Home > Letters to the Editor

Category Archives: Gay Issues

Logic from the bad old days

To illustrate the resilience of the old states’ rights mantra, one only needs to paraphrase two sentences in what I believe is Mark Davis’ gross misapplication of the rights of states to determine national issues, to wit:

“Any state wishing to equalize gay and straight marriages may do so. And if the Constitution is obeyed, any state wishing to deny such equal status is similarly free,” Davis wrote.

Let me paraphrase what I believe he is really saying: Any state wishing to make segregation of the races legal may do so. And if the Constitution is obeyed, any state wishing to make segregation of the races illegal is similarly free.

I am not a lawyer, but, more generally, how can it be denied that our U.S. Constitution is a dynamic document when it has been amended 27 times?

The world is confusing enough for this old octogenarian, Mr. Davis. Must you complicate it further with 18th-century drivel?

Rodney Pirtle, Farmers Branch 

Gay marriage

gay marriage

n this photo provided by the Las Vegas News Bureau, Ana Rendon and Michelle Guerra leave the Clark County Marriage License Bureau after receiving their marriage license Downtown Las Vegas on Thursday, Oct. 9, 2014. (AP Photo/Las Vegas News Bureau, Brian Jones)

Can’t force beliefs on others

Re: “Silence on gay marriage — Supreme Court justices’ inaction is activism itself, says Mark Davis,” Wednesday Viewpoints.

In Mark Davis’ column, he asserts that there is no right to gay marriage enshrined in our Constitution. For some reason, I thought that the no establishment of religion clause covered this perfectly.

I don’t think that gays are trying to force churches to marry them. I believe they just want to be able to enjoy the social, economic and other benefits of civil marriage.

To use the force of law to prevent them from enjoying a civil right accessible to everyone else is an “establishment of religion,” namely that of everyone who thinks such unions are sinful.

The “no establishment” language protects everyone, no matter what their particular beliefs might be.

I understand it to mean that you can worship as you please, but cannot force your belief system down the throats of those who do not believe as you do — even if your beliefs are those of the majority.

Willam Ogden, Carrollton

It’s basic human decency

Mark Davis is quite correct; the Constitution is silent on the question of marriage.

The document approved by the Founding Fathers was not big on civil or human rights. Negroes counted as three-fifths of a person and Native Americans weren’t counted at all.

The matters that were not addressed were left to the states and to the people. However, this changed with the passage of the 14th Amendment (by legislative act, subsequently approved by the needed 28 state legislatures).

This amendment specifically did enjoin the states from passing any law that would “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Note that there are no limits placed on rights and privileges or equal protection of the laws.

“Many of the wishes of gay married couples can be granted by laws reflecting basic human decency,” Davis wrote. It bears repeating “laws reflecting basic human decency.”

I would think that giving gay couples the recognition, as well as the concomitant privileges, that attach to marriage falls under basic human decency.

Merle Walker, Athens

Let the people decide

May I applaud Mark Davis on his thoughtful and objective analysis regarding the inaction of the Supreme Court justices on its failure to rein in the actions of the 10th Circuit Court that in effect overturned the will of the people in the affected states.

In Davis’ words, “we deserve better than to hear the approaching hoofbeats of court rulings picking and choosing which rights they will allow and which they will trample.” Let us, the people, determine these critical issues, not activists in the judicial system.

Ron Johnson, Plano

Times are changing

Opponents of gay marriage have used about every known argument to prevent it from happening. My personal favorite is “it will destroy the sanctity of marriage.”

You know marriage, the institution that ends in divorce 50 percent of the time. Sounds like somebody ain’t sanctifying.

When all else fails, Mark Davis wants the issue decided by the political “end run” known as states’ rights. That’s the tactic where, that when we don’t like the law of the land, we then want to make our own decision on the matter.

The Supreme Court passed on rendering a decision on this issue. I suspect it wanted to get out of the way of the gay rights runaway train that is barreling across our country.

Do you question for a minute that the plight of blacks would have been better if Texas had been allowed to decide the equal rights issue? We would still be drinking out of separate water fountains.

“Come mothers and fathers throughout the land and don’t criticize what you can’t understand. Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command. Your old road is rapidly agin’” — Bob Dylan lyric. Amen.

Frank Matthews, Fort Worth

Don’t compare Michael Sam and Josh Brent

Michael Sam

Dallas Cowboys practice squad player Michael Sam (right) defensive end George Selvie run a drill during practice Thursday, September 4, 2014 at their Valley Ranch facility in Irving, Texas. (Staff photo)

Killing a man vs. loving one

Re: “Cowboys giving second chances,” Wednesday news story.

