History in the mak­ing

Los Angeles Times - - OPINION -

Re “‘ Equal dig­nity’ un­der the law,” June 27, and “The free­dom to marry,” Ed­i­to­rial, June 28

Last week was breath­tak­ing in the sweep­ing im­por­tance of the Supreme Court’s de­ci­sions, and then Pres­i­dent Obama’s amaz­ing eu­logy in Charleston, S. C. What a time to be alive in Amer­ica.

Sadly, those who find them­selves on the wrong side of history and change con­tinue to sound even more out of touch. Jus­tice An­tonin Scalia sounds like the un­cle no­body wants to in­vite to Christ­mas din­ner. For­mer Arkansas Gov. Mike Huck­abee sounds a bit de­ranged as he es­pouses trea­son as the way to over­turn the court’s de­ci­sions.

Try as they may to ap­pear as if they rep­re­sent the ma­jor­ity of vot­ers, the Repub­li­cans con­tinue down the path to­ward ir­rel­e­vance lead­ing to ex­tinc­tion.

Nor­man Franz

San Cle­mente

What our politi­cians and talk ra­dio zealots seem­ingly can­not un­der­stand — be­cause they su­per­im­pose their own be­hav­ior on Supreme Court jus­tices — is that the jus­tices voted their minds ac­cord­ing to their own in­ter­pre­ta­tion of the law, and that there is a pos­si­bil­ity there are two sides to ev­ery is­sue.

Our politi­cians and zealots con­trib­ute to the degra­da­tion of our cul­ture by politi­ciz­ing Supreme Court de­ci­sions and de­mean­ing the jus­tices be­cause they do not agree with them.

“Be­ing right” trumps “do­ing what is right,” and our coun­try is suf­fer­ing for it.

David B. Rad­den

Playa del Rey

Many op­po­nents of gay mar­riage be­lieve that the Bi­ble trumps the Con­sti­tu­tion. Now the Supreme Court has shown that, in the United States, the Con­sti­tu­tion trumps the Bi­ble.

John Reid

San Pe­dro

In: Equal jus­tice un­der law.

Out: Re­li­gious con­trol over Amer­i­can lives.

Thank God.

Mar­shall Ya­gan

La­guna Woods

Chief Jus­tice John G. Roberts Jr.’ s com­ments on the Supreme Court mar­riage equal­ity rul­ing dis­ap­point but do not sur­prise.

To say that the five jus­tices “closed the de­bate” by en­act­ing “their own vi­sion of mar­riage” raises the ques­tion of why there should even be a de­bate about equal­ity when it comes to con­sti­tu­tional rights.

The “vi­sion of mar­riage” af­firmed by last week’s de­ci­sion is what it should al­ways have been: a val­i­da­tion of a lov­ing bond be­tween two adults, re­gard­less of their in­nate sex­ual ori­en­ta­tion.

Nick Duretta


Re­gard­ing the five jus­tices who joined in the ma­jor­ity de­ci­sion, Roberts asked in his dis­sent, “Just who do we think we are?” The short an­swer: You are the nine peo­ple in this coun­try with ul­ti­mate re­spon­si­bil­ity to pro­tect the rights and dig­nity of all Amer­i­cans against un­fair dis­crim­i­na­tion.

That’s who we think you are and that’s what we think your job is. And that’s what the ma­jor­ity de­ci­sion seeks to ac­com­plish.

Any ques­tions?

Allan Serviss

West­lake Vil­lage

The Supreme Court’s de­ci­sion on gay mar­riage would not have been pos­si­ble with­out the left’s pro­tracted and largely suc­cess­ful war against both the Chris­tian Bi­ble and the U. S. Con­sti­tu­tion.

Both are con­sid­ered to re­flect out­dated and ir­rel­e­vant think­ing that stands in the way of sci­en­tific truth and hu­man progress.

Of course, that is pre­cisely how those of us on the right re­gard just about any­thing dis­sem­i­nated from the left, es­pe­cially the parts about the su­pe­ri­or­ity of big gov­ern­ment and the wis­dom of bu­reau­crats.

Pa­trick M. Dempsey

Granada Hills

Re­gard­less of how one may feel about the is­sue of same- sex mar­riage, one thing is for sure: The re­ac­tions to the Supreme Court de­ci­sion prove that mar­riage is ob­vi­ously more than “just a piece of pa­per.”

Marc Rus­sell

Los An­ge­les

Yawn. Oh, ex­cuse me. I have been lis­ten­ing to the bab­ble about the Supreme Court anoint­ing gay mar­riage. What an enor­mous fuss. This ar­gu­ment sim­ply is over the mean­ing of the word “mar­riage.”

Since the be­gin­ning of or­ga­nized so­ci­ety, mar­riage has re­ferred to the join­ing of a man and woman in mat­ri­mony. Now it no longer means that.

It’s like the Queen of Eng­land ( who has all the power of the monarch) de­mand­ing that she be called King. And now, she shall.

Ed­die Smith

San Diego

Ho­mo­sex­ual “mar­riage” may be le­gal thanks to five U. S. Supreme Court jus­tices, but is it moral and is it in good taste?

Robert S. Rodgers

Cul­ver City

All this hoopla to­tally over­looks the down­side: Be­fore, when same- sex cou­ples who were co­hab­i­tat­ing found that the re­la­tion­ship was no longer work­ing, they just picked up their own car keys, per­sonal be­long­ings and check­books, hugged or shook hands, and left as friends.

Now, when they are legally mar­ried, that won’t work.

First, they may have to hire an ex­pen­sive di­vorce lawyer, go to court and fight over who gets what — as ev­ery­thing, legally, is com­mon prop­erty. The lawyers will get the most. The cou­ple will most likely hate each other be­fore it’s over.

I have been through two di­vorces, and I don’t wish that pain on my worst en­emy.

Ted Ury

San Juan Capis­trano

Clearly in the gay com­mu­nity mar­riage is re­garded as a cher­ished in­sti­tu­tion.

Among het­ero­sex­u­als, on the other hand, the en­thu­si­asm for mar­riage seems head­ing in the op­po­site di­rec­tion, es­pe­cially if one looks at sta­tis­tics per­tain­ing to births out of wed­lock and the in­creas­ing num­ber of sin­gles and co­hab­i­tat­ing cou­ples.

I don’t think these can be re­garded as pos­i­tive trends over the long run.

Ge­of­frey C. Church

Los An­ge­les

I am glad same- sex mar­riages are now be­hind us and it’s time to move on to the next step.

I feel it’s only fair for a man or woman who wants two wives or two hus­bands to have that free­dom. As long as all three peo­ple want to have a tri- way mar­riage, why not?

My per­sonal choice at age 83 would be one old wife and one young wife.

Clifford Rack­ohn


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.