Marriage Needs No Protection From Gays
As expected, President Bush’s State of the Union address contained so many half-truths that one scarcely knows where to begin. Of the laundry list of the dangers confronting the United States, Bush reserved the specter of the most far-reaching remedy, a constitutional amendment, to defend “the sanctity of marriage.” How would such an amendment protect the sanctity of marriage from desecration by us straights? Is that the sanctity of marriage exemplified by the recent straight nuptials of Britney Spears (followed by an annulment)?
The Constitution is such a solemn and important document that it must never be wielded for such petty and biased purposes. Our Constitution should only be amended to right the wrongs that deny our citizens the equal protection of our laws, not to codify the very denial of such rights.
Neil Clark
Long Beach
*
Be afraid. Be very afraid. I am a 44-year-old woman. I have two sisters and a niece. I am very close to them. I also have a mom and a dad. They all love me and I love them. We are a family. One day, I might meet someone I want to marry. My family will be very happy for me. They will come to my wedding. There will be love all around. But be afraid. I am a threat to the very fiber of this nation. My potential wedding might destroy marriage. And families. I must wield some great power, of which I am totally unaware. I am ... a lesbian!
Barbara Dellamarie
Burbank
*
I am laughing at Merrill Markoe’s hysterical commentary (Jan. 21) about gay marriage and Bush’s stance on same. A friend of mine put it less delicately when he quipped that marriage and adoption rights were taking all the perks out of being gay.
Still, it is alarming and surprising that so many straight people would be concerned about gay people receiving so-called special rights.
To paraphrase Chris Rock’s comedy routine: There isn’t a straight man in America who would trade places with me, and I’m rich!
Philip Hitchcock
Venice