I was appalled at the cover story about the Dallas Cowboys giving second chances. A second chance is usually when one errs, then atones and asks for redemption in the form of a second attempt to right it this time. But why equate Michael Sam, who hasn’t done anything wrong — unless being gay is a crime — to Josh Brent’s stupidity of driving drunk and killing his friend, which is a really big crime, the last I heard?

What wrong did Sam do? None. What did Brent do? Oh yeah, he chose to get drunk, drive his car, and he ended up killing his passenger.

As a gay man who has never killed anyone, I’m wondering what I must atone for in order to get my second chance? How dare these two be named in the same article. Which is worse, killing a man or loving a man?

Jack Jenks, Rowlett

Good for the Cowboys!

A good move in Dallas. I am quite proud to be a Dallas native and pleased at the generosity and opportunity that Jerry Jones, et al. have extended to Sam. Puts a good face on a good city, for Cowboy fans and others. Hope it all bodes well for the season.

Marriage amendment needed?

Re: “Gay marriage court victories end — Federal judge in New Orleans upholds ban; 21 challenges successful,” Thursday news story.

The ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman on the same-sex marriage ban by some states portrays an interesting legal interpretation in regard to states’ rights concerning the recognition of marriage as a civil institution. It is apparent that some courts may have misconstrued this argument in his citation of the Windsor decision that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act.

Although many may label Feldman a heartless legal scoundrel, he makes an interesting point in that the courts can’t legislate. Perhaps it is time for the states to propose a call for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to better address this issue. Simply using the equal protection clause without acknowledging states’ rights is a weak argument, as seen with this decision.

Eric Stengel, Richardson

@ericstengel1

Churches shouldn’t discriminate

Re: “What about churches’ rights on gay marriage?” by Kevin Loyd, Saturday Letters.

Mr. Loyd apparently thinks it is appropriate for churches to deny membership to homosexuals. I would think that a true Christian (the best kind anyway) would be tolerant and welcoming to gays in the knowledge that everyone is a sinner.

Rich Latta, Fort Worth

Cherry-picking the Bible

Re: “What about churches’ rights on gay marriage?” by Kevin Loyd, Saturday Letters.

So Mr. Loyd wants the church to be able to discriminate against gays and lesbians based on one or two obscure passages in the Bible pertaining to the issue of same-sex relationships.

I’m assuming he also wishes to deny membership to anyone who has ever told a lie, as that one’s in the Ten Commandments. Being gay isn’t even in the Top 10, yet Christians portray it as one of the worst atrocities of mankind.

Does he also wish to ban parents who don’t stone disobedient children to death, as Deuteronomy 21:21 clearly states?

His church membership will dwindle even further when he reads Luke 16:18, which states divorcees who remarry have committed adultery. Another Top 10 no-no.

When Christians stop cherry-picking parts of the Bible they can live with vs. ones they don’t seem to care for, they’ll have a lot more respect from those of us who have a little more tolerance and respect for our fellow human beings who only want to share their lives with the ones they love.

I’ve still yet to hear or read an intelligent reason gay couples should be denied the right to marry.

Chris Crockett, Uptown

Greg Abbott’s brief is brilliant

Re: “A Legal Reach — Abbott’s argument against gay marriage irrational,” Monday Editorials.

In expressing your opposition to Attorney General Greg Abbott’s brief supporting the Texas constitutional amendment preventing the Legislature or the state high court from recognizing or defining any relationship other than a heterosexual marriage to be marriage, you essentially admitted that it is a political question.

It is therefore out of the province of the judiciary. You cited trends, for example, indicating more acceptance of homosexual marriage. Whether your statement is true or not, it is a fact that over 70 percent of the voters in 2005 said that marriage consists only of the union of a man and a woman. If you want the people of Texas to change their opinions, get behind a constitutional amendment process. Lobby the Legislature. Settle the question at the ballot box.

I’ve read Abbott’s brief. It’s a brilliant defense of Texas’ reserved power to settle political questions legislatively.

Thomas Allen, Lancaster

@Covenantthinker

What about churches’ rights on gay marriage?

Re: “A Legal Reach — Abbott’s argument against gay marriage irrational,” Monday Editorials.

At the end of the article, your editor wrote: “This newspaper, which opposed Texas’ constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, nonetheless respects religious traditions against it, as well as the First Amendment, which protects places of worship from being compelled to conduct same-sex marriage.”

