Web Letters: Good God, Bad God

I like the question Richard Kim raised about injecting religion into the government process at all. I agree this should probably be the main discussion. But I also want to raise another question.

Obama has stated that inclusion is his reason for selecting a man he has basic disagreements with.

My question is, Who is the high-profile racist leader that Obama plans to include in this process--if inclusion is the true reason?

James Halat

Tokyo, Japan

"Perhaps over time, some straights will want in on this God-free institution too, and we'll have civil unions for everyone." In 1967, the US Supremes ruled that, under the Fourteenth Amendment, marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man."

It did not rule that civil unions are one of the basic civil rights of man.

Prior to that decision, my own marriage would have been illegal in several state (although I was single and only 10 years old at the time).

Our marriage has explicit constitutional protection in the Fourteenth Amendment, as explicitly declared by the Supremes. Civil unions will be protected by a mere statute. (I haven't heard of anybody proposing a constitutional amendment declaring civil unions one of the basic civil rights of man.) What Congress giveth, Congress may take away.

I can't imagine one good reason why, given Loving v. Virginia, my wife and I should now decide to trade in our marriage for some second-class civil union.

The whole idea is ridiculous. We will not accept it, and under the Fourteenth Amemdment nobody can force us to. To do so would be a slap in the face to Mildred and Richard Loving, who fought for their (and our) right to marry.

What needs to be done is to affirm that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to gays as well as straights.

Richard Kramer

Ames, IO

Rick Warren insists that marriage by definition is between one man and one woman, that this is true of all cultures, and has been true for 5,000 years of history. Besides the dozens and dozens of examples in the Old Testament of men having more than one wife, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Were all these prophets, judges and kings of Israel in sin, Rick? Have you ever read the Bible, Rick? I don't think so.

Dennis St. John

Big Timber , MT

On a news interview show shortly after George Bush won re-election in 2004, Karl Rove stated that it was their job to "serve the people who voted for them." That was one of the biggest failures of all with the Bush administration: that they intended to represent only their "base," the people who thought the Bush administration represented their interests, and only their interests.

Many people voted for Barack Obama because they thought he represented something different: someone who actually listens to all perspectives, and then synergizes a solution based on the best direction for all Americans. A number of conservative pundits even agreed with this.

Many people who will read this strongly disagree with Rick Warren's views about gays and lesbians. We need to keep speaking out against inequality where gays and lesbians are concerned. But if we are to make progress in the area of equality, we need to continue to make a logical case, because logic and right are on our side. Doing so will begin to convince people like Warren that they are wrong.

In addition, I agree with Paul Schwartz, who also wrote a letter on this topic. Democrats, liberals, and progressives have worked long and hard to finally elect someone who will listen to the people. We must avoid in-fighting now, or surely George Bush's ideological successor awaits just around the corner.

Tony Ettwein

Kalamazoo, MI

Hey--I want to oppose gay marriage on other than religious grounds. Is that a more legitimate stance? I don't want every Tom, Dick, and Harry marrying one another to get tax advantages, health benefits and whatever just because they are now legally married. Every one of those phony unions that do not benefit society, and you know that they will evolve, takes more tax money out of my pocket.

Nin Privitera

Fredonia, NY

Bravo to Richard Kim for having the courage to say what others have been too naïve to say--there should be no invocation at a presidential inauguration at all!

The brouhaha over Warren's appointment is yet another prime example of why we should not mix church and state. Aside from the fact that showing religious preference (tacit or otherwise) in government affairs is unconstitutional, a religious invocation is not even required at the inauguration.

My disappointment in Obama stems from his decision to not use this watershed moment in our history to make a powerful statement--that religion has no place in government and vice versa. Rather, he chose a lightning-rod figure who espouses hate and who represents a very narrow and extreme world view.

I bought into the change and inclusion themes on which Obama ran. I supported his candidacy and will support his presidency. I pray this choice is not a harbinger of the way he plans to approach church-state separation in his administration.

Ellen Brown
Americans United for Separation of Church and State

San Diego, CA

Why is the GLBT community always responding to what others think we should do? Why are other people always telling us what rights they want to give us? Civil rights should not be something you negotiate. All Americans should have equal rights. That is the American way! No more of this civil unions this, child custody that-- we want equal rights. What's so un-American about that?

Michael Gagne

Fort Lauderdale, FL