Gay marriage rings readers’ bells

Re “Divided Over Gay Marriage,” by Roy Rivenburg, March 12: If the issue is child welfare, then the proper question is whether the children of gay couples are harmed if their parents can marry. Rivenburg offers no reason to believe that they are. On the contrary, preventing gay couples from marrying penalizes their children, since it withholds the many benefits of marriage that facilitate the creation and maintenance of a financially and emotionally stable environment for children. If child welfare is the criterion, then gay marriage should be permitted.

Martin Putnam

Oakland

*

Thank you, thank you for the article on opposition to gay marriage. It expressed my feelings exactly by people much more articulate and high profile than I am. Like them, I resent being labeled a bigot for having rational objections to gay marriage.

Carolyn Todd

La Quinta

*

There is one group, not heard from in Rivenburg’s pile of trash, which alone has a meaningful complaint: the insurance industry. A sudden upsurge of spouses means health coverage, pension plans and other benefits of marriage will be more costly to providers. So what -- we have an equal protection clause. Businesses will just have to deal.

Any other argument, and I mean any other argument, rings hollow in a nation that has realized slavery is wrong, all races and sexes should have a right to vote and serve in the military, and anything less is vile racism or sexism. Let’s learn our lessons from the past and stop saying some people have rights that others don’t.

Dan Hurwitz

Los Angeles