That resolution doesn’t sound all that reassuring to me. Once the remaining 31 states are FORCED to accept and allow same-sex marriages, will your newspaper still respect the rights of churches to:

1. teach/preach that homosexuality and same-sex marriages are sinful?

2. Teach/preach that marriage is a relationship between ONLY one man and one woman even though the law now says differently?

3. Deny membership to openly gay couples because such relationships conflict with the teachings of the Bible?

Or will you condemn such religious “traditions” as being messages and actions of hate and discrimination and agree with the gay rights activists, who seek through the courts, that such religious “traditions” should cease or face possible fines or imprisionment? If so, then what will have become of our First Amendment rights?

I will await your answers either in the newspaper or to my personal email address!

Kevin Loyd, Grand Prairie

Procreation and Texas marriage laws

Complementary biology

Re: “A Legal Reach — Abbott’s argument against gay marriage irrational,” Monday Editorials.

“We did not make ourselves,” St. Augustine wrote. Someone created us. It’s undeniable that the Creator made man and woman to be biologically complementary; it’s a natural law. The union of man and woman has been defined as “marriage” for over 2,000 years. Allowing a same-sex union to be called “marriage” is a self-evident contradiction.

If it’s only equal legal status same-sex couples are seeking, then let it be granted with careful consideration for children should they be involved. But please use different labels. Why was civil union discarded as a way of describing same-sex unions? Terms like marriage, husband, and wife should not become ambiguous or obsolete. This is not a hateful position. It’s a position that is established by reasoning.

Louis Polito, Carrollton

Support for procreation

Procreation is as essential to continued existence of a country as food and air. Since procreation is only possible between a man and woman, then it is rational to have laws that enable and support men and women to procreate. Likewise, it is now common knowledge that children raised in a family with a mother and a father are far more likely to experience positive development and outcomes. Accordingly, it is rational to have laws that enable and support families with mothers and fathers. Put the two purposes together, procreation and positive child development, and you have a rational basis for Texas’ marriage law.

Property and inheritance rights between married men and women constitute important aspects of the marital state itself; in other words, in order to enable and promote procreation and child rearing by a family with a father and a mother, it is necessary to define the rights and obligations of such a family.

Abbott’s job is to defend Texas’ laws when they are challenged. He has an obligation to make legal arguments to sustain those challenged laws. His legal argument here is perfectly rational whether The DMN likes Texas’ marriage laws or not.

David Snodgrass, Park Cities

Marriage is just for procreation? What about heterosexual couples who can’t have kids?

Marriage for procreation?

The state of Texas puts forward its interest in “natural” procreation, claiming that interest is sufficient to warrant its banning same-sex marriage. Apparently, the state believes that banning gay marriage is necessary to assure more marriages with the potential for “natural” procreation.

For that to be a legitimate argument, the state would have to say its intent is that gays, rather than marrying each other, marry straights and have children, otherwise banning gay marriage doesn’t enhance the potential for procreative marriages whether gay or straight. Keeping gays from marrying each other has no effect on straight marriages and “natural” procreation unless gays marry straights and have children because of the ban.

I didn’t know, until now, that the state wants to engineer intermarriage by banning gay marriage. I wonder how many straights would willingly marry gays in order to procreate. I wonder how many Texans actually want that. The state’s legitimate concern is in its residents’ well-being and each person’s self-determination, gay or straight. Clearly, the state’s argument is deceptive and counter to its legitimate concerns.

Brian Baldwin, Dallas

Would you stop us?

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has filed an appeal to reverse the ruling that found the state’s ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional.

In his brief, which feebly tried to defend the ban, Abbott made the claim that because “same-sex relationships do not naturally produce children, recognizing same-sex marriage does not further these goals to the same extent that recognizing opposite-sex marriage does.”

This hits home hard for me. Not just as a candidate for office that proudly supports marriage equality, but as a Texan, a member of the LGBTQ community, and a future husband.

For the past three years, I have been engaged to a wonderful woman. Her name is Shayrah Akers. She is the love of my life. Her 11-year-old daughter, Kylie, is an amazing little girl I consider and raise as my own.

Shayrah and I are unfortunately unable to have children of our own.

In light of these circumstances, I have a question for you, Attorney General Greg Abbott: If my fiancée and I were to go down to the Denton County courthouse right now and get our marriage license, would you try to stop us?

