Ethan Fletcher, left, and Andrew Hickam hold hands after having their marriage paperwork processed at Hamilton County Probate Court in Cincinnati in June 26, after the Supreme Court declared that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the U.S. (John Minchillo, The Associated Press)
Re: “Gay marriage: Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide,” June 27 news story.
The U.S. Supreme Courtap recent rulings are epic, and while many Republicans and religious leaders disagree, history will show this as a monumental time for civil rights and the rule of law. When viewed objectively and secularly, citizens should be elated with the recent rulings.
Regarding gay rights, Justice Anthony Kennedy could not have said it any better: “The court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them.”
To be frank, many Republicans are way off base when it comes to gay rights, climate change, and the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). There is no way the Republican Party will win the presidency in a general election swimming against the current of these issues.
Freedom and liberty for all!
Vince Maglischo, Arvada
This letter was published in the July 5 edition.Marriage has lasted for thousands of years through the natural concept that male and female together are best equipped by nature to have and raise children. Marriage solemnifies the commitment to do so — even though we too often are not perfect in that commitment. Yet five justices declared same-sex marriage equal to age-old marriage. They just declared it.
But that declaration on marriage goes way beyond the justices’ pay grades, given the momentous impact of marriage in our human history. They could have rightly declared gays equal as human beings to be protected by civil union law. They had no right to declare that as of June 26, 2015, marriage has instantly changed in foundational ways from what has been handed down through many different faiths to Americans through the ages. They had no authority to do that, just as no pope has the authority to change marriage for Protestants, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and atheists. But they sure did.
Rich McLean, Aurora
This letter was published in the July 5 edition.The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court allowing non-traditional marriage at least stops some of the arguments, and allows us to devote our energies to the really important matters. What other people do in their marriage does not affect mine at all. However, we have so many other items to concern us that involve the survival of our country, it seems that things like this are just a distraction. Consider the national debt, actually upholding the Constitution and our freedom, privacy, worldwide religious wars, preserving the Second Amendment and our personal security, and preserving the value of the dollar among just a few. Who marries whom seems to be a rather trivial matter in the big scheme of things.
Bill Hineser, Arvada
This letter was published in the July 5 edition.According to a survey released in 2014 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 96.6 percent of adults in the United States identified as heterosexual; 1.6 percent identified as gay or lesbian; and 0.7 percent identified as bisexual. The remaining 1.1 percent of adults either identified as “something else,” didn’t know the answer or refused to respond.
Therefore, the Supreme Courtap recent decision undoubtedly qualifies as the “man bites dog” measure for whatap news. However, it seems to me, given the small number of individuals directly affected by the ruling, that the front-page photos of the celebration in Washington, D.C., are overboard. My guess is that the media is basing the prominent coverage on the number of individuals indirectly affected by the ruling, but their concerns are largely absent from media sources. This is the oxymoronic “advocacy journalism” at its worst.
Donna Jorgenson Farrell, Broomfield
This letter was published in the July 5 edition.At last weekend’s Western Conservative Summit in Denver, the Republican presidential candidates uniformly held that marriage rights should be up to the states. It seems absurd that an American citizen would lose rights just by crossing a state line.
Don Bishop, Golden
This letter was published in the July 5 edition.Are we as a country becoming more divided or more unified? When historical decisions are made and elections fall to one party or the other, there is an “in your face” celebration focused at those who lost. When was the last time there was an election for president that was separated by more than a few percentage points in the popular vote? When was the last time there was a unanimous Supreme Court decision on any major decision? Itap usually 5-4, or 6-3 at best. That tells me there are a lot of people who will be hurt, lost, disappointed, and even confused as to what the future holds for them and their beliefs. Where is the leader who has seen his/her cause win, and then truly demonstrated a humility that there are a lot of people who are not celebrating?
John Pickard, Lakewood
This letter was published in the July 5 edition.
Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
