The first:

You really should read Scalia's piece re: "gay ban" and Texas. He took the time to read it from the bench. This decision has nothing to do with privacy or gay rights; it has everything to do with the Supremes telling a state that something their legislature voted to do is wrong. That''s not what the Constitution is all about. But your crowd and all the rest of the 'gay friendly' folks will declare victory----which is ok, 'cause after the Supremes shredded the constitution re: Affirmative Action at the University of Michigan, there's not too much left of it.

But, just to be honest…….read Scalia.

+Walter B. Funk
First, South Charleston

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, even the U.S. Supreme Court understands at least marginally better than the PC(USA)? What a scandal to the Gospel!

From Barbara Kellam-Scott, a former Witherspoon board member

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Witherspoon member comments on the removal of Steve Van Kuiken from the ministry, in light of the Supreme Court decision.

In the light of the recent Supreme Court decision, and the information I have gained from reading The Future of Freedom, by Fareed Zakaria, I believe we should pursue remedial action through the courts of the church. The legislative process didn't work for Civil Rights or abortion. It took judicial action to get change started. The Maurice McCracken case is a good case in point, because it was an action he took on the basis of conscience. Let's go for it!

Click here for a review of the book by Fareed Zakaria.

Tom Hughart

Washington Times anti-gay report is contested

[7-16-03]

The Washington Times of July 11 carried an article entitled "Study Finds Gay Unions Brief."

Brian Wells of Baltimore responded with this letter to the editor, which he has kindly shared with us.

Dear Washington Times Editor:

"Study Finds Gay Unions Brief" (July 11) is a good example of the frequent, misleading, biased editorializing presented as news in the Times. The article falsely reported that a Dutch study found "on average" that homosexual relationships last 1-1/2 years, and that "on average [they] have eight [outside sexual] partners a year".

Contrary to the Times' reporting, the study only looked at those whose behavior already placed them at high risk for HIV infection, not "average" homosexual relationships. The Times didn't mention that the study was limited to those having AT LEAST two sexual partners outside their relationships within the previous six months. While noting that lesbian relationships were excluded (a requirement in any conclusions about "average" homosexual relationships), it didn't say that the study rejected all male homosexual relationships reporting as being monogamous. The study wasn't about, didn't define, research, or reach any conclusions about "average" homosexual relationships, be they male, Dutch or otherwise.

Having misrepresented the study and the study group as being about "average" homosexual relationships, the Times then compared it with (unattributed) statistics about married US couples, and went on to editorialize against marriage for gay couples. But any comparison to the study group would only be valid for a group of similar young, urban heterosexual relationships, preferably unmarried and cohabiting, and only those reporting having had two or more outside sexual partners in the previous six months.

Had the Times reported the story accurately, it wouldn't have bothered to print it; It's neither newsworthy nor does it serve the Times' anti-gay agenda to waste space reporting that promiscuous people - of whatever stripe - tend to have lots of sexual partners and trouble sustaining long-term relationships.

Brian Wells
Baltimore

 

Please send a note with your thoughts on the Supreme Court decision, and glbt relationships/unions/marriage.