Daniel Moran, Flower Mound, @MoranForTexas

Greg Abbott’s marriage rationale isn’t rational, and not just for gay couples

Re: “AG: Procreation is reason for ban — Abbott files state’s appeal of ruling finding laws unconstitutional,” Wednesday news story.

Greg Abbott is going to court again! This time he claims that same-sex marriages should be banned because they “do not naturally produce children.… That is enough to supply a rational basis for Texas’ marriage laws.” On this “rational basis,” my father-in-law, who was a widower at the age of 78, would not be able to marry a woman his age because they could not naturally produce children.

My relative, who underwent a hysterectomy at age 30, would be denied a marriage license. Any couple seeking a marriage license would have to prove they were fertile. If Abbott did not prevent those persons from marrying, would he not be denying the same-sex couple equal protection of the law based upon his “rational” argument? And since Texas is making it virtually impossible for a woman to get an abortion, the number of children put up for adoption would increase, while the number of loving homes for these children would decrease.

This shortsighted thinking is imbecilic, and this man wants to be governor! Hopefully, the Texas electorate will make its “rational” choice in November.

Bob Franklin, Far North Dallas

The Bible and gay marriage: Should we still stone witches, too?

Re: “Bigotry or beliefs?” by Patricia Johnson, June 18 Letters.

Oh, brother, are we throwing Bible verses around again? Ms. Johnson kindly points out some verses from Leviticus that condemn homosexuality. I don’t know why she didn’t quote Leviticus 20:13, which says people who commit homosexual acts must be put to death. Go a little further down to 20:27 and we see that witches and wizards are to be put to death.

Does anyone believe people who cast spells should be killed? How will you identify them? God neglected to mention that part.

There’s a reason why we in the Western World no longer kill people for being witches or homosexuals. Society has advanced over the last few thousand years. Slowly, it is leaving the Bible and its archaic laws behind. In fact, I’m confident that Christianity will eventually go the way of Isis and Poseidon and all the other gods that came before it. While churches are hemorrhaging parishioners, people are coming out as atheist every day. Free thinking and reason will prevail.

Rich Latta, Fort Worth

Rick Perry’s conversion therapy comments were cruel to gays

The saddest reality of the new GOP party platform and Gov. Perry’s comments about our LGBT citizens and “conversion therapy” isn’t just the stupidity of equating homosexuality with the disease of alcoholism, it is that he equates resisting the urge to drink with resisting the urge to be a sexual being created in God’s image. They are calling for others to live their lives without love. To live without falling in love, securing a spouse or creating family. They are expecting other human beings to live their lives without love. How cruel and pathetic.

And, if you believe in Jesus’ commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves, how un-Christlike. (Jesus never spoke about homosexuality. Ever. Moses and Paul did. But not Jesus.)

Perry now says he will leave it to the psychologists to decide, but, of course, he won’t. They’ve already spoken, as have the American Medical Association, psychiatrists, pediatricians, and counselors. They all condemn “reparative therapy” as bogus and harmful, and two states have outlawed it. He and his party will continue to be willfully ignorant and hatefully bigoted as long as they think it will win votes. God help us all.

Mark Walz, Dallas/Oak Cliff

Not everything Jesus said was recorded in the Bible

Re: “What Jesus did and didn’t say,” by Ronald Griffey, Monday Letters.

First, most of what Jesus said during his earthly ministry is not recorded in the Bible. Jesus taught full time for three years. You can read every word spoken by him as quoted in the Bible in less than one hour.

Second, if the limits of right and wrong were strictly set by what Jesus did and didn’t say in the Bible, then it would be illegal to marry a divorced person but perfectly legal to vandalize their home.

So, in order to analyze moral questions and discern right from wrong, a wide net of inquiry must be cast, which includes Jesus’ words but is not limited to them.

Chip Field, Dallas

On gay marriage: Straights should try ‘reparative’ therapy; It’s our belief, not bigotry

Gary Jones, 37, holds aloft the rainbow striped gay and lesbian pride flag in front of the Racine County Courthouse on Friday, June 13, 2014, in Racine, Wis., during a rally in support of gay marriage after the county refused to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite a judge's ruling that the state ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. (AP)

Bigotry or beliefs?

Re: “What Jesus did and didn’t say,” by Ronald Griffey, Monday Letters.

This letter is not as much a response to Griffey of Farmers Branch as it is a wake-up call to my fellow Christians. It is too easy to succumb to the charges of “bigotry” that are constantly leveled at us for standing up for our religious beliefs.

