Five Letters About the Supreme Court Decision
World-Herald, July 12, 2003
World Herald Square, Omaha, NE 68102
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
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