Dear Editor:

In all of the excitement lately about gay/lesbian marriage, and especially the furor over the proposed constitutional amendment, there is a sizable minority of Americans who appear to have been forgotten. I am speaking of those born with ambiguous genitalia, known as intersex persons. I believe that intersex persons are a natural variation of human sexual development. It is estimated that about one percent of births are intersex. In a nation of 300 million, that is about 3 million individuals! If these persons do not identify as either male or female, which many of them don’t, then the proposed constitutional amendment will bar these millions of citizens from seeking the happiness and civil rights that they are entitled to also.

Then there is the transgender community to consider. Does the constitutional amendment account for persons who don’t identify as the sex they were born as? There are millions of transgender persons who do not subscribe to the either/or strictly male or female definition of gender. They see themselves on a continuum somewhere between the poles of male and female. A definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman begs the question of how to define a man and a woman. I suspect that the supporters of this measure want to do the defining for the rest of us to enforce and codify their moral world view.

And don’t get me started on the outcry against judicial activism. The loudest complainer is the biggest hypocrite. Our fearless leader, the Bush, would not have commandeered his post as president of the United States without the judicial activism of the Supreme Court! If he insists that policy be made by a vote of the majority rather than judicial decree, as he has publicly stated, he should step down and hand the office over to the person who got the majority vote, Al Gore. What a short memory we all have.

Laura Acevedo

Dear Editor:

I don’t understand all the fuss over the legal recognition of gay relationships. Why not save the term ‘marriage’ for religious recognition, and as long as gay couples receive the same rights in our ‘civil’ society, why not just name it something else? Surely, we are creative enough to start our own traditions without having to redefine an institution that has already been battered and abused by heterosexuals behaving badly. Redefining marriage has many legal implications which are not to be viewed upon lightly. If we are expected to be accepted in society it might help to begin the process by acting more like responsible citizens instead of x-rated narcissistic circus clowns. For instance, is it at all possible that we can focus on the benefits to our society in establishing these relationships over just screaming for ‘equal rights’? I’m sure those of you in functional relationships can come up with some pretty good reasons, other than “it is my constitutional right”. This is where we fail miserably in our cause. Can we show we are entitled to these legal protections without running naked in the streets in a pride celebration? And, is it all possible we can finally reach a point where these sexual orientation parades no longer exist? Look around. Homosexuals are the only ones holding this type of event. They know we exist already, any more on the subject and we are only working against ourselves politically.

I do understand why people have chosen to go to SF for these ‘weddings’, but I feel that the politicians responsible may have done us more harm than good. Now, there is an even greater push for a Constitutional Amendment. Conservatives in general are now even more motivated to do ‘something’, and those who were sitting on the fence over this issue have been shoved over to the opposition. We watched as the president who had been quiet on the amendment issue turn around to lend full support of the amendment, only after what was started in SF. And why, so close to the Massachusetts ruling which will possibly make gay marriages ‘legal’? We backed him into a corner where the religious-right was waiting for him and shot ourselves in the foot, once again. This does not mean it will pass, but if we remain on our current course, it just might!

We cannot afford to sit back and let others do all of the work for us. If you don’t like something gay activists are doing, speak up. Make your positions known. Everyday I am assaulted with some words of wisdom coming from a purple-haired, nose-ringed gay ‘Plato’, or I see one of our activists on TV spewing the most ridiculous argument one could give, fully expecting to be taken seriously. We have to be taken seriously if we expect to make any progress on this issue. Now is the time for a more positive image!

Bill Lullo

Dear Editor:

While the issue of same sex marriage appears to be dividing the nation it would seem that the constitutional arguments are valid on both sides, yet no-one seems to have grasped the obvious middle ground. Proponents of Gay Marriage argue that the Constitution guarantees equal rights for all of America’s citizens. While Opponents argue that Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman only, citing the preservation of the family and Judeo-Christian ideals. Wouldn’t both sides be served by relegating Marriage to one’s religious affiliation where it belongs, leaving the state to simply grant civil unions to any two people who would seek to be recognized by the state as life partners?

Christian Delp