Griffey said that Jesus said nothing about human sexuality. I ask him and others to read Leviticus 18, especially verses 22-25. That chapter is labeled in Bibles as “The Sanctity of Sex.”

Yes, I believe, as God does, that homosexual acts are a sin. But I still love the sinner. I do not hate them. I pray. Of course, maybe Griffey believes that God is a bigot.

Patricia Johnson, McKinney

Other ‘choices’ to reconsider

Re: “Give gay therapy a chance,” by Ken Ashby, Saturday Letters.

I am a 6-foot-1-inch white male. In line with the recent comments of Ken Ashby that gay corrective therapy should be given a chance, I would like to state that all of you reading this who are under 6 feet tall, non-Caucasian and female should consider getting therapy to change these bad life choices you’ve made.

Mark Oristano, Uptown Dallas, @moristano

Steep, but not insurmountable

Re: “Gay marriage foes facing a steeper hill — They plan to march despite high court ruling, state votes,” Monday news story.

It is alarming that federal and state judges seem to interpret “We the People” to mean “We the Judges.” Federal and state judges have flagrantly ignored the popular vote of the people in making their decisions. Fortunately, 31 states currently ban gay marriage, and this valid resolve continues to be strong. The “hill” to which this story refers may be “steep,” but not insurmountable.

Homosexuals deserve the right and protection to live with whomever they chose. However, the sacred institution of marriage between a man and a woman and the rights of children to have a natural mother and father should also be protected. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will listen to the voice of people and not be discriminatory and unjustified in their jurisprudence rulings.

Susan Lambert, Fairview

Why don’t they try it?

I almost laughed out loud reading the Texas GOP’s draft platform, until I realized they were serious. The most ridiculous “plank,” of course, is that of scientifically debunked “reparative therapy” to change one’s sexual orientation.

I have a proposal for them: Let’s see a few of the believers of this nonsense try it out for themselves. If it can change sexual orientation from gay to straight, then it should also work the other way, right? Any volunteers?

Jane Fueller, Plano

On GOP convention: Here’s what Jesus didn’t say; Don’t demonize old white men

What Jesus did and didn’t say

Re: “Supporting GOP stance on gays” by Danny Senkow, Wednesday Letters.

Like most “Christians” he knows very little about the Bible and is acting more like the Taliban in wanting all to believe as he does. The Bible was not compiled until A.D. 323 under Constantine, who had editing privileges, when he called the 125 or so bishops together and told them to decide what was to be in it from all the books, testaments, etc., out there. After three years they came up with one, which accounts for the contradictions in it, number of animals on the ark, etc.

Jesus said NOTHING about human sexuality or illegal immigrants, except the sanctity of marriage.

He did say not to judge others, as he said to worship God in private. It would be nice if he and the GOP followed his teachings, but then they couldn’t be bigots.

Ronald Griffey, Farmers Branch

Don’t demonize old white men

Re: “GOP’s stance unbelievable” by Gaylard French, Tuesday Letters.

Why is it that liberals like Gaylard French get a pass when they demonize a whole segment of our society? He refers to the Republican Party as old white men. I wonder if these are the same old white men who fought and died in places like Omaha Beach, Iwo Jima, Korea and Vietnam. Is he referring to the same old white men who gave us the Constitution of the United States? That’s the same Constitution that allows even the most ignorant among us to express their views.

Ted Walters, Midlothian

Reconsider 2nd Amendment

Gun enthusiasts love to preach about their Second Amendment rights. Many are also ready to produce a copy of the Constitution just to prove their point.

However, many of the provisions of the Constitution are open to interpretation. If it weren’t so, we wouldn’t need a Supreme Court. For that reason I can’t understand why no one ever seems to question the relevance of the Second Amendment in today’s world, based on the opening words of the amendment itself. Those words, which set forth the reason for the amendment, don’t state that the amendment is needed to allow individual citizens to show off their weapons in public or even to allow people to protect themselves; they state that the need for the right to keep and bear arms is that a well-regulated militia is necessary “to the security of a free State.” Since the need for such citizen militias disappeared long ago, it would seem that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should be reconsidered.

Bruce Rasmussen, Dallas/Buckner Terrace

Republicans out of line

I am a small-government, fiscally conservative Republican who is no longer represented by my party, at least at the state level.

I oppose open immigration, but if a child is here, and has been here, supporting in-state tuition makes sense. MAYBE we will have someone who will contribute.

