Last edited: November 22, 2003

Five Letters About the Supreme Court Decision

Omaha World-Herald, July 12, 2003
World Herald Square, Omaha, NE 68102
Fax: 402-345-4547

Letter: Privacy Is Established

I agree with Brian Conrad (July 9 Pulse) that the U.S. Constitution does not specifically address “homosexual rights.” Further, it does not address heterosexual rights.

Following Mr. Conrad’s line of reasoning, one could conclude that he would not find anything inherently wrong with a state’s banning male-female sexual relations.

Fortunately for us, the Founding Fathers were wise and planned for unforeseen eventualities—specifically, in Amendment IX to the Constitution: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Thus has the “right to privacy” been established by the Supreme Court, ensuring homosexual—and heterosexual—freedoms.

—Ian Cowan, Omaha


Letter: His View Was Flawed

A July 8 Pulse letter (“On morals and customs”) stated that congressmen and -women “lack insight to see the connection between denial of (gay) marriage and promiscuity.”

Taking that premise to the logical conclusion, there would be no heterosexual promiscuity, since heterosexuals always have been allowed to marry. But we need only look at the rate of out-of-wedlock births, divorces caused by adultery and the explosion of sexually transmitted diseases to know that it just isn’t so.

People, step back from the issue and examine your argument before writing. If your argument is faulty, it reflects negatively on your position. Your words, intended to sway opinion in your favor, can convince people that you and your position are wrong.

—Charles Martin, La Vista


July 13, 2003

Letter: Same Rights Are Sought

Brian K. Conrad (July 9 Pulse) wrote: “No matter where you look in the Constitution or the record of the framers of the Constitution, no reasonable human can snatch homosexual rights out of thin air.” Of course one can’t, nor do we need to do so.

Although Conrad apparently wishes to deny us this fact, we homosexuals are citizens of the U.S.A. As fellow citizens, we are entitled to the same rights as he is. Why do some people call them “special rights” when we ask for the same rights that other citizens enjoy?

I suggest that Conrad take another look at Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This section defines citizenship and privileges of citizens. It includes this statement: “Nor (shall any State) deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

I also suggest that he reread the Declaration of Independence. It includes this statement: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

—Forrest D. Christensen, Omaha


Letter: Justices Got It Right

In his July 9 Pulse letter, Brian Conrad asserted that our Supreme Court justices “blatantly circumvented the Constitution” in their decision to overturn the Texas sodomy law. I would suggest that Mr. Conrad reread his copy of the Constitution.

It is pretty clear that the 14th Amendment states that it is wrong to deny a certain group of people rights that are allowed to others. Our Supreme Court justices should be commended for their accurate interpretation of the law and for their courage in taking a stand for the protection of the rights of every U.S. citizen.

—Andrew J. Melichar, Omaha


Letter: We Heed God’s Word

Paul Coate (July 9 Pulse) accused Christians of oppressing gays with hatred. Coate also asks if Christians really believe that Jesus would treat homosexuals with any less love than anyone else.

The examples of God’s word are clear. It is written that man shall not lay down with man, nor woman with woman.

In response to Coate’s question as to how Jesus would treat a homosexual, the Bible was very clear. Jesus also told the prostitute that He loved her, but she was to go and commit sin (prostitution) no more. In other words, Christians don’t have a problem with the person; Christians have a problem with the sin.

To say that Christians are “oppressive” toward homosexuals and that they should learn to accept the homosexual lifestyle would imply that we should be hypocrites and adhere only to a part of God’s word and guidance. True Christians would never stray from God’s word, and no legislation would ever change that.

—Marv Dorsey, Plattsmouth, Neb.

[Home] [Editorials] [Lawrence v. Texas]