Letters to the Editor
Constantine
Published Letters: 10
-
Yet again
[Read the article: I came out to my wife]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Straight women ought to be among the strongest supporters of same-sex marriage if only to protect themselves from this kind of deception. This scenario happens over and over and over again and it needs to end.
-
Constitutional Law 101
[Read the article: Who's afraid of the big bad gay marriage amendment?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Because of the interstate commerce clause, it is not much of a streach to believe that a future Supreme Court could mandate that states must honor a marriage contract in another state - including gay marriage. Thus, what happens in a very liberal state like Vermont could set a national marriage policy. If the Supreme court can invent a "constitutional right" to abortion why should the public believe that they would not mandate gay marriage under the interstate commerce clause in the future?"
The Interstate Commerce Clause is one of the enumerated powers of the federal government. It has nothing to do with legislation in one state being recognized or applied in another state.
-
Slopes
[Read the article: Who's afraid of the big bad gay marriage amendment?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"No, you can't get "married" because that's not what the word means--never has anywhere in history in any culture. That's why I closed my original post with "If marriage can mean anything, then it means nothing." Tell me how, if we stretch the meaning of the word to include two people of the same sex how, logically, we can then forbid someone from stretching it include polygamy, polyandry, fathers from marrying their adult daughters, people from marrying their pets--ad infinitum. And don't throw me the cannard that your "marriage" wouldn't be like these things. Simple logic: if a word is redefined to mean anything, how then do we stop those "anythings" that are morally harmful to children and society?"
Polygamy was once legal (not to mention Biblical) and didn't lead to same sex marriage, incest etc. So why should same sex marriage lead to any of those things? Interracial marriage was once illegal in many states but allowing interracial marraige didn't lead to any of those things. Divorce was once illegal, but allowing divorce didn't lead to any of those things. So sorry if I'm not buying the slippery slope scare tactics.
Jesus condemned divorce. He didn't say a word about homosexuality. When Senator Allard / Brownback et al propose a constitutional amendment banning divorce I'll starat to take this "defending marriage" argument seriously. Until then, it's just cynical posturing and this time around even many of the conservative bloggers see it for what it is.
-
The expectation
[Read the article: The president, his party and the public's priorities]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"PS: If marriage's self-appointed guardians want to ban gay marriage, I would like to know what alternative they invision for gay relationships. Even if they're really thinking "extermination," they of course can't say it. So what are they saying gays should do?"
What they're supposed to do, according to the religious right, is just marry someone of the opposite sex, to whom they feel no attraction, and pretend to be straight. Of course the spouse in this case would never go along willingly with this, so you have to lie to them. If you want to see how well such marriages work, rent a copy of Brokeback Mountain.
-
Not all
[Read the article: Stepping in "macaca"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"It's not progressive to paint with a wide, red-state brush the people of any region, nor is it acceptable to make such condescending, tired comments about "the people" and "their language." Southerners-- and our rural counterparts across the nation-- are just as thoughtful and complex as big-city blue-staters, and representing us as backwater, easily snowed, boot-loving rubes is as offensive as any other cultural stereotype."
Certainly not all Southerners meet that description, but apparently there are enough who do that guys like George Allen, Roy Moore, Jim DeMint etc. keep getting elected.
-
His interim replacement
[Read the article: Ted Haggard resigns]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Did you notice his interim replacement, Ross Parsley? I saw him on TV announcing that Haggard had stepped down. Parsley has a breathy, effeminate voice like something from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Not proof of anything of course, but you have to wonder.
-
Appoint Harman
[Read the article: Pelosi's compulsion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Speaker Elect Pelosi should put aside personal considerations and appoint Harman, who had done good work on the committee and is widely respected for her work. Give Hastings something else, he's manifestly unsuited for the job and everyone knows it.
-
Tom Brady
[Read the article: Tom Brady and the "relationship Hail Mary"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Gotta love the life of Tom Brady. How many guys wish they were him?
-
Never heard of him
[Read the article: Porn free]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Never heard of the guy but I'd have more respect for a guy who appeared in gay porn films than I would for a guy willing to have his picture taken with Ann Coulter. He says he didn't like it when Ann Coulter called John Edwards a "faggot" but he doesn't say what he thought of the fact that the crowd at CPAC cheered her remarks. Does he really think they'll accept someone like him? Avoiding the CPAC crowd doesn't make you a liberal and supporting the military doesn't make you a conservative. The guy's got to grow up a bit and learn that there's more to politics than a simple black and white choice of "liberal" or "conservative."
-
Call me a skeptic
[Read the article: Female law students targeted online]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Are you really being "targeted" or "harassed" if someone posts something online saying you're really hot, incredibly sexy, have a great rack etc.? This doesn't strike me as that big a deal. Law students are in their mid-20's and guys at that age spend much of their time talking like that about women (I assume the women spend much of their time talking about men, if not in the same crude terms). I'm not sure why posting the comments somewhere is harassment.
For what it's worth, I graduated from one of those "elite" law schools not so long ago and didn't see any behavior of the sort described in this article, though it's possible I just wasn't paying attention.