If Republicans are small government, why are we against gay marriage? It doesn’t raise my taxes. OK, it’s not supported in the Bible, but lots of legal things aren’t either. What’s it called when you take this approach? Sharia law comes to mind. I’m a Christian, but this makes no sense.

And Open Carry laws? If we had traditionally dressed Muslims, or motorcycle gang members, exercising their “Second Amendment rights” by openly carrying AR-15s at restaurants, wouldn’t everyone be up in arms?

So why doesn’t the Republican Party take a stand? Balance the budget, create good jobs, promote safety, keep taxes in line, and stay out of everyone’s personal lives.

Lloyd Davis, Flower Mound

Tea party filling GOP vacuum

Nature abhors a vacuum. There has been a serious leadership vacuum in the Republican Party for some time, and the tea party is just naturally moving into that empty spot.

Sure, the Republicans in Congress could have rolled up their sleeves and crafted a health care overhaul that might conceivably have been better than what we have now, but they chose not to. Same thing with immigration reform. Their whole strategy seems to be to sit on their hands and wait for 2016.

I’m not saying that the Democrats always have the best ideas, but at least they have ideas. And now the tea party has ideas too.

Deona Carmack, Dallas/Munger Place

Gay reparative therapy: New Texas GOP platform additions rile some readers

Texas Republican Convention

Delegates and guest had a wide selection of bumper stickers and presidential pins to choose at vendor booths in the Exhibit Hall in Fort Worth at the 2014 Texas GOP Thursday June 5, 2014. (Ron Baselice/Staff Photographer)

Let’s ask a doctor

Re: “Perry remark on gays condemned as ‘toxic’ — He says ‘genetic coding’ related to homosexuality, as with alcoholism,” Friday news story.

Rick Perry and the GOP’s opinions on homosexuality should be reviewed by qualified doctors and psychologists. Statements made for political advantage show a lack of education and character on the part of the individual and organizations making the statement.

Gay people are people, and to classify them as “medically damaged” or as addictive personalities is unfair and undemocratic.

Texas needs to quit talking like a society that must have nothing but perfect people with perfect ideas and ideals.

Gloria Beazley, Garland

Party of individual rights?

After the recent Texas GOP convention adopted the recommendation of ‘reparative therapy’ for gay people, it is hard to believe that this was once the party that believed in the rights of the individual, leading the way for the abolition of slavery, women gaining the right to vote, and the civil rights movement.

It is unfortunate that the current grip the tea party has over the GOP that these people now care more about trying to legislate their religious beliefs than they do about protecting the liberty of the individual. While claiming to stand by their principles, they have not only lost sight of the true core of conservative belief, but are so out of touch that one might ask what century they are living in.

This might be laughable if the dangers of reparative therapy weren’t so real and did not harm people who are already in distress.

At worst, this is politics being used to victimize individuals who are different from them. And I ask, in the name of what? Principles? Religious freedom? Please.

David M. Jones, Garland

Who are ‘the people’?

Re: “Wrestling with ideology — Reagan Republicans, by not turning out, risk party’s future, says Jason Villalba” and “Cantor found out the hard way that tea party is the people, says Lynn Woolley,” Thursday Viewpoints.

Villalba talks about the 5.5 percent turnout that determined what the Republican Party in Texas and its candidates stand for in 2014. He says he is a Reagan Republican and quotes Reagan about how elections can be lost by allegiance to a narrow set of policy positions.

Woolley seems to feel that those 5.5 percent that did vote are “the people” and that that narrow set of policy positions is the right approach for Texas.

The Republican platform “the people” voted for in Fort Worth wants to turn time back so that all of us white heterosexual Christians are the ones running things and everyone else can just live with it. I’m one of those white heterosexual Christians who is deeply disturbed by that message, and I have a suggestion for those Republicans who are also disturbed by it: Texas Democrats are not the flaming liberals the tea party members say they are. They want things like the good roads, schools and clean water Texas needs, and they realize that ways must be found to pay for them.

If you can’t bring yourself to vote for a Democrat in the general election, please just stay home and don’t vote in November, either.

Mike Lysell, Richardson

Right to choose a party

Re: “GOP doesn’t have a clue” by Sandy Elkins, Wednesday Letters.

Shame on you, Sandy, for your sexist and offensive comment: “How any women can be a Republican is beyond me.” Your expectation that mere gender dictate how I vote, undermines your chest-pounding “I am woman, hear me roar” position, and, belittles the woman that chooses to think for herself and select a party affiliation based on a platform rather than chromosomes.

