- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:
Published Letters: 2
Unfortunately Miss Walsh, like so many in this increasingly inane debate, misses the point. In our constitutional democracy, the question of whether or not homosexual people should be allowed to marry should be decided neither by whether or not heterosexual" marriages are somehow threatened (which they are not) nor by whether the relationships or lives of "homosexual" people are "any less meaningful" than those of "heterosexual" people (which, to the extent that question is at all "meaningful", I don't know anyone who thinks that they are).
No. We should be talking about whether or not it is really a good idea for judges to be telling the people, in open defiance of democratic processes, what they should believe about morality and immorality. We should be particularly wary in cases, such as this one, in which the questions raised are so inextricably entangled with the deeply held (not to mention constitutionally protected) religious beliefs of millions of our compatriots. But who cares? They are all just a bunch of bumpkins anyway. Right?
It is not that I question Ms. Walsh's or her daughter's ability to see clearly. I just wonder if they see anything other than what they wish to.
Let me get this straight: this guy advocates paying for a policy of intentionally maintaining artificially high oil prices through redistribution of wealth and in the next sentence accuses Republicans of fomenting class warfare?
Now that's just dishonest.
