Nays, yeas over a gay-marriage vote

GOVERNOR ROMNEY'S doublespeak about ``democracy" is more than wrong; it is chilling (``Lobbying intensifies on gay marriage," Page A1, June 29).

Referring to an anti-marriage-rights initiative, he calls it ``democracy" to let the people vote on whether to allow other people to retain basic civil rights.

The Founding Fathers knew that allowing the majority to vote down the civil rights of a minority was destructive of democracy. They called it ``the tyranny of the majority," and they provided our Bill of Rights to help prevent it.

Those of us who remember the Fifties, and are honest with ourselves, know exactly what would have happened if anti-miscegenation laws had been put to a popular vote. They were disposed of by the judiciary. Who dares argue with that today?

If it came to a vote, I believe the people of Massachusetts would sensibly endorse the status quo. No worries there. But nonetheless I strongly oppose setting any precedent for a popular vote on stamping out a basic civil right for a minority, and so should any caring citizen. It might be your rights on the block next.

LAURA BURNS
Hingham

DOES ANYONE else see the irony in Cardinal Sean O'Malley calling for open debate in the State House on the issue of gay marriage? He says, ``Let the people vote" as if he is for democracy. The church is not a democracy; it is about doing what you are told based on what has already been decided. The cardinal is not some pugilist for freedom. He is a purveyor of doctrine and dogma.

I want debate . I want it based on reason and law, not on superstition and fear.

ERIC MICHAEL MUNIZ
Salem

I AM concerned by the silence (or worse) from the media concerning how people feel about marriage. Almost every person I have spoken to about marriage thinks it should be between a man and a woman. The only other response I have heard in discussions -- and it's been rare -- is that the person doesn't care .

We need to have a way to find out what the people really feel. That way is by voting. If anyone is opposed to voting on this issue, it is only because they are afraid of finding out how people really feel .

TIMOTHY CALEY
Weymouth

MARRIAGE IS the only Christian sacrament not administered by the churches. Rather, according to Christian doctrine, marriage is a sacrament administered by each partner to the other, with the church's presence as witness. As such, the church is less directly involved in who marries whom than appearances suggest.

Churches should more wisely expend their energies and pastoral functions to reduce the real threats to the future of marriage: divorce rates and domestic and child abuse . Perhaps alternative families are a natural response to the failures of traditional marriage.

The state should not be in the business of codifying morality (Prohibition taught that lesson). A constitutional ban on gay marriage, an issue of ``equal protection under the law," may itself prove to violate the federal constitution.

JACK PLANTE
Boston

The writer is a graduate of St. Mary's Seminary & University in Baltimore.