To the Editor:
Those who promote homosexual unions misleadingly cast their issue as one about civil rights instead of what it really is -- the open promotion of harmful behavior and a breakdown in the rule of law.
They complain the Constitution shouldn't be amended to address the issue and fail to note the four Massachusetts judges who did just that. Amending the Constitution is an almost impossible process, but a handful of judges can do so at any time. Every ruling they purport to base on constitutional grounds is a de facto constitutional amendment.
The Massachusetts homosexual "marriage" decision violates established principles to adjudicate constitutional challenges and is an unconstitutional act of overreaching into the prerogative of the legislative branch.
The judges and media who are standing by watching this happen ought to take a close look at the trend line they're putting society on.
To the Editor:
Paul Loeb's column, "Lone Ranger" (February 26th issue), makes some silly and misguided arguments. Loeb claims that Ralph Nader's "core case in announcing his 2004 presidential candidacy" is his right to run. Nader has been forced to justify his decision following demands by a number of politicians and pundits that he stay out.
While one might easily gauge Nader's zealous response to those who demand "Ralph, don't run" an overreaction, it is laughable for a serious observer to suggest it is the foundation for his run.
Nader's platform is (not surprisingly) very similar to his platform of four years ago, with the exception that now he bears the additional burden of explaining why he is not personally responsible for all of the ills he seeks to overcome. It includes, as Loeb hints, his mission to remind Americans that we are bound together by our citizenship and our consumerism. But Loeb's analogy is strained when he claims Nader's run now depends upon "fixating on his own absolute right to do whatever he chooses." Nader's activist causes have always involved his leadership and began with a small group of supporters, including all of his victories. He has gone and will go it alone to defend what he believes is the common good, regardless of what popular opinion says. To encourage a man of Nader's experience to do anything different is a pointless and wrong-headed exercise.
Can Loeb really believe that a man so ostracized from the political mainstream in 2000 that he was barred physically even from attending presidential debates as an audience member ought to be deterred because he seems unwanted?
As to Loeb's claim that Nader can raise awareness for issues he supports in arenas outside the presidential race, Loeb clearly hasn't been noticing the attention he and his fellow media pundits are paying to Nader's candidacy in the past week.
It would be nice to see as many stories focusing on other candidates so driven by their egos that they are willing to modify "beliefs" or misconstrue voting records for short-term political popularity.
Somerville, New Jersey
To the Editor:
Is that really Tim Sampson on page 26 (February 26th issue)?
He's so clean-cut. Even kind of yuppie-looking.
We Recommend is the first thing I read in the Flyer each week. I had a picture in my head of Tim with shaggy hair (not so), a slight slouch (again, not so), and a weight problem, since he's always telling us about his failed diets. I also pictured him with a devil-may-care grunge look.
But from the photo it appears I was wrong on all counts.
Now where did I get those visuals?
Correction: In last week's City Beat, the Flyer incorrectly reported the experience of the city of Memphis chief administrative officer, Keith McGee. McGee previously served as deputy director and director of Human Services.
The Memphis Flyer encourages reader response. Send mail to: Letters to the Editor, POB 1738, Memphis, TN 38101. Or call Back Talk at 575-9405. Or send us e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org. All responses must include name, address, and daytime phone number. Letters should be no longer than 250 words.