[karaburatoreror]

February 21, 2004

Has the Time Arrived to Allow Gay Marriage? (7 Letters)

To the Editor:

Re "Gay Marriage in the States" (editorial, Feb. 18):

Your support for gay marriage is praiseworthy. It is not the sex of the marriage partners that threatens this social institution, as conservatives would have us believe, but the willingness of each couple to abide by self-determined levels of commitment.

The divorce rate in same-sex marriages is likely to be much lower than that of heterosexual marriages. With shotgun weddings and nuptials resulting from parental pressure unlikely, gays and lesbians have a running head start to successful unions.

MATTHEW MENKEN
Princeton, N.J., Feb. 18, 2004

•

To the Editor:

The actions in California, Massachusetts and Vermont do establish social "laboratories," as you note (editorial, Feb. 18). But I am shocked to see how unperturbed you are by the vastness of this experiment.

The experiment you describe has been foisted on us by a handful of judges and local officials who have circumvented the normal legislative process. Given the large number of people potentially involved, this is reckless and irresponsible.

Considering the damage wrought by other recent social experiments, like no-fault divorce, we should be more circumspect.

FLORIAN GAHBAUER
New York, Feb. 18, 2004

•

To the Editor:

Re "Rushing to Say 'I Do' Before the City Is Told `You Can't' " (news article, Feb. 18):

The American experience has been sustained by the idea that we are a nation of laws and not of kings, and therefore no one is above the law. Whatever our view of allowing gay couples to be afforded the same privileges as married couples, we should not take comfort in what is happening in San Francisco.

Abandoning the rule of law should not be seen as the way to solve complex social issues. Would it be applauded if, say, a conservative mayor decided on his own that in his city abortions would be prohibited or that public money could constitutionally be given to private schools? If mayors are allowed, by a nod and a wink, to ignore the rule of law, where will we wind up?

(Rev.) JOSEPH WATERS
Temple Terrace, Fla., Feb. 19, 2004

•

To the Editor:

A truth overlooked in the gay marriage debate (editorial, Feb. 18) is that marriage status granted by the states is a civil contract, not a religious one. Consequently, all marriage licenses are evidence of a civil union only.

Sanctity of marriage is a religious concept, relevant to unions consecrated by religious institutions. Perhaps the answer is to legislate civil unions for all, both straight and gay couples.

MARCY E. FELLER
New York, Feb. 18, 2004

•

To the Editor:

Re "Gay Marriage in the States" (editorial, Feb. 18):

My partner and I, both United States Army veterans, have been living in a monogamous relationship for 17 years, with the needs and responsibilities of our heterosexual married friends but none of their legal rights. More troublesome is that the rights we do have are in grave danger.

Acceptance of gay marriage is inevitable down the line, but this isn't the year to insist on it. Gay and lesbian couples ought to push instead for full equal rights for civil unions. That will provide far less ammunition for the religious right in the coming campaign.

ROBERT REILLY
New York, Feb. 18, 2004

•

To the Editor:

Re "Gay Marriage in the States" (editorial, Feb. 18):

I hear the question asked over and over again: How would gay marriage have any negative impact on traditional marriage?

Gay marriage devalues the holy institution of marriage even further than it has been devalued by public policy errors like no-fault divorce. Marriage is a special relationship between a man and a woman that has served the good of society throughout history. Gay marriage redefines marriage as something less than an unalienable right ordained by nature, and nature's God.

Marriage is a public institution created for the good of society, not a private institution created for self-fulfillment. If I have an ounce of gold and the government suddenly announces that sandstone will now be called gold and valued equally, what will happen to the value of my gold? It will crash, and so will the economy.

So will it be with gay marriage. Marriage will be further devalued, and so will our entire social order.

(Rev.) BILL BANUCHI
Executive Director
New York Christian Coalition
Newburgh, N.Y., Feb. 18, 2004

•

To the Editor:

Re "Rushing to Say 'I Do' Before the City Is Told 'You Can't' " (news article, Feb. 18):

In this day and age, what we call marriage is really just civil union at the outset, and the marriage grows from within. As a 30-year veteran on the marriage front, I can say with a great deal of confidence that allowing gay marriage as an option is likely to be more beneficial than not.

For most of us, marriage begins with a lifetime commitment, and we succeed or fail on that basis. If that is the standard, and same-sex partners are willing to live up to that goal, I fail to see the harm to anyone.

ARTHUR R. SILEN
Davis, Calif., Feb. 18, 2004

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company