Advertisement

LETTERS

Share

Re “Battles brew as gay marriage ban is upheld,” May 27

The ruling by the California Supreme Court seems mostly to strike a blow at the credibility of the court itself.

Just a year after ruling that marriage, by that name and none other, is a fundamental right, the very same court has reversed itself and stated it now lacks the authority to follow its own ruling.

Matthew Adler

Los Angeles

::

From what I am viewing and reading, the gay activists who are denouncing hate are themselves being hateful.

Advertisement

Gays are expressing hate speech -- aimed at who? The voters. The voters of this state exercised their freedom as citizens.

Instead of loud and hateful rallies -- where taxpayers during a budget crisis are forced to pay for police, etc. -- they should work on getting their stance voted on. I supported Proposition 8.

Robin Hvidston

Upland

::

Several thoughts crossed my mind when I heard the sad news that the Supreme Court upheld discrimination that it had previously ruled was unconstitutional.

The authority of the court and its purpose don’t have to be respected because the court has sent a clear message that citizens can overturn the court when the court makes a ruling the citizens don’t like.

The second message is far more disturbing. To paraphrase the infamous line from the Dred Scott decision that “a black man has no rights that a white man is bound to respect,” in California, no minority, group or class of people has rights that the majority are bound to respect.

The question to all the people who celebrate the court’s upholding of Proposition 8 is: Who’s next? It could be you.

Advertisement

Bernadette Amaker

Los Angeles

::

As a straight, married man with children, gay marriage has neither undermined the fabric of my marriage nor corrupted the character of my kids.

Far from it. Those things are the sole responsibility of my wife and myself.

The biggest threat I see to family stability and “liberty and justice for all” are misguided bigots hiding behind religion.

Al Wright

Los Angeles

::

Despite this week’s Supreme Court ruling, it’s still perfectly legal for gay people to get married in California.

They just can’t marry the person they love.

Gary Davis

Los Angeles

::

Now it’s official -- the state of California is both financially and morally bankrupt.

Karl Stange

Los Angeles

::

It is hard to believe that the beacon of democracy, the United States, and particularly the state of California, has chosen a path to civil rights simply by majority vote. It reeks of 1930s Germany when it comes to denying equal rights to all citizens.

Shame on the voters and the state Supreme Court.

Bill Phelps

Vancouver, Canada

::

Can you imagine what would have happened if majority white voters had decided by proposition that interracial marriage would no longer be allowed? Poof. Their right to marry the person of their choice would have evaporated, and apparently the Supreme Court would have allowed it.

Yet few blink an eye when it comes to taking away what the court itself one year ago defined as the “fundamental right” of all Californians to marry.

Advertisement

Poof. The right to marry? Gone.

Tom Stansbury

Palm Springs

::

I think I have the solution to this Proposition 8 insanity.

The California Legislature should change the name of the “domestic partnership” relationship to “mariage” (note the missing second “r”).

Since most Americans can’t spell anyway, this solves all problems.

Gays can be “maried” and straights “married,” and in a few years, nobody will remember the difference or what the fuss was all about.

Julia Dunphy

Harbor City

::

Re “Marriage and legal nonsense,” Column, May 27

As long as The Times has a Tim Rutten, its budget cuts and disappearing sections can be endured.

Rutten’s critique of the California Supreme Court decision on gay marriage is brilliant; too bad the justices didn’t see it before they ruled by political expediency.

By attempting to surgically eliminate the core from reason, and fundamental fairness from morality, the court cut the baby in half. The issue we now face is whether we can save the baby from dying.

Louis A. Lipofsky

Beverly Hills

Advertisement