Dear PV,

Chuck Muth presents some very good arguments. He is right that activist judges are interpreting The Constitution and the constitutions and laws of the several states to fit their current ideas or the popular positions of the times. That is the core problem. However, what are we to do to control these un-elected "legislators"? Maybe a bit of civil disobedience practiced by some major political figures or institutions, such as the Massachusetts Legislature would help the cause. What else would anyone propose?

The issue of gay "marriage" goes much deeper than that of Prohibition. To compare the two is to miss the fundamental changes in society which will occur if it is permitted to go forward. Would that we could prevent one state's laws from effecting another's as the proposed amendment in your article attempts. However, there is still the issue of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. I would first like to read what a few Constitutional lawyers have to say about how those two would be reconciled.

If we want to see what will happen in America should gay "marriage" become institutionalized we need look no farther than those European nations in which it is allowed. Marriage rates have fallen; fertility rates are down; social pathologies are on the increase with children the main victims. European countries with sizeable Muslim minorities face the prospect of becoming Islamic states in the foreseeable future. Muslims don't put up with all this gay "marriage" nonsense and they reproduce at a fairly good clip.

Gay "marriage" recognizes homosexual sexual practices and lifestyle as normal for human beings when it is decidedly not. It degrades real marriage and sends the wrong signals to the young.

Gay "marriage" is a move to ultimate instant gratification. It's all about sex and selfishness. If we are going to do this thing it must be decided by the people.

Sincerely,

Edward A. Watkins
Lilburn, Georgia

PV's Response: We doubt very seriously that the cause of the decrease in "fertility rates" has any connection with homosexual unions. That's a reach of illogic.