I am an unapologetic Republican. Why? Because, I am a woman that does not look to a party for my moral compass, I look to my God. I believe abortion is murder. I believe handouts suppress, not empower. I believe in free-market-capitalism and small government. I believe judges should interpret the law, not make it. I don’t want to get rid of “all” immigrants, just stop the illegal ones. I don’t tote a gun, but support the right to bear arms. Your gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual preference does not give you the right to put your personal issues and agenda above God and country.

Most poignantly, women should choose “Democrat” or “Republican” because they espouse to the party platform, not because they are embarrassed into compliance by other females. I believe women have the right to choose — don’t you?

Carolyn Festa, McKinney

View from the floor

Re: “Gay ‘therapy’ stance further shrinks GOP’s big tent” by Jacquielynn Floyd, Tuesday Metro column.

My husband and I were delegates to the Texas Republican Convention last week in Fort Worth. I have read your articles about how much confusion and contention there was at this meeting. Did I miss something?

And in Floyd’s column, she adds another twist about the GOP’s “ongoing march into a strange ideological wilderness.” Is there something wrong with supporting family values and trying to make our country stronger with smaller government and individual responsibility?

Her analogy of an alligator swallowing a python to describe the tea party and GOP is ridiculous. More accurate would be the Democratic Party as a donkey kicking all out of the basic concepts and principles that made this country great!

The GOP “tent” is not shrinking. It is made of strong material marked “Made in America.” The Democratic “tent” is made of flimsy, imported ideas that seem to embrace any and every idea that floats by, regardless of the harm that it does to our country.

Linda Gober, Corsicana

Not-so-funny pages

Re: “Spoiling for a fight — Texas Republicans draft platform with hard line on immigration, gays,” June 7 news story.

I can’t figure out why this was not in the comics section. It would have been funny if it wasn’t so pathetic. In many of the bullets of their platform, Republicans want to repeal, abolish, end, oppose, bar, and ban.

Are these people for anything? Oh yes, they are. They want to make the speaker of the Texas House a statewide elected office. Why? Because we all know that the current speaker, Joe Straus, is (whisper low) not a Christian. And they want to use conversion therapy to treat (whisper low) homosexuality. Has anyone informed them that this has been debunked as junk science?

The GOP would have been a lot happier in the Middle Ages when they burned anyone who tried to enlighten humanity.

Gaylard French, Waxahachie

Other sins to address

Viewing pornography is a sin. It’s all too often overlooked here in Texas, so much so that it wasn’t even added to the state GOP platform this year, nor was any mention of “reparative therapy for sex addiction.”

We as Christians didn’t feel like that needed to be addressed, even though studies show it could be destroying up to 500,000 marriages annually, leaving children in single-parent homes, which increases the risk for poverty, drug abuse, promiscuity and teen pregnancy. If you ask me, we could snuff out a lot of other “sins” if we simply threw in something condemning porn.

I mean, it’s not like we’re asking to add software to your personal computer that would tell all our fellow Republicans when you slip up and visit a XXX site. Not to say that’s too invasive, though, since as believers committed to upholding “traditional biblical marriage,” our political party should have every right to legislate these kinds of immoral practices.

But wait — your sexuality is private and none of our business, right?

The second we try to govern someone else’s sexual proclivities, they should also get to govern ours.

Destiny Herndon-DeLaRosa, Richardson

GOP roundup: Lynne Woolley was wrong; Where were gay Republicans?

Give gay therapy a chance

Re: “Gay ‘therapy’ stance further shrinks GOP’s big tent” by Jacquielynn Floyd, Tuesday Metro column.

I hope we all can agree that no one, adult or child, should ever be forced against his will into reparative (conversion) therapy. Under those circumstances, it is ineffective and often harmful.

However, there are many who consider their sexual preference to be a matter of choice. Some say the therapy is helpful and improves the quality of their lives. Shouldn’t they be allowed that option?

Or does the right to choose apply only to outcomes ruled politically correct by the nanny state?

Ken Ashby, Dallas

Where were gay GOP members?

As usual, Jacquielynn Floyd’s column Tuesday, in its seriousness and humor, hit the mark! It’s amazing how she can pointedly bring into focus the stupidity that goes on around us and that somehow we miss.

As a result of reading Ms. Floyd’s column, I have a couple of questions: Where was that gay pride? What happened to the rainbow-colored flag proudly flying?

