election by declaring victory.
The liberal Democrats, on the other hand, having already failed to get their single-payer plan, will be mad as heck when he turns his back on them again, and may block the passage of anything.
Of course there is our own Olympia Snowe suggesting that we put off reform for a few years to allow the for-profit insurers to mend their ways.
If they don’t, she says, then we can trigger another debate like the one we have now to see what to do. She does approve of a few tweaks to get those private corporations started in the right direction, such as eliminating their ability to refuse to accept patients with “pre-existing conditions.”
I’m afraid Obama is going to accept Snowe’s proposal.
Eliot J Chandler
• • •