Gay marriage once again at the forefront
To the editor:
The Wednesday Associated Press story, "Voters rout six-term Indiana senator, strengthen gay marriage ban in N.C.," contained a major error.
About halfway through, the story claims, "Elsewhere, North Carolina voters moved in the opposite direction from a string of states - Democrat-leaning places such as New York and Vermont and conservative Iowa - where same sex marriage is now legal." I beg to differ.
The voters didn't move in the opposite direction. North Carolina voters did exactly what voters in every other state have done when given the chance: They voted against gay marriage - even in liberal California.
The story tries to use "conservative Iowa" to make the case. But Iowa has gay marriage only because liberals on the state Supreme Court mandated it, not because voters approved it. In fact, Iowa voters were so outraged by the court's decision that three of those justices are former justices, having lost their re-election campaigns.
As far as President Barack Obama goes, he was for gay marriage before he ran for the White House. But while campaigning in 2008, he told Pastor Rick Warren he believed marriage was between one woman and one man. Then he said he was evolving on the subject. Surprise, surprise. Mr. Obama has finished evolving. On Wednesday he said he now favors gay marriage.
I guess we will see what voters think about his evolution come November.
Robert Gardner
Henderson
Gay tourism
To the editor:
It's time for Nevadans to use some common sense when it comes to gay marriage.
Nevada is experiencing high unemployment, and all the ailments that go with that. We're a state that depends on tourism. Yet we deny ourselves an increase in tourism by banning gay marriage.
Allow these unions to take place here, and you would have a large volume of couples - with their family, friends and relatives - celebrating the marriage.
If you oppose homosexuality, then don't enter into a same-sex relationship. But let's give fellow Nevadans a chance to find work, by allowing gay marriages.
Richard J. Mundy
Las Vegas
The state and marriage
To the editor:
The ongoing controversies over same-sex marriage and the recent Obama administration political positioning to gain the gay and lesbian vote begs the question: Who owns the right of marriage, the church or state?
An examination of the recorded history of marriage shows almost all religious groups had defined their respective rules or laws of marriage long before the state. Although they varied wildly, they all involved the union of males with females. Jewish laws date back before the birth of Christianity.
It wasn't till 1753 with the passage of the Clandestine Marriage Act in England that the state began asserting control. Even then the act mandated the marriage take place in church.
Gay and lesbian couples have controversial - but legitimate - arguments over their civil rights being violated when compared to heterosexual unions. I propose a solution:
The government should not control marriages. It should be left up to the various religions. The government should issue only civil union licenses.
The federal and state governments should recognize all civil unions. This is especially true for things such as the IRS tax code and Social Security.
The concept of marriage should be owned by the various religions. After obtaining a union license, marriages would be performed by religious organizations only. This way each religion can define marriage and the state can control the details of the civil unions.
One can only speculate about some new and unusual religious organizations springing up, but that is what our Constitution and the Bill of Rights are all about. Conservative, traditional, religious, or not, couples can keep their definition of marriage and all will have equal rights.
Gary A. Desler
Henderson
