The Issue: Arguments by supporters and foes of gay marriage, which the Supreme Court heard last week.
***
John Podhoretz writes about “people who believe homosexuality is a sin and that our common law should reflect that understanding” (“Fighting Feel-Good,” PostOpinion, March 29).
I’m not a big fan of gay marriage, but what scares me more is people making a law based on what they deem sinful. This is America, not Iran.
Bryan Johnson
Linden, NJ
I am not a bigot, I am not a homophobe, and I do not believe that our common law should reflect that homosexuality is a sin. However, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.
The proponents of gay marriage argue that as long as they love their partner, they should not be denied the right to marry and the benefits that go along with marriage.
The concerns of gay couples can easily be resolved by permitting them to enter into civil unions that would allow for the same benefits as married couples and thus they would not suffer any damages.
Unfortunately, the gay lobby wants more. If gay marriage is authorized, religious institutions will be the subject of discrimination suits for refusing to abolish their religious beliefs and perform gay marriages.
Is this the society that Podhoretz wants? We are truly living in a bizarre world.
Gary Goldstein
Warwick
Why is the government involved in people’s relationships and how they are expressed in the first place? Are we dogs that need to be licensed by the state?
Why tolerate this insult to our individuality?
If it is a matter of receiving government benefits based on marital status, that’s an easy fix. Anyone should be able to designate a beneficiary of their choosing, regardless of how they define their relationship.
It’s time for the government to get out of the marriage business and leave the people alone.
Mike Cuggino
Lake Ronkonkoma
True marriage — that between one man and one woman — is the most fundamental of all human social institutions. It is a relationship defined by nature and finds its foundation in the order of creation.
Civil institutions do not create marriage. Nor can they create a right to marry for those who are incapable of marriage.
Marriage was established for the procreation and upbringing of new human lives. Sadly, it has been reduced to another commodity in our culture.
When sexual behavior between two men or two women is viewed as providing a foundation for a new civil right, the real common good of society is placed at risk.
When those who oppose this are routinely characterized as bigots, overt persecution of the Church is close at hand.
Let’s pray that our Supreme Court justices do the right thing and uphold the traditional meaning of marriage.
Sam Wright
Brooklyn
Marriage is a religious ceremony that far pre-dates the founding of our nation.
If citizens want to vote in local elections to permit consenting adults to enter into some sort of domestic partnership that would legally, financially and/or socially bind them to each other, that should be the choice of those voters and nobody else.
The Defense of Marriage Act should not be tampered with. DOMA simply supports and upholds the religious aspect of the union between a man and a woman.
In a country with a clear separation of church and state, what right does any justice, judge or legislative body have to subvert longstanding religious rites? And in the case of California’s Proposition 8, to actually overturn the will of the voters?
Bradley Becker
East Islip