The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 7 of 13)

Based on the context, I'd assume that both the writer of the brief and the writer of the article think that it is not good for an entity to impose their certain beliefs on another entity. I find that strangely ironic, especially considering the fact that Congress did precisely that when first introducing the phrase.

I am neither endorsing or condemning the insertion of the phrase. That being said, insertion of the phrase was quite obviously a state-sponsored endorsement (i.e., by the government, Congress in this case) of the Christian and/or Jewish faith (i.e., those who generally refer to their divine being as God). It would seem to me that arguments to the contrary miss the point entirely.

p>Mr. Johnson should have evaluated his entire argument with the same rational criticism that prompted him to (correctly) state that the case shouldn't be in front of the Supreme Court because the father is not the custodial parent, and his right to sue contradicts the intent of the ruling in the cited precedent. br> -- Richard W. Paules /p> p> BRUINED FEELINGS br> Re: Elihu Yale's Gay Marriage, Hollywood-Style : /p>

I will admit he's awfully good on the details. One might think … Oh never mind.

Unfortunately Mr. Yale seems to think that such a pattern of events could occur only between gay males. Do give us a break. A meretricious, philandering, heterosexual husband or wife could set the same chain of events in motion. In fact, I would wager that one would need not dig too deep (either in Los Angeles or elsewhere) to uncover such a lurid story.

Mr. Yale's tale does little than betray his swallowing whole every gay stereotype ever laid before his astigmatic and cataract plagued eyes. As I said, he's awfully good on the details -- probably because he lifted them from any of a number of media products he's consumed, which informed him of how life really is in big, nasty, queer Los Angeles. (Thank goodness he's safe at home in Scottsdale!)

topics:
Foreign Policy, Education, Trade, Religion, Islam, Books, Hollywood, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Israel, NATO, Nuclear Weapons, Oil