A supporter holds up a flag during a rally for gay marriage in Philadelphia on June 26. A federal appeals court upheld anti-gay marriage laws in four states on Nov. 6, breaking ranks with other courts that have considered the issue and setting up the prospect of Supreme Court review. (AP file photo)
Re: “Federal appeals court upholds same-sex marriage ban in four states,” Nov. 7 news story.
I was disappointed by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision regarding anti-gay marriage laws because I think the issue that needs to be decided relates to the civil rights of LGBT people rather than the term “marriage.”
I think the court completely missed the point of its very existence when it said, in essence, that the courts cannot “force” people to resolve social issues. In fact, one of the primary functions of the courts, especially at the appellate level and above, is to protect minorities against the tyranny of the majority. Ultimately, I agree that these issues must be resolved at the level of individual members of society, but sometimes pressure from government is essential to protect people who are being abused.
This should not be a semantics argument about the term “marriage”; rather, it should be a discussion about civil rights as guaranteed to all of us by the Constitution. Let us hope the Supreme Court understands that and doesn’t get sidetracked into a semantics argument.
James W. Craft, Broomfield
This letter was published in the Nov. 15 edition.
Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
