RE “MAINE voters overturn state’s new same-sex marriage law’’ (Nov. 4): By referring to the demands of gay advocacy groups as “gay rights,’’ you are tacitly endorsing their position that states that don’t recognize same-sex marriage are violating rights. In fact, that lack of recognition is not a rights violation, as courts have ruled many times.
Pro-gay marriage rulings have been based on rather tortured interpretations of state laws, and when given a chance to vote on the issue, the public has voted against state recognition.
I’m not asking your reporter to take a stand against these groups. Call them gay advocacy groups instead; it’s a neutral term that doesn’t take sides.
Richard Sol
Los Angeles
Minority rights should not be put to a vote
IN “MAINE voters overturn state’s new same-sex marriage law’’ (Page A1, Nov. 4), Maria Sacchetti writes that legalized gay marriage has arisen “only by virtue of politicians or judges.’’ Some readers might infer that we have legalized gay marriage by some indirect route. In fact, gay marriage is the only civil rights issue that has been put up to a popular vote. Interracial marriage has not been put to a vote, and neither has women’s suffrage.
Thomas Jefferson astutely asserted that it would be tyranny for the majority to use its power to subjugate a minority group. Consequently, politicians and judges are the only ones qualified to protect the rights of minority groups.
May I vote on your ability to marry?
James P. Coady-Hahn
Quincy 
