Gay marriage debated anew
I FIND it disturbing that politicians would use the phrase ``activist judges" when discussing same-sex marriage, as if the Supreme Judicial Court were a body of thoughtless men and women who had no understanding of the implications of what they do (``President rips SJC on gay marriage," Page A1, June 6).
Are we to dismiss that these judges arbitrate the rights and wrongs of our community, and represent the last place where anyone can argue that the state has failed to preserve our rights?
Who can we rely on to reason our way through our inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Should it be left to our lobbyist-bought politicians, a single religious world view, or to the current whims of the majority?
Instead of trying to tear down the third branch of government because it hindered someone's political agenda of control, President Bush and other politicians should be strengthening the American family by making policies that support committed relationships.
ANDREW TAYLOR
Waltham
IT'S GREAT that the Globe editorial staff doesn't think that gay marriage is a big deal (``Gay marriage, so what?" editorial, June 6). What should be of concern to the Globe and its readers is the way in which the Supreme Judicial Court ruling came about -- through a series of unconstitutional maneuvers.
Were the same methods used to restrict abortion the Globe would be in high dudgeon regarding the lack of proper legislative procedure.
There are many citizens who support the right of consenting adults to enter into personal arrangements without government interference, but the methods by which this was achieved with gay marriage is not how these decisions should be made in the Commonwealth, at least according to our constitution.
JEFFREY BARRY
Beverly
IF MARRIAGE between a man and a woman is so wonderful and ``the most fundamental institution of civilization," according to President Bush, then why doesn't he get his ``activist judges" on the Supreme Court to approve a constitutional amendment banning divorce?
TOM FERREIRA
Taunton
I FIND it particularly shameful that the president and Republican leadership would choose June 5 as the date to launch a campaign for a constitutional amendment to limit the rights of marriage to a selected class (namely, straight male-female couples).
June 5 marked the 25-year anniversary of the first mention of AIDS. Of course, the Republican leadership sat silently by while the epidemic took hold, even using the disease to demonize gay people.
Now the Republicans are once again demonizing gay people for political gain.
FRANK SUMMERS
Ashland 
