The freedom to choose

Re “ ‘I don’t’ isn’t the answer,” editorial, May 28

Sadly, it took The Times less than two weeks to turn a decision that was ostensibly about recognizing the inherent freedom we all (should) have to live our lives as we see fit into the latest occasion for calling on the power of the state to enforce a new orthodoxy.

According to your editorial, public employees should be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples even if they object to doing so on religious grounds. Yet on March 14, the Times editorialized that the state should do away with loyalty oaths on the grounds that it is unconstitutional to require public employees to give up their 1st Amendment rights as a condition of employment.

What changed?

There is no reason that recognition of a right to same-sex marriage should require the curtailment of anyone’s rights. It is, or should be, about maximizing everyone’s freedom.

Robert A. Philipson

Santa Monica