Letters: Gay yet unequal

Re “A make-or-break family ruling,” March 18

If every politician would follow through on their oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, the same-sex couple profiled in this article, whose marriage is recognized in Massachusetts but not by the federal government, would have no problem.

Regardless of one’s religious convictions, homosexuals are protected by the equal-protection provisions of the Constitution, period. Anyone with questions just has to read the document. You cannot deny benefits to someone because the Sunday school teacher doesn’t like him.

Those who disagree need to seek a constitutional amendment. The same goes with other protections, including the rights to free speech, to own a gun and to have a lawyer.

Politicians need to check their religious biases at the door and recognize the rights of all people, regardless of sexual orientation, to take advantage of the benefits afforded married couples.

Miguel Rosales

Glendale

It’s one thing to grant same-sex couples advantages available through civil unions. It’s quite another to extend to gays generous benefits that subsidize heterosexual marriages — you know, those relationships that for millenniums have stabilized and sustained society (however imperfectly).

It may be, with the advent of same-sex parenthood, that gay marriages prove just as socially beneficial as traditional marriages. But the jury is still out.

Meanwhile, consider whether it’s fair to discriminate against bisexuals. Why should they be compelled to choose one gender or the other for legally sanctioned intimate partnerships? Perhaps their polygamous unions would prove just as beneficial as gay marriages.

Alternative forms of marriage ultimately may prove worthy of government subsidization. But the U.S. Supreme Court should leave that determination to legislators.

Jo M. Alston

North Las Vegas, Nev.

ALSO:

Letters: Still thirsty at 4 a.m.?

Letters: ‘Biosimilars’ and patient safety

Letters: Two views on Internet education