Enforcing civil rights

Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has made its ruling on gay marriage ("Victory for Gay Couples in Mass.: Same-Sex Marriages OK'd by Highest Court," Nov. 19), it would behoove everyone opposed to gay marriage to bear two things in mind.

First, there are two types of marriage: civil and religious. Gays are seeking only the right to marry in a civil ceremony (although many religious institutions already recognize the sanctity of gay relationships). We're not seeking to force religious institutions opposed to gay marriage on moral grounds from recognizing the validity of those marriages. While clergy can perform civil ceremonies, the opposite is not true: nonclergy cannot perform religious marriages. And that's the way it should stay (this coming from a gay ordained minister).

And second, the United States is not a democracy -- it is a constitutional republic. That means that majority rules as long as it doesn't violate the civil rights of even one individual. Marriage has long been recognized as a right intrinsic to the pursuit of happiness. Whether or not the majority supports it should be a moot point: As citizens of the United States, we are entitled to the same rights and privileges as any other citizen under the ninth and 14th amendments.

Legalizing gay marriage now is as overdue as legalizing the marriages of blacks and whites was in 1968. And just as a majority opposed such marriages in 1968, yet they went through anyway, so it will be with gay marriage. As the court stated in its decision, the court's job is not to determine morality, but to enforce the civil rights of every individual who falls under the protection of the Constitution -- whether it be at the state or federal level.

In 30 years, people will look back on this issue as I do on the miscegenation laws struck down in Loving vs. Virginia. I clearly recall the outrage I felt when I was 7 and my mother told me that the government was allowed to tell you who you could or could not marry based on skin color. I can still remember what I said: "No one can tell you who you can fall in love with!" Those words are as applicable to gays today as they were to whites and blacks in 1968.

REV. SHELLY ROLLISON
New Alexandria

Arrogant judicial activism

Most people have ignored the Senate filibuster of President Bush's qualified judicial nominees. I wonder whether the recent gay marriage decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will awaken people to the need to select judges who apply the law instead of imposing their personal opinions on the rest of us.

Regardless of their views of private homosexuality, most Americans oppose the notion of gay marriage. But in the elites of academia, media and law are many who think they know better than the rest of us. This includes four members of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, who swept aside thousands of years of Western tradition and well-established rules of American jurisprudence to dictate a result that liberal activists could never have achieved through the democratic legislative process.

If American views about gay marriage change, then duly-represented legislators in the various states may decide to enact laws recognizing such unions. But for judges to take this responsibility away from the political process is the height of arrogance. It is an abuse of the separation of powers established by the Constitution, which these judges took oaths to uphold. It divides our nation by imposing views that have not reached consensus.

This is why all Americans should be interested in judicial appointments. Unless we appoint judges who honor their oaths and refrain from judicial activism, we surrender our representative democracy to an elitist minority. Moderate Democrats should ask their senators to stop the filibuster and support qualified judges who would apply the law as written, rather than rewriting the law to suit their personal views.

BRADLEY S. TUPI
Upper St. Clair

Yes, equal rights

The press tells us that gay marriage is the new big battle in the culture war. I would like to see this looked at from the perspective of personal freedom rather than through ideological goggles. But I guess ideology will always be with us, skulking around in the background like anti-gay minister Fred Phelps at a gay man's funeral.

I recently saw a bumper sticker on a giant vehicle that said, "Equal rights, not special rights." Is that the issue here? Are equal rights OK with conservatives as long as they don't become special rights?

Fair enough. No special hate-crime legislation, no reparations. We'll focus on the equal rights part of that bumper sticker as long as there is sincerity about supporting equal rights. If two people love each other, then they should be allowed to marry, period. Freedom, they call it.

We sure do talk a big game concerning freedom in this country. But talk is cheap, and flag-waving is easy. But let's deliver on this freedom part. People who live in a free country don't have Big Brother on their backs telling them which kind of people they can marry. You can't have it both ways: You can't talk about how free we are, then go around restricting people's freedoms because you have a creepy fascination with what others do in their private moments. That's right; the perversion is not in the homosexuality, it's in the freakish fascination that gay rights opponents have with gay sexuality. If you're not gay, then don't worry about that stuff.

What's that you say? "I believe in the dignity and sanctity of marriage"? Sorry, but while you were watching "Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire?" the sanctity of marriage was sold to a major network.

WADE BURTCH
South Side