Neither seemed to have been around when the gay GOP organizations, barred from setting up booths at the state convention, quietly accepted the “reparation” statement as a trade-off for getting rid of previous platform language (that was even more offensive and exclusionary?).

What a pity. They definitely didn’t do the Stonewall Inn defenders, who began the fight for gay rights, and other brave gay activists proud. Staying to keep company with a party whose members call you sick and who make disparaging comments to your face seems somewhat masochistic.

Mercy! I would have packed my bags, and waving the rainbow flag, walked out with parting words that most definitely would not have been “you won’t be counting our votes”!

Being a gay Republican at this time seems out of sync.

Daniel Prado, Dallas/Pleasant Grove

Woolley should look further

Re: “Wrestling with ideology — Cantor found out the hard way that tea party is the people, says Lynn Woolley,” Thursday Viewpoints.

Woolley claims Virginia U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor’s loss means that the American people oppose Obama policies on immigration and health care, because their voices were not heard regarding them.

To the contrary, the American people were heard in 2008 and 2012 when they elected and re-elected President Obama to office on the promise of health care and immigration reform!

Woolley claims that Obamacare is a “government takeover of health care.” Rather, it is a system of regulated care by private carriers and is working wonderfully in states like Kentucky with Democratic governors, unlike Texas, where Gov. Rick Perry’s mindless opposition to the extension of Medicaid, part of Obamacare, is costing the state billions.

Woolley laments that in many states, same sex marriage is now legal, decrying “activist judges,” but omits that many of these judges were Republican appointees. He laments that the EPA is “attacking coal-fired energy plants” but omits that a conservative Supreme Court held in 2007 that the administration had the authority to do so.

Finally, he blames Obama for the recent influx of unaccompanied children over U.S. borders, omitting that most of them are trying to escape desperate economic conditions and violence in Central America. Woolley’s score? Wrong on all counts!

Jim Barber, Dallas

Therapy can be harmful

If the Texas Republican Party members think reparative therapy for homosexuals will work, they should take into consideration all the LGBT people whose lives have been affected the wrong way by reparative therapy groups, some of which are no longer around. Then they’ll see for themselves that it doesn’t work.

A.J. Chilson, Princeton, @AJ_Chilson

Pro/con: Republicans are shedding voters left and right; Compromise hasn’t worked for GOP

GOP sheds voters left and right

Re: “Spoiling for a fight — Texas Republicans draft platform with hard line on immigration, gays,” Saturday news story.

The GOP draft platform has already accomplished one thing — it alienates just about every voter constituency in Texas.

Scanning the list I can see they lost the Hispanic vote (sealing the border, no route to amnesty; English as the official language); gays (bar benefits to domestic partnerships, offer reparative therapy); green advocates (abolish the EPA); teachers (abolish the Department of Education); women wanting the freedom to make their own choices (repeal Roe vs. Wade, ban morning-after pill); African-Americans and minorities in general (end affirmative action; allow business owners to refuse service to those they find morally or religiously offensive); lottery players (repeal the state lottery); younger and less educated workers (repeal the minimum wage); government employees (abolish four federal agencies); and basically all voters (repeal 17th Amendment so that legislatures, not citizens, select U.S. senators).

Of course, abolishing property taxes sounds attractive until you realize that it would take a 25 percent sales tax to replenish state coffers with the same revenue. I guess that alienates the elderly, young and poor. Well, if they keep tightening up those voters’ rights laws, they won’t have to worry about those folks now, will they?

Hans Voorn, Frisco

Compromise got GOP nowhere

Since the recent tea party victories, this letters section has been full of complaints about how the Republican Party didn’t want to compromise and work together to get things done. Let’s examine what this “working together” has accomplished for conservatives:

The GOP held the House, Senate and presidency from 2002 to 2007. Compromise is supposed to be where both sides get something. There were three major pieces of legislation during those years.

No Child Left Behind. The federal government has no business in schools. The Department of Education was Jimmy Carter’s idea. Conservatives got nothing in this legislation.

Medicare, Part D. Again, an expansion of an existing liberal program. The conservatives got something here in that it introduced more private market choices. However, Obamacare helped to pay for itself by reducing Medicare’s budget by $500 million, all of it in these private market choices, thus eliminating the conservative parts.

Social Security Reform. Conservatives wanted the whole thing privatized. A compromise would be to privatize a small part of it. The whole thing went down in flames to thunderous applause.

Conservatives have figured out that they’ve been getting the short end of the stick and they’re fed up, so stop talking about compromise. It doesn’t exist.

Gerald Meazell, Frisco