A time to bridge our differences

Discussion: 20 comments so far…

1. By jfnance32

   1/8/09 at 8:09 a.m.

   Suggest removal

   Good letter........to say people who oppose gay marriage are full of hate is a dumb statement.

2. By Houstonjac

   1/8/09 at 8:11 a.m.

   Suggest removal

   This is in response to Joe Beltran's letter published in the Las Vegas Sun on January 8,2009 in which it was stated that "As a Roman Catholic and a lifelong Democrat, I was saddened and dejected by the passage of Proposition 8, California's anti-gay-marriage initiative. This initiative deprived a large segment of the population of the same rights we enjoy because of their differing lifestyles". What the liberals and gay activists who continue to fight the will of the people do not understand is that there have now been two votes in California where the majority of the voters have said "no" to gay marriage. What is clearly evident is that liberals, and gay activists simply do not get it--we live in a democracy and the will of the people in California have said "no" to this initiative. The majority of Californians want to preserve the institution of marriage for a single man and a single woman.

   Just as the will of the people has spoken and elected Barack Obama as President, the rest of us must now accept that decision and move on. I suggest that liberals and gay activists follow this lead in the matter of gay marriage.

   With regard to Joe Beltran's position on the selection of Rick Warren as President Elect Obama's choice to give the inaugural prayer, Warren conducted an excellent, unbiased candid debate at Saddleback Church in which Barack Obama and John McCain participated. It was unquestionably the best debate of the series in my opinion. Is it possible that President elect Obama respects the person of Rick Warren, and has chosen him for that reason?

3. By redferret

   1/8/09 at 8:39 a.m.

   Suggest removal

   Houston, your position is utterly untenable. It wasn't so long ago that the majority of people felt that blacks shouldn't vote, that women shouldn't vote, that whites and blacks shouldn't intermarry, that blacks and whites couldn't go to the same school or use the same facilities. Those were all backed by the majority of the people. What you brazenly overlook houston is that the constitution recognizes the rights of the majority while protecting the rights of minorities (meaning those not of the majority position).
   What's popular isn't always right, and what's right isn't always popular.

4. By Houstonjac

   1/8/09 at 9:16 a.m.

   Suggest removal

   redferret--At some point the will of the people turned direction on the matters that you mentioned. At present the will of the people is
   saying no to gay marriage. If the will of the people ever changes its position on gay marriage, it will then be that way. Who chooses what is not popular is right? --for now we have the ballot box. My position is let's respect it.
   How about three people getting married--they all love each other and want the same rights as marriage confers on a single man and a single woman. How about two bisexual couples who want to enter a four person marriage? Let's get down to the root of the matter, marriage is the domain of single man and single woman. Nothing wrong with that at all. Gays need to find some other civil union that specifically addresses their unique life style. And society is obligated to give them that specific remedy in my opinion.

5. By jfnance32

   1/8/09 at 9:18 a.m.

   Suggest removal

   Some blacks are offended when people compare their struggle with the gay marriage struggle.

   I concur with their thoughts that is not the same thing.

   The only entity that has the power to declare if a law violates constitutional rights are the judical branches of government.

   In Nevada, it is in the State Constitution that gay marriage is banned. That was supported by Harry Reid. It is highly unlikely that the state courts will overturn an actual part of the state Constitution.

   In Federal courts, there has not been one court that has ruled in favor of gay marriage. It is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of gay marriage. In 2005, a Federal court rule that states have the right to ban gay marriage.

   If you want gay marriage then you should go about it the right way which is via the legislature branches. You should support candidates that support gay marriage. That would not include Reid or Obama.

6. By tdkarabatsos

   1/8/09 at 9:20 a.m.

   Suggest removal

   Sufferage should be denied to any woman who texts or applies make-up while driving.

7. By annagraham

   1/8/09 at 10:10 a.m.

   Suggest removal

   Houston - while I can sympathize with your point of view, I disagree with your comment that "I suggest that liberals and gay activists follow this lead in the matter of gay marriage." Red mentioned that minorities have had to fight for rights in the past to change the majority's rule. How is this situation any different? You saying that people who are gay should "follow the lead" and basically "accept the decision" that they are not equal in the eyes of government. How would anyone's rights have ever changed if the minorities just rolled over and said "hit me again Ike, and this time, put some stank on it".

   That's precisely the point, they must not give up. They must keep fighting to obtain rights that you and I, because we're straight, get to enjoy without question.

   I, personally, don't care if gays get married. Who cares? If you don't want it to be recognized by "your God" then fine, it doesn't have to be done in your church. But why should it be disallowed at all?

   I can't stand this argument that it's a Pandora's box. Its used every time people are blindly afraid of what they don't understand. Sheesh. Live and let live people, what's the big deal? So they won't get into your heaven, so what...they would not have because they "chose" to be gay anyway (which science now has proven a gay man's brain is wired more like a hetro females, and a gay woman's brain is hardwired more like that of a hetro males - it's not a choice is the point). Gimme a break.

   Okay that's my two cents and I am out.

8. By annagraham

   1/8/09 at 10:12 a.m.

   Suggest removal

   *correction

   Should read "You're saying that people who are gay should "follow the lead" and basically "accept the decision" that they are not equal in the eyes of government.

   Thanks!

9. By johnevegas

   1/8/09 at 11:16 a.m.

   Suggest removal

   I agree with the author, but will add, that it seems support and opposition come down to primary difference of beliefs about homosexuality.

   Those who believe homosexuality is a choice, want gay people to re-choose and be straight. Therefore, they do not support equal marriage rights for gays.

   Those who believe homosexuality is not a choice, and is instead a characteristic someone is born with (like being black), support equal marriage rights for gays.

   Of course, these are not hard and fast rules. But it seems to me this is where the big split is.

10. By JohnF

    1/8/09 at 2:14 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    I see this as an equal protection argument. There are certain rights that accrue to people simply because of their marital status, like inheritance rights and lower tax rates. Denying people those rights because of their sexual orientation is denying them the equal protection of the law.

    The solution to me seems simple and obvious. Either we allow gay people the right to marry (in a legal sense; no church would be required to perfrom a gay marriage ceremony), or we eliminate all the legal benefits that are conferred upon married people.

11. By jfnance32

    1/8/09 at 2:41 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    "Denying people those rights because of their sexual orientation is denying them the equal protection of the law"

    That is your opinion of the of the law.

    There is no Federal court that has rule that gay marriage is a protected right. In fact, in 2005 a Federal court ruled that states have the right under the Constitution to ban gay marriage.

    If you think it is a slam dunk about your theory then you should file a case with a Federal District Court.

12. By johnevegas

    1/8/09 at 3:52 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

    It is my opinion of the law that preventing gay people from marrying infringes on their rights as Americans, as stated above. It is a violation of the basic principals of our constitution.

13. By JohnF

    1/8/09 at 4:06 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mr. Nance,

    No federal court has ruled that way, but state supreme courts have. They are out ahead of the federal courts on this one.

    The federal courts have been wrong before. They are wrong now.

    I find it interesting and also frightening that opponents of gay marriage would go so far as to use their states' constitutions to limit the rights of others. Constitutions have heretofore always been instruments designed to define and limit the powers of government. After saying we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the Declaration of Independence states "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men." In other words, the purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people. These constitutional amendments that take away the rights of others are simply un-American; they fly in the face of everything we are supposed to stand for. Shame on us all for allowing them.

14. By johnevegas

    1/8/09 at 4:55 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    JohnF "in a legal sense; no church would be required to perform a gay marriage ceremony"

    My church would happily perform them. To them, love is love. They don't have a valid love as defined by the right sexes committing to each other and an invalid immoral not-love as defined by the wrong sexes committing to each other. It is defined as two people who love each other and want to commit to each other for life.

    Funny to think of it this way...

    God is love. There is nothing that exists outside of God. With that in mind, which part of God's expressed love is it exactly that these people have a problem with? And why???

    I think it's because it shatters their notion of God, as they have narrowly defined "it". Too bad people have to suffer for this. Needlessly.

15. By jfnance32

    1/8/09 at 6:03 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    "I find it interesting and also frightening that opponents of gay marriage would go so far as to use their states' constitutions to limit the rights of others. "

    I guess that you are scared of Reid. He supported Nevada's gay marriage ban Constitutional admendment.

16. By JohnF

    1/8/09 at 7:58 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    I'm not scared of Reid, just disappointed in him. Like many others, he has allowed fear and ignorance to inform his politics, at least on this isuue.

17. By johnevegas

    1/8/09 at 8:10 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    That's what I think of Reid, and Obama, etc...

    I'm not afraid, or even mad, because I once believed the same. But I find that if you really step away from the issue and remove all the baggage, it really comes down to saying "you're not entitled to be treated as normal."

    My soul is not at peace with that judgment. I did not create that person.

18. By maco9005

    1/10/09 at 11:48 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    I'm curious. Is it the democrat or the catholic coming out that makes you feel this way?

« Previous TenNext Ten »