- Buy Cheap Rosetta Stone - Learn German (Level 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 Set)
- Download Lynda.com - HTML5 First Look
- Download Steinberg Halion 3
- Buy Cheap Xilisoft CD Ripper
- Discount - Lynda.com - Building and Monetizing Game Apps for iOS
- 9.95$ FileMaker Pro 11: The Missing Manual cheap oem
- Buy Cheap Infinite Skills - SolidWorks 2012 Advanced
- Download Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise R2 SP2 (32 bit)
- Discount - Microsoft Access 2013
- Buy Adobe Photoshop CS6 Classroom in a Book (en)
- Download Video with Adobe Flash CS4 Professional Studio Techniques
- Buy OEM Lynda.com - Photoshop for Designers: Type Essentials
- Download CodeGear Delphi For PHP 1.0
|Gays Are Equal Under the Law|
|Commentary/Politics - Letters to the