Clash over gay marriage
THANKS TO Jeff Jacoby for helping us better understand the definition of ``bigot" (``A civil debate on gay marriage," op-ed, June 7). What should we call a newspaper columnist who misrepresents information to suit his own political or religious views?
For example, Jacoby writes that the ``traditional understanding of marriage" is ``the union of husband and wife" and ignores that in many cultures these unions are between a man and his property. So, if a columnist ignores a fact such as this, is he dishonest or uninformed?
Jacoby writes that ``children are more likely to suffer problems when they are not raised by their married mothers and fathers," when he must know that the landmark study observed children raised by single parents, not gay parents, and that many studies of children raised by gay parents report no such problems.
What troubles me most is that Jacoby knows better. He promotes his viewpoint at the expense of widely known yet inconvenient truths. I'd define this practice as disappointing.
JAYNE IAFRATE
Falmouth
IT IS ironic that letter writer Andrew Taylor (June 7), who is obviously against an amendment to ban same-sex marriage, writes a letter that makes the case for it.
He questions whether we should leave our future up to ``lobbyist-bought politicians." Well, in a representative republic, that is the way it is. Don't like them? Vote them out of office. He writes that we shouldn't leave our future to the ``current whims of the majority." I know, it is terrible when the people know what they want.
Sorry Mr. Taylor, the ``activist judges" were not elected and do not reflect the will of the people. They should interpret laws, not make them . The people will have their say either way; that's how it works.
BOB HUNNEFIELD
Manchester, N.H.
I CANNOT help but wonder if I am the only one who remembers that it was ``activist judges" who put George W. Bush in the White House.
SHARON A. WOZENCRAFT
Medway
GEORGE BUSH says he wants to ``strengthen families" (``President rips SJC on gay marriage," Page A1, June 6). I agree. And just as baseball has been strengthened by the presence of Jackie Robinson and David Ortiz, Congress by Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, and the military by allowing the enlistment of anyone capable of withstanding the rigors of combat, so too is the institution of the family strengthened by extending the benefits of marriage equally to all partnerships regardless of gender.
ALAN FRANK
Arlington
AS A LIFELONG Massachusetts resident, I resent being labeled a bigot by the likes of Senator Kennedy because I don't believe in gay marriage. I'm a 49-year-old blue-collar male with a gay brother who has had the AIDS virus for 20 years. I also have a gay family member who has been in a relationship with the same partner for more than 40 years. These family members, whom I love and respect, don't consider me a bigot at all. They respect my opinion as I do theirs.
WILLIAM TESSIER
Lowell
SINCE MACY'S has decided it is more important to placate a fringe group of bigots than support its gay and lesbian customers and employees, I have decided that I have more important things to do than ever spend another dime in any of Federated's stores (``Macy's removes Pride Week display," City & Region, June 8).
The only people who had any reason to be offended by the Macy's display of two male mannequins to represent gay pride were lesbians .
JAMES MORRIS
Dorchester
JEFF JACOBY'S commentary on gay marriage brought to mind a scene from Katherine Anne Porter's novel, ``Ship of Fools," which brought to life a representative body of passengers sailing on a cruise ship toward a 1939 Germany in the grip of Nazism. In one chapter, a group of German tourists remove a fellow German traveler from their dinner table upon discovering his wife is Jewish. They have nothing against him, they merely wish to exclude him, erase him, deny his very existence.
Likewise, it seems Jacoby strives to exclude gay people from his table, while stating he wishes them well. Gay people are fine, says Jacoby, they simply can't have a family, can't have committed relationships, can't raise children, and if they are in love with someone, they had best keep it hidden. In short, Jacoby and his ilk wish to deny gay people of almost everything that makes life meaningful and stable to most human beings, and yet not to be called a bigot while doing so. But what other term is available to describe such exclusion of a minority?
To paraphrase what Porter's passenger exclaims to his table: You people cannot exist without your prejudice. And what is even worse: You cannot even see what you are.
JOHN KUNTZ
Cambridge
JEFF JACOBY'S commentary is a shrewd, but failed, attempt by a conservative to claim the moral center by launching his own indirect ad hominem attack. The issue is not about activist judges or saving traditional marriage . It is about the interpretation of the ``equal protection" clause of the Constitution as it applies to homosexuals in this age, not that of the Founders.
At a March 1 hearing in Maryland, after hearing testimony from Democrat Jamie Raskin, state Senator Nancy Jacobs, a Republican, said: ``My Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?" Raskin replied: ``Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
JACK PLANTE
Boston
I AGREE with Jeff Jacoby's contention that there is far too much name calling on both sides of this debate, as is the case with most divisive issues. Also, as a married gay man, I agree that we can have a civil debate and even disagree on all relevant points, which we certainly do.
However, what needs to be addressed, which he ignores, is the ever-present discomfort with homosexuality that informs so many of those who oppose gay marriage. I don't believe these people are deliberate bigots. What I do believe, however, is that for a great many of them, there is a deep, disconcerting aversion to the normalization of homosexuality and that their opposition to my union is not truly based on rational principles but instead on irrational fears no one seems willing to admit they possess.
Only when people are willing to openly acknowledge and discuss this issue along with all the others will the debate about gay marriage truly be civil.
ANTHONY RUFO
Dorchester 
