DEAR EDITOR:
In response to Robert Steven van Keuren’s letter of April 23, I
did not realize that The Dispatch had circulation in San Diego. Is
someone locally hiding something?
DEAR EDITOR:
In response to Robert Steven van Keuren’s letter of April 23, I did not realize that The Dispatch had circulation in San Diego. Is someone locally hiding something?
I’m sorry but Robert’s points don’t stand up too well. The issue is not about whether gays can marry or not. The issue is about redefining marriage. As soon as marriage is redefined, then marriage has lost its importance as the foundation for a civil society. Even some liberal Democrats get this point.
Two consenting adults can already do what they want (of course they may have to pay the price if they are carriers of a sexually-transmitted disease). Let’s not confuse consenting adults with the institution of marriage.
I don’t see what the U.S. Constitution has to do with this issue. The Constitution does not refer to my driving habits either. I’m not so sure the Constitution makes statements about rape, murder, stealing, gossip, etc., etc. That’s why we have laws. The Constitution is only as good as society is. It is society that has to determine if marriage should be redefined. And, besides, it was unthinkable to the framers of the Constitution that a man would ever marry a man.
Speaking of Utah, I don’t see that it is legal to have several wives there. Ultimately, the Mormons were not able to continue this practice either.
Bill Guenther, Gilroy
Submitted Friday, April 23 to ed****@****ic.com
