Reader feedback 3.3.04

Amendment
would deny rights

Supporters
of President George Bush’s proposal for a constitutional amendment banning gay
marriages should carefully consider the full ramifications of that proposal —
if they also support the freedom of religion safeguarded by our Constitutional
Bill of Rights.

            While there are many Christians and
members of other religions who believe that the marriage of a loving, committed
couple who happen to be homosexual is morally wrong, there are a growing number
of Christians and others who believe that such marriages are morally right.
Thus, the proposed Bush amendment would restrict the freedom of religion for those
Christians and others who believe gay marriage is morally right. And if the
freedom of religion can be restricted for progressives today, might not the
freedom of religion be restricted for conservatives tomorrow?

            No one is proposing that clergy of those
religions that do not support gay marriages should be forced to officiate over
them. Those of us who support the right of gays to marry seek only to ensure
that they have the same rights as all other citizens. The great rights of
humankind, contained in our Bill of Rights, are evolving concepts that must be
fought for on a daily basis. Many citizens were excluded from the protection of
the Bill of Rights when it was adopted by our founders. Blacks, women,
non-property owners — all have had to struggle to be included in the
protections that should be available to all.

            The Bush proposal, like so much of
his regressive agenda, flies in the face of the fundamental values of American
democracy: freedom, justice, equality, and human rights. While these remain
ideals and not fully the reality, we have a responsibility to work toward the
fulfillment of that vision set down over 200 years ago.

            William
J. Benet, Pearl Street, Rochester (Benet is a Monroe County Legislator

representing the 23rd legislative district.

State
and church

For
the 100th (1000th?) time in his career, George Bush has come up on the wrong
side of an issue. I speak about his support for a constitutional ban on gay
marriage. He says he wants to protect the sanctity of marriage. I believe him.
It’s just that he doesn’t seem to have a clue about what makes a marriage
sacred. Is it the sex of the couple involved? Or is it the love and commitment
two people bring to the relationship? I believe it’s the latter.

            It also appears that he wants to use
the federal government to promulgate his individual moral choice on the issue. Separation of church and state, anyone?

            Dan
Quilty, Kosciusko Street, Rochester

Start
all over

Thank
you, City, for helping Congresswoman
Louise Slaughter expose the livable Communities
Initiative (“The Livable Communities Myth,” February 11). When Slaughter had
said that no transportation funds would be available, Senators Clinton and
Schumer soon said funding was possible. Of course, no one could understand the
discrepancy between the statements.

            Bill Nojay’s
dream, or pipedream, must be a nightmare for the Rochester Genesee Regional
Transportation Authority’s Renaissance Square Development Corporation. If the
entire plan for Renaissance Square as a complex is based on a fallacy of
nonexistent funds, are we back at the beginning, ready to consider building a
bus station somewhere?

            Given the arbitrary planning and
presentation of the project and the resulting lack of acceptance of the
location or of placing the bus terminal underground, how can any consensus be
reached?

            Mayor Bill Johnson and County
Executive Maggie Brooks should call for creating a process to involve all
relevant groups in considering alternative sites and other basics, to come up
with a new plan.

            Byrna Weir, Chelmsford
Road,
Brighton

Word
games

A
new entry for the political dictionary: George Bush /noun/ A
one-term president; see Deficits, High unemployment, Big energy.

            Daniel
T. Spiegel, 260 Straub Road, Greece

More
‘Mail’

Also
see: An apology from City, and more
letters. Next week: readers speak out
on our February 11 article on Nathaniel Rochester and slave trading.

Writing
to City

We
welcome and encourage readers’ letters for publication. Send them to:
themail@rochester-citynews.com or The Mail, City Newspaper, 250 North
Goodman Street, Rochester14607.

            Our guidelines: We don’t publish
anonymous letters — and we ask that you include your street name and
city/town/village. We don’t publish letters that have been sent to other media.
While we don’t restrict length, letters of under 350
words have a greater chance of being published. We do edit letters for clarity
and brevity. And in general we don’t publish letters (or longer “op-ed” pieces)
from the same writer more often than once every three months.

This article appears in Mar 3-9, 2004.