God, gays & the Constitution
I'd like to respond to several recent VND letter writers.
In his letter “Guns, God & drugs” (April 5), Rudy Gagliardi links a litany of societal ills with the lack of prayer in school. How paradoxical!
What underlies most societal ills is some form of irrationality. The prescription — embrace irrationality via our educational system being a conduit for religion — is a recipe for a theocratic regime to enforce obedience.
It's true that most marriages involve heterosexuals and procreation, but the letter “Be clear when criticizing gays” (March 15) would have us believe homosexuals have their own logic.
The writer, Archie Atkinson, should realize homosexuals and same-sex-union advocates believe that just because most marriages are heterosexual, that doesn't make gay marriages illogical or wrong.
Atkinson also refers to heterosexual and homosexual relationships as “normal” and “living hell,” respectively. That's a moral judgement based upon facts entirely irrelevant to morality.
And as Sterling Sorrow writes in “In defense of gay marriage” (March 10), “the Constitution, not the Bible, is the law of the land. We don't live in a theocracy where the word of God is law.” He is absolutely correct. Those seeking to prohibit same-sex marriage are, essentially, advocating a Christian version of Sharia law.
Amesh A. Adalja
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Duty to disclose
- Pedro must go
- Reverse red-kettle ban I
- Steel at stake, too
- Not taxpayers’ responsibility
- Oberdorf firing