These are Newsweek letters to the editor. I think they say it pretty damn well!

Your photograph of Eric Etherington, Doug Okun and their twin daughters says it all. These are the faces of a loving couple and loving parents. All they want are the same things that the rest of us take for granted. How is that a threat? The message coming from San Francisco is one of love, tolerance and fairness. The message coming from President Bush and the religious right is one of hate, intolerance and mean-spiritedness. It is time for conservatives to quit obsessing about what people do in their own bedrooms and start doing something about the real problems in our society, such as joblessness, poverty, homelessness and our young men and women getting killed in Iraq.
Alice Jones
Seattle, Wash.

The problem with gay marriage is partly semantic, since the word marriage is so fraught with emotion. Instead, why don't counties simply issue "civil union" licenses without ceremony for all couples of whatever gender, thus legally guaranteeing spousal rights and responsibilities to everyone without discrimination? The term marriage should resume its sacramental meaning. Couples who choose to marry may do so at a separate ceremony within their own faith or belief system. If a church, mosque or temple chooses not to marry homosexual couples, that is its privilege but carries no legal weight. Launching a constitutional amendment to meddle with such issues is lunacy.
Karen Sibert
Sherman Oaks, Calif.

What part of "separation of church and state" is so hard for the religious right to understand? Trying to deny an adult citizen of the United States any civil rights or liberties because you don't personally like his way of life is unconstitutional and un-Christian. People should do as they wish in their place of worship, but the law must be equal for all. We need only look to the Middle East to see what happens when religion and politics are allowed to mix. Working to deny civil rights, or forcing your religious beliefs on others, is about as un-American as you can get.
Lynne Park
Pollock Pines, Calif.

President Bush stated, "government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all." How does allowing a same-sex couple to pledge their commitment to each other and have that pledge recognized by the state serve the interest of my marriage? It doesn't. No outside force can change the pledge to spend a lifetime of devotion that a husband and wife make to each other before God and family. If the president wants what is in the interest of my heterosexual marriage of more than 14 years, he should focus on the economy. By doing so, that would allow my husband, who was laid off 15 months ago, to find and secure meaningful employment. Same-sex marriage should not be used as a smoke screen to cloud the real issue. We should be focusing upon factors vital to our society and way of life.
Sterling Fulton-Smith
Cary, N.C.

The homosexual-marriage agenda advances not because of activist judges, but because so few of us rail against it in the first place. Apparently two thirds of the country is against gay marriage, but where are these people? While homosexuals complain about being persecuted in loud, audible sound bites, the opposition is at home watching "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy." Without President Bush's support of a constitutional amendment, the opposition's response to gay marriage has all the deafening roar of a church mouse. A silent majority? What we really have is an "apathetic" majority.
Patrick Hester
Overland Park, Kans.

ç Home