Constitution should protect gays

The Greek philosophers looked with disfavor on democracy because it would inevitably lead to a tyranny of the majority. They accurately believed majorities are often driven by irrational hatred of minorities who are simply different.

The founders of this nation agreed this was the most serious drawback to a pure democracy, so they opted for a constitutional rather than a non-constitutional democracy to protect minorities from the tyranny of an angry or bigoted majority. What most Americans fail to understand is that one vital purpose of the Constitution is to protect the likes of our gay citizens from a hate-driven majority.

When bigoted majorities amend state constitutions to prevent disliked minorities from entering into the same civil contracts the majority of citizens may, that 's tyranny of the majority.

Consider that some states once had death penalty laws for sodomy and interracial marriage, since removed for being unconstitutional. Hate filled majorities created those laws at one time to oppress gays and blacks. Without constitutional law to protect minorities, there can be no true democracy on a state or national level.

When Wisconsin 's residents voted to butcher the state constitution to deprive a minority of the same civil rights enjoyed by the majority of citizens, they did exactly what our founders feared, something they 'd hoped to avoid with a written constitution.

What our founders failed to foresee was the current stripping of state constitutions of those features meant to protect minorities from a tyranny of the majority. I can scarcely conceive of a greater irony.

-- Richard L. Franklin, Appleton

Court subverted will of the voters

In the year 2000, Californians voted overwhelmingly to affirm that marriage should consist of one man and one woman only. The California Supreme Court recently subverted the will of the people by mandating that members of the same sex can marry each other.

In November, the voters of that state will have the chance to nullify this lame-brained ruling by passing a constitutional amendment to enshrine traditional marriage into law.

I pray to God that this amendment will pass as it did a couple years ago in Wisconsin. That will be something to celebrate for those of us who wish to save the institution of marriage from complete destruction.

If gay marriage becomes the law of the land, we can kiss this country goodbye as we embrace a moral perversion that will rightly bring the wrath of God upon us all. As a committed Christian, I 'll fight to my last breath to uphold God 's original design for marriage.

-- Timothy Rookey, Middleton

Unfair amendments will be overturned

Marriage equality is a freight train crossing the U.S. at 90 mph. It can be rerouted temporarily by people who don 't understand that when a couple takes on all the responsibilities of marriage, they also deserve the rights and benefits of marriage. The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, South Africa and Norway all understand this.

Marriage is a shorthand word for a legal contract that means love, commitment, kids and adjoining graves.

Gay and lesbian couples deserve this as much as straight couples do.

Amendments have been and will be overturned when they are unjust, just as Wisconsin 's anti-marriage amendment of 2006 will be someday.

For the last six years, my son and his partner have been as married as any two people can be, but if Mark becomes gravely ill, Greg would not have any more right to visit him in the ICU than a next door neighbor. If Mark dies, Greg would have no right to continue to be a parent to Mark 's child.

This nightmare of unfairness will end someday. It is too bad Wisconsin is not leading the way.

-- Kay Heggestad, president, Madison PFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays

Judges overstep in 'perverse' lawmaking

Marriage is between one man and one woman, not two women, two men, a dog and a man, a brother and sister, and so on.

Webster 's New World College Dictionary defines "perverse " as deviating from what is considered right and good; wrong, improper, or corrupt, wicked.

Why doesn 't the government get upset over judges doing their jobs and making laws? That 's not the judges ' job, it 's the job of the House and Senate.

It 's funny that judges are overturning state marriage laws. That 's not their job, either.

-- James Kmet, Monona

Separate but equal no longer holds

Sunday 's Forum column by Robert Alt of the Heritage Foundation calls the action of the Supreme Court of California to permit gay marriage "judicial activism. " I would suggest that both Alt and the Heritage Foundation have an improper understanding of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The Constitution prohibits the making of religious beliefs the law of the land. Since there is no social reason for prohibiting gay marriage and the only given reason is certain interpretations of the Bible, it should be unconstitutional to prohibit gay marriage.

In fact, according to the Heritage Foundation 's own Web site, there is a social reason for encouraging gay marriage. From Heritage lecture #1049 we read: "Since individuals who marry are more likely to attend religious services regularly, the postponement of marriage and childbearing has contributed to the decline in church attendance. " (This assumes that church attendance is good for society, and I personally agree.)

He further argues that all the rights and privileges of marriage have been provided by California 's domestic partnership law. Apparently he has forgotten that Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) declared the concept of separate but equal unconstitutional.

The U.S. Constitution and our commitment to equal justice for all require us to allow those of differing sexual orientation the same rights and privileges of heterosexual couples. The California Supreme Court was not engaging in judicial activism -- it was simply upholding the Constitution.

-- Gilbert Splett, Madison

Same-sex marriage misdirects youth

The one overriding reason why society should never recognize same-sex marriage is that it would tell our young people that homosexuality is a normal and legitimate lifestyle choice.

While a small minority of individuals will only be happy with a same-sex partner, all adolescents should know the potential negative consequences associated with such behavior, such as depression, suicide and disease.

Gays and lesbians are accepted and well treated in our country. It is only a small number of them who even want to marry and I believe it is because they want to be considered normal.

-- Craig Winsberg, Blanchardville

Minority protection in constitutions lost

The Greek philosophers looked with disfavor on democracy because it would inevitably lead to a tyranny of the majority. They accurately believed majorities are often driven by irrational hatred of minorities who are simply different.

The founders of this nation agreed this was the most serious drawback to a pure democracy, so they opted for a constitutional rather than a non-constitutional democracy to protect minorities from the tyranny of an angry or bigoted majority. What most Americans fail to understand is that one vital purpose of the Constitution is to protect the likes of our gay citizens from a hate-driven majority.

When bigoted majorities amend state constitutions to prevent disliked minorities from entering into the same civil contracts the majority of citizens may, that 's tyranny of the majority.

Consider that some states once had death penalty laws for sodomy and interracial marriage, since removed for being unconstitutional. Hate filled majorities created those laws at one time to oppress gays and blacks. Without constitutional law to protect minorities, there can be no true democracy on a state or national level.

When Wisconsin 's residents voted to butcher the state constitution to deprive a minority of the same civil rights enjoyed by the majority of citizens, they did exactly what our founders feared, something they 'd hoped to avoid with a written constitution.

What our founders failed to foresee was the current stripping of state constitutions of those features meant to protect minorities from a tyranny of the majority. I can scarcely conceive of a greater irony.

-- Richard L. Franklin, Appleton

Christian unions are one man and woman

Same-sex marriage is bittersweet. Finally people who want same-sex marriage got it, but now they want other people to accept it or they will sue those who won 't take their wedding pictures or a church that won 't marry them.

My problem isn 't in their getting married, but in their getting married as Christians, because to be Christian is about a man and a woman. There is no way around it.

You could sue the church but you still can 't be married as Christians. We can love you as Christians, but you won 't be Christian or married as Christian.

-- Anita Fewell, Lone Rock

Court creates law, as in Roe v. Wade

Should we celebrate the California Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage? There is no argument in the world that can convince me that this is something we as a society should celebrate.

This is not about civil rights, discrimination or hatred towards those with a same-sex attraction. Marriage is by its inherent nature a union between one man and one woman. Nothing in Scripture, natural law or the history of Western Civilization leads me to believe that the California Supreme Court made a wise decision.

It 's another prime example of the judicial branch of government creating rights out of thin air. The U.S, Supreme Court did the same thing in 1973 with their infamous Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton decisions giving us abortion-on-demand in this country.

-- Patrick Hardyman, Blanchardville