53° Good Afternoon
53° Good Afternoon

Letters: Same-sex ruling goes too far?

In this April 28, 2015 file photo, demonstrators

In this April 28, 2015 file photo, demonstrators stand in front of a rainbow flag of the Supreme Court in Washington, as the court was set to hear historic arguments in cases that could make same-sex marriage the law of the land. Photo Credit: AP

Marriage should be between a man and a woman only [" 'Equal dignity in the eyes of the law,' " Editorial, June 28]. If gay people want to live together and be afforded all legal opportunities, then they should have the right to join together in a civil union.

Anyone in a civil union could be given the same consideration as a married man and woman. Please leave the word "married" to the union between a man and a woman. A civil union should be the term for all other people who would love to live with and grow old with the one they love.

Edward Tardibuono, Levittown

Perhaps we should all give consideration to the possibility that the Supreme Court's gay marriage decision was, indeed, as Justice Antonin Scalia called it, "jiggery-pokery" -- a sly or dishonest act. Who else but the undisputed judicial master of that topic is better qualified to recognize it when he sees it?

For who could forget such stellar examples of judicial reasoning as that found in Bush v. Gore, which the justice and his colleagues asserted was "limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities"? What ego, to claim that no one else, not even future Supreme Court justices, would be capable of understanding and applying this decision as precedent!

Or how about Citizens United, which determined that managers of corporations have the right to "speak" in the corporate name, but that shareholders, who actually own the corporations, have no right to control the assets used by those managers to so "speak"? One wag has asked if the stock exchange is a slave market, given that corporations are people? Apparently, the First Amendment applies to corporations, but not the 14th. Who knew?

I wonder whether, given the opportunity, Scalia would extend the right of marriage to corporations. Probably, but only if it were limited to boy corporations marrying girl corporations.

Christopher Paul, Bayport

The Supreme Court has declared that opposite-sex and same-sex marriages are equal.

But there's more work to be done to eliminate all vestiges of homophobia and inequality on the issue of marriage. How about legalizing transgender marriage, which would complete the matrimonial concept?

Paul Jacobs, Huntington


We're revamping our Comments section. Learn more and share your input.