Other takes on Prop. 8

Re “Extra help for Prop. 8,” Opinion, Sept. 6

Tim Rutten erroneously implies that the ability of religious individuals and organizations to conduct marriages will not be affected by the failure of Proposition 8.

In several jurisdictions that permit same-sex marriage, those who are religious have been subject to civil penalties for following their beliefs. For example, Linda Gray Kelley, a Roman Catholic justice of the peace in Massachusetts, was forced to resign after being threatened with dismissal or exposure to civil liability if she refused to wed same-sex couples.

Many voters believe incorrectly that Proposition 8 is simply about the rights of same-sex couples. In actuality, an important aim of the proposition is to preserve the rights of religious individuals to act in accordance with their conscience.

Paul Heaton

Santa Monica

“Phony anxieties over religious freedom”? Nice try. A Methodist organization in New Jersey has already lost a case related to its denial of a lesbian couple’s “right” to have a ceremony on its property. This is not a fundraising appeal, it’s a fact.

The “we wouldn’t now tolerate a doctor who only did heart surgery on white men” example doesn’t work either. No one is suggesting homosexuals shouldn’t receive necessary medical care for their physical or mental health. But I am completely opposed to forcing a doctor to participate in an elective procedure that results in the creation of life, especially when that life will be knowingly put into a social experiment that contradicts many churches’ doctrine.

Time to reread what the 1st Amendment says about freedom of religion.

Gwendolyn Wyne

Los Angeles