The status of marriage and its amendment

FRANK PHILLIPS is a good reporter. So it's surprising that he would cite unnamed sources ("Legislative support slim for same-sex marriage ban," Page A1, May 17) to claim that some legislators "have signaled they may switch their votes" on the marriage amendment.

No legislator has made such a pronouncement, and this foray into supposition is irresponsible. It's clear where the Globe's editorial page stands on the issue of same-sex marriage. The editors have a right to voice their choice, but so do the people of the Commonwealth.

I urge the Globe to refrain from efforts to create inevitability on the outcome of the marriage amendment vote in the Legislature and simply report on facts. Legislators who support the citizens' right to have a voice on marriage are getting enough pressure from their leadership, the governor, and even US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

It's time for outside voices and speculators to back off and let legislators represent the people who elected them, without fear of reprisal or even political manslaughter by their leadership.

KRIS MINEAU
President
Massachusetts Family Institute
Woburn

I WOULD really appreciate your identifying these legislators and unnamed sources so that I could follow up with an e-mail to these mystery lawmakers. As soon as you tell me who they are, I will tell you what my e-mail will say. Until then, you'll just have to speculate or say what you want to advance your own agenda. What the heck.

LINDA FITZGERALD
East Longmeadow

YOUR COVERAGE of young voters ("Youth voters a force in '08 race," Page A1, May 13) all but ignores a divisive issue that these voters will help decide -- marriage equality -- and the implications for Massachusetts and the nation.

Tellingly, Harvard's Institute of Politics, cited in the story, reveals in a 2004 poll that young voters decisively believe that same-sex marriage should be legally valid, with the same rights as traditional marriage, by a ratio of 57 to 34 percent, in contrast to 61-to-33 percent opposition to equality among a broader population in a concurrent Gallup poll.

Meanwhile, state legislatures are moving toward equality. Connecticut and New Hampshire passed civil unions without court orders, and Connecticut is debating full marriage equality, which California's Legislature approved only to be vetoed.

But if the Massachusetts Legislature puts marriage on the ballot, we can expect a bitter campaign of neighbor against neighbor, with massive out-of-state spending from the radical right. And if voters repeal equality in the bluest of blue states, we can expect another decade of nationwide gay-baiting and wedge-issue fiddling while Rome (Iraq, healthcare, affordable housing) burns.

KEITH SUPKO
Jamaica Plain

MY WIFE, Carrie, and I were married on Oct. 10, 2005, but May 17 -- the date three years ago on which the nation's first legal same-sex weddings took place in Massachusetts -- has come to mean as much to us as the anniversary of our own wedding day.

On the day we were married, we declared our love before our family and friends and knew that our union would have a deeper meaning because we were now a part of an institution that did not discriminate.

Marriage, we believe, cannot be defended by restricting access to it, but will instead be strengthened by the inclusion of all of those who seek to fulfill the wondrous responsibilities that come with pledging yourself to another for all time.

My wife and I are both extraordinarily proud to be wed in Massachusetts. Congratulations, and a very happy anniversary, to all the couples who celebrated their third year of marriage last week .

PATRICK DICKSON
Everett