SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
Lewis trots out same tired anti-rights case
You couldn't ask for a better contrast than the commentaries about the proposed state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage by Nicole Burg and Jason Lewis in the May 15 Opinion Exchange section.
The former engages in a very personal and clearly painful account of the heavy cost that the victimization and vilification of the gay minority in this state and country took, and continues to take, on the author's two gay siblings. The latter blithely dodges anything human in the issue, except to sarcastically refer to judges who can't "control their legislative appetites." And to clarify for Lewis, the "cultural elite" are not those bullied to the point of suicide in our schools for being gay or those seeking to defend them. They are successful radio hosts and columnists like you slinging reckless attacks at people like Burg's siblings.
ANDREW BLOOMBERG, MINNEAPOLIS
• • •
Lewis's diatribe against gay marriage is nothing but a bunch of homophobic gobbledygook masked in a lengthy mess of meaningless jargon. Stop already with your senseless ambition to discriminate against those who simply want to love another person. No amount of articulation justifies denying the basic right of letting an individual love another.
The marriage amendment that should be passed is one that sanctions and allows benefits to anyone, no matter whom they decide to make a commitment to.
STEVE SITKOFF, MINNEAPOLIS
A matter of priorities
Cut today's comforts to deal with money woes
Hamline Law School Prof. Marie A. Failinger states in her commentary that the second thing a family would do to balance its budget, after trying to increase income, is to cut out future luxuries ("If the state were a family managing a budget ...," May 15). Maybe in her family, but in our family the first thing we did was cut an existing luxury. In this economy, that's easier than finding a part-time job.