Re “Marriage and legal nonsense,” Opinion, May 27
Tim Rutten hit it on the nose: The California Supreme Court’s decision regarding marriage equality is nervous and contradictory.
As one of the 18,000 couples legally married before Proposition 8 took effect, we are grateful that our marriage is still recognized in California.
But we are deeply disappointed in the Supreme Court’s ruling, which, in effect, says that half the voters can make the state Constitution as discriminatory as they want.
Since our August wedding, an amazing number of co-workers, friends, family members and friends of the family have expressed congratulations. No one congratulated us two years ago when we registered as domestic partners. Rutten is right: “Registered domestic partnership” is code for “back of the bus.”
Jane Rigby and Andrea Leistra
Your contributors failed once again to advance authentic dialogue about Proposition 8. Instead, we were treated with predictable, sanctimonious cant.
The cognoscenti of modern liberal orthodoxy have succeeded in defining the terms of debates by framing their opponents as discriminators and by defining personal freedom as an absolute moral value. Absent some antecedent moral order, our discussions necessarily degenerate into insult and force in a war of moral constructs.
The issues swirling around the Proposition 8 debate deserve an evenhanded, vigorous examination rather than the sophomoric insults spewed by the choir members in your editorial office.
Above all, stop insinuating that Americans don’t discriminate for good reason and purpose. Would it, for instance, be an equally weighted civil rights issue for incest promoters to marry?
Rutten has nailed it with his analysis of the Proposition 8 decision. It’s another example of our courts abdicating their responsibility to protect the rights of individuals.
At every level, the courts search for ways to defer -- defer to precedent, defer to legislatures and, in the case of Proposition 8, defer to majority vote. In a democracy, everything can be voted on, so it is up to the courts to protect us against tyranny of the majority.
Michael S. Berliner
West Los Angeles
Rutten’s outrage, although perhaps justified on a policy basis, relies on the same leftist view of the role of the courts that led to the nomination by President Obama of a purely result-oriented judge with a swollen sense of ethnic superiority.
Rutten is offended that the court would actually deign to rely on the state Constitution in deciding a case; judges should know better than to rely on antiquated formational documents.
The leftists apparently believe that the courts exist solely to implement whatever policies their radical left constituencies seek.
Jeffrey P. Meyer
Rutten only got the first half correct. The judges were trying to appease everyone. Gays and lesbians are forcing their “lifestyle” on all of us. The collective population has actually been more than decent to them.
While the newspaper I’ve known and loved for decades is fading away, at least we still get Rutten’s brilliant work on what seems like a daily basis -- or twice on some lucky days.
If it has to be, I hope he is the guy turning out the lights at the end.