On Proposition 8 and same-sex marriage; U.S.-Israel relations; and the death of Elizabeth Edwards

Defining ‘marriage’

Re “Judges explore narrow options in Prop. 8 appeal,” Dec. 7

Can we please dismiss the false argument that “marriage” is a word of exclusively religious meaning? City clerks and justices of the peace perform civil marriages with no religious rites. Atheists marry without any complaint from the religious.

Freedom of religion is harmed more by the status quo than by allowing same-sex marriage. If your religion doesn’t approve of same-sex marriage, it will never have to bless any such unions. But there are churches, synagogues and other religious institutions that wed same-sex couples. It defies the 1st Amendment that only one religious perspective is given legal status.

The separate-but-equal arguments against marriage equality are too transparent to be taken seriously. Anything less than equality is un-American.

Jack Fertig

San Francisco

Your front page depicts a gentleman holding a sign that reads, “One nation under God, not the 9th Circuit.” Does he actually believe that the Pledge of Allegiance supersedes the Constitution, or is it just satire? I can’t tell the difference anymore.

Robert Meinke

Moorpark

Re “Marriage and the court of public opinion,” Opinion, Dec. 5

While the polls say one thing, the proof is in how people vote.

In November, voters in Iowa ousted three state Supreme Court justices for legalizing same-sex marriage. In Minnesota, Maine and New Hampshire, social conservatives gained control of their legislatures. With the Republican takeover of the House, Congress is unlikely to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

I fit into the religiously orthodox that Brian Powell refers to. Gay marriage is an abomination to God, and I refuse to accept today’s politically correct agenda.

Dennis Kinney

Santa Ana

Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage are not analogous. The prohibitions against interracial marriage may have been “legal,” but they were immoral. Prohibitions against same-sex marriage can hardly be called

immoral, because Judeo-Christian tradition and other major religions and cultural mores hold that marriage is a union of a man and a woman.

Any effort by a court to rule to the contrary would be to legislate (from the bench) a “new morality.”

Why have marriage at all if it’s not going to have the purpose for which it was instituted? What would happen to our society if the majority favored doing away with marriage? Should we allow this as well?

Joseph B.D. Saraceno

Gardena

Israel’s security issues

Re “Courting Israel,” Opinion, Dec. 5

As Andrew J. Bacevich points out, Israel carries on as if the existential threat to it is military aggression by its enemies, even though the reality is that it has one of the world’s strongest armies as well as the Middle East’s only nuclear arsenal.

Israel does have an existential threat to its survival, but it is internal. Its inability to make peace with its indigenous people will cost it everything.

Eventually, the American people will become tired of spending resources on a state that makes us enemies in the Arab world, and the Palestinian population will become harder to subjugate.

Israel is running out of time to make peace, and only making peace will bring peace.

Erica Hahn

Monrovia

Except for military assistance, Israel is no longer on the dole when it comes to U.S. foreign aid. Bacevich must know this, and it is mean-spirited for him to accuse Israel of ingratitude and to criticize the nation’s anxiety about its security.

He seems to be deaf to Iran’s threats of extermination. When many Arab nations express their fear of Iran, why should Israel be expected to remain cool?

Bacevich says that Israel is no longer “David surrounded by a host of Goliaths.” It only takes one Goliath if he has a nuclear capacity and has openly sworn to wipe you off the face of the Earth.

Bacevich talks about “the need for mutual respect.” He should take his own advice and think a little more carefully about what it means to live under a threat of annihilation.

Peter Brier

Altadena

Bacevich compares the relationship between Israel and America to a love story. It is not. U.S.-Israeli relations are based on mutual necessity — for now.

Just watch how quickly American support will begin to melt away once the U.S. needs the Middle East less and less (after it develops different sources of energy, for example).

Relations between nations are not based on love, shared ideas or other idealistic notions.

M.T. Gyepes

Pacific Palisades

Bacevich’s Op-Ed contains some of the most bold and astute comments I have read regarding Israel. Thank you for printing it.

“I know what America is,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in 2001. “America is thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction.”

While countries around the world are going to be putting welfare on an extremely severe diet, perhaps Israel should be considered also.

Paula Dell

Los Angeles

Ratings don’t replace parents

Re “A too-blue ‘Blue Valentine’?” Editorial, Dec. 8

Abandon the Motion Picture Assn. of America labels and provide a short blurb describing any controversial scenes in a film. Then let parents decide whether it is appropriate for their children, just as they do when a movie shows on cable or comes out on DVD.

Errol Miller

Chino

“For all the complaints about the MPAA’s process, we’re hard-pressed to come up with a better way.”

Really? Have you considered parenting?

Raphael Mazor

Long Beach

On immigration

Re “Latino issue splits state GOP,” Dec. 6

As the proponent of the Support Federal Immigration Law initiative, I find the negative reaction by a number of California Republican Party leaders to the prospect of serious immigration enforcement in the state sadly un-

surprising. Their public palpitations are in line with their apparent desire to hide out from the political scene, as if their election prospects will improve by becoming a pastel shade of irrelevance on any issue that might animate voters one way or another.

The fact that they are totally out of touch with the majority of Republican voters appears not to matter to these insiders.

Their reaction also shows that the Republican Party establishment (with some notable exceptions) wants continued illegal immigration, regardless of what they may say to the contrary. The reason is simple: Many of their business backers want a growing consumer base for cheap goods manufactured everywhere else but here.

Michael Erickson

Belmont, Calif.

Not a loser

Re “She weathered life’s storms with grace,” Obituary, Dec. 8

As a 13-year cancer survivor and a person with deep admiration for Elizabeth Edwards, I again find myself disturbed by the way many in the media (but not The Times, thankfully) say that she “lost” her battle with cancer.

Rarely is this language associated with those who die of other ailments. Have you ever heard it reported that someone lost a battle with heart disease or a stroke?

For many of us who have fought or are fighting cancer, winning or losing is not simply defined by how long one lives. It’s just as much defined by how one lives with the disease. Since her diagnosis six year ago, Edwards lived a passionate and courageous life. She remained a devoted mother and a dedicated activist for her beliefs. She lived life fully and completely.

Cancer may have taken Edwards’ life; it most certainly did not defeat her.

Bill Brummel

Pasadena