To the editor: Last week was breathtaking in the sweeping importance of the Supreme Court's decisions, ("'Equal dignity' under the law," June 27) and then President Obama's amazing eulogy in Charleston, S.C. What a time to be alive in America.
Sadly, those who find themselves on the wrong side of history and change continue to sound even more out of touch. Justice Antonin Scalia sounds like the uncle nobody wants to invite to Christmas dinner. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee sounds a bit deranged as he espouses treason as the way to overturn the court's decisions.
Try as they may to appear as if they represent the majority of voters, the Republicans continue down the path toward irrelevance leading to extinction.
Norman Franz, San Clemente
To the editor: What our politicians and talk radio zealots seemingly cannot understand — because they superimpose their own behavior on Supreme Court justices — is that the justices voted their minds according to their own interpretation of the law, and that there is a possibility there are two sides to every issue.
Our politicians and zealots contribute to the degradation of our culture by politicizing Supreme Court decisions and demeaning the justices because they do not agree with them.
“Being right” trumps “doing what is right,” and our country is suffering for it.
David B. Radden, Playa del Rey
To the editor: In: Equal justice under law.
Out: Religious control over American lives.
Marshall Yagan, Laguna Woods
To the editor: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.'s comments on the Supreme Court marriage equality ruling disappoint but do not surprise. ("The freedom to marry," Editorial, June 28)
To say that the five justices “closed the debate” by enacting “their own vision of marriage” raises the question of why there should even be a debate about equality when it comes to constitutional rights.
The “vision of marriage” affirmed by last week's decision is what it should always have been: a validation of a loving bond between two adults, regardless of their innate sexual orientation.
Nick Duretta, Pasadena
To the editor: Regarding the five justices who joined in the majority decision, Roberts asked in his dissent, "Just who do we think we are?" The short answer: You are the nine people in this country with ultimate responsibility to protect the rights and dignity of all Americans against unfair discrimination.
That's who we think you are and that's what we think your job is. And that's what the majority decision seeks to accomplish.
Allan Serviss, Westlake Village
To the editor: The Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage would not have been possible without the left's protracted and largely successful war against both the Christian Bible and the U.S. Constitution.
Both are considered to reflect outdated and irrelevant thinking that stands in the way of scientific truth and human progress.
Of course, that is precisely how those of us on the right regard just about anything disseminated from the left, especially the parts about the superiority of big government and the wisdom of bureaucrats.
Patrick M. Dempsey, Granada Hills
To the editor: Regardless of how one may feel about the issue of same-sex marriage, one thing is for sure: The reactions to the Supreme Court decision prove that
marriage is obviously
more than “just a piece of paper.”
Marc Russell, Los Angeles
To the editor: Yawn. Oh, excuse me. I have been listening to the babble about the Supreme Court anointing gay marriage. What an enormous fuss. This argument simply is over the meaning of the word "marriage."
Since the beginning of organized society, marriage has referred to the joining of a man and woman in matrimony. Now it no longer means that.
It's like the Queen of England (who has all the power of the monarch) demanding that she be called King. And now, she shall.
Eddie Smith, San Diego
To the editor: All this hoopla totally overlooks the downside: Before, when same-sex couples who were cohabitating found that the relationship was no longer working, they just picked up their own car keys, personal belongings and checkbooks, hugged or shook hands, and left as friends.
Now, when they are legally married, that won't work.
First, they may have to hire an expensive divorce lawyer, go to court and fight over who gets what — as everything, legally, is common property. The lawyers will get the most. The couple will most likely hate each other before it's over.
I have been through two divorces, and I don't wish that pain on my worst enemy.
Ted Ury, San Juan Capistrano
To the editor: Clearly in the gay community marriage is regarded as a cherished institution.
Among heterosexuals, on the other hand, the enthusiasm for marriage seems heading in the opposite direction, especially if one looks at statistics pertaining to births out of wedlock and the increasing number of singles and cohabitating couples.
I don't think these can be regarded as positive trends over the long run.
Geoffrey C. Church, Los Angeles
To the editor: I am glad same-sex marriages are now behind us and it's time to move on to the next step. I feel it's only fair for a man or woman who wants two wives or two husbands to have that freedom. As long as all three people want to have a tri-way marriage, why not?
My personal choice at age 83 would be one old wife and one young wife.
Clifford Rackohn, Calabasas