The Court Disappoints on Gay-Sex Decision
Letters to the editor
York Post, July 4, 2003
1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036
In his dissent, (“Justices strike down state bans on
gay sex,” June 27), Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia fumes that “many
Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as
partners in their businesses, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers
in their children’s schools or as boarders in their homes.”
Many Americans feel the same way about atheists, blacks,
Jews and Catholics. That in no way justifies the passing of discriminatory
laws against those groups.
You would think that a Supreme Court justice like Scalia
would understand this. Scalia’s words are both frightening and despicable.
—Dennis Middlebrooks, Brooklyn
The liberals on the Supreme Court, always seeking to
advance the agenda of the left, have now declared gay sex a constitutional
right. Praying in school is not, though.
No wonder the left is panicked about President Bush’s
judicial nominees. A change in political orientation will end their reign of
legislating abominations from the bench.
—Dave G. Becher, East Northport
Overlooked by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is
how oral and anal sex by both males and females are high risk for sexually
transmitted diseases. The Centers for Disease Control reports that homosexual
males are 22 times more likely to get HIV than heterosexual males. Now 35
STDs, at least four incurable, shorten the lives of homosexuals to 45 years,
The U.S. Supreme Court may protect “mutually consenting
adults” from legal prosecution, but that will increase their infections,
medical costs and deaths.
—John Terneus, Yukon, Okla.
Just because it is now legal to engage in gay sex
doesn’t mean that gay sex is good or beneficial. Cigarette smoking is also
legal. So is abortion.
—Joseph Passaretti, Far Rockaway
When a conservative Supreme Court hands down a
ground-breaking decision favoring gay men and lesbians, it’s big news.
When the New York Post chooses to bury the story on page
26, it’s a sad commentary on the paper’s lack of honest journalism.
—Michael Standman, Tappan
[Home] [Editorials] [Lawrence