Dear Editor:

I watched the Court’s hearing on the Proposition 8 cases Thursday. It appears that the court is ready to hold that same-sex marriages that took place before the passage of Proposition 8 are valid under California law. During the hearing Justice Baxter and you, who did not support the Court’s In Re Marriages decision, made comments about the unfairness of invalidating such marriages. It also appears that the Court also is poised to uphold Proposition 8 as a valid amendment to the state constitution, thereby creating two classes of gays and lesbians: (1) those who married before passage of Proposition 8, who could marry under existing California law, and (2) all other gays and lesbians who wish to marry, but were not lucky enough to find a partner to marry before the state Constitution was amended to outlaw gay marriage. If the Court decision creates two such classes of persons, its decision will clearly be in violation of the 14th Amendment, which states that “no state . . . may deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Since Article VI of the Constitution states that “this Constitution . . . shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges of any state to the contrary notwithstanding” (emphasis added), Proposition 8 must be declared unconstitutional by the Court if it approves existing gay marriages.

I would like to bring the Court’s attention the little-known fact that for the first 1,250 years of its existence, the Christian church ignored the biblical homophobia in the Old Testament and for more than half of its existence homosexual love and sam-sex marriages were accepted by the church. Yale historian John Boswell’s Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe has on its cover a 6th century fresco of Roman Catholic Saints Serge and Bacchus, two gay Christian lovers who were martyred for their faith in the third century, and are shown in heaven with Jesus Christ. I visited the 6th century church of that name in Istanbul in May 2007; my tour book stated it was the “second most important church in Byzantine Constantinople.” Imagine the horror engulfing the homophobic theocrats who drafted Proposition 8 if they found out that the second most important church in Christian Byzantine Constantinople, capitol of the eastern Roman empire, was named after two saints who were gay married homosexual lovers, and who were believed by early medieval Christians to be united in heaven with Jesus Christ! Such history, while not a legal part of your opinion, could certainly be placed in your opinion as historical background on the subject of gay marriage. Attached is short summary of its history.

Robert W. Holdenvenzon

Dear Editor:

I always enjoy reading the column “Beyond the Briefs” and find it very informative. Unfortunately, I’ve had a problem with the column that came out in the Feb. 19th issue. The column basically is about vice cops targetting gay men in bookstores in New York.

I agree with all of what I read except when I get to the end and there is a paragraph that states, “And, thankfully, it’s been some time since San Diego police engaged in similar shenanigans. Former City Attorney Mike Aguirre didn’t want to prosecute such cases, and William Landsdowne, our local police chief, can’t justify the use of scarce staff to build them. Most importantly, prostitution has never been an issue at such places.”

I can’t help but to look back and think, aren’t these the same people that ran a full on sting operation at one of our local bathhouses and went to the full extent as to not only prosecute but get them shut down (which now, sadly is just an eyesore of a building). If they can find the manpower to do that to us, then why would we trust what is said now?

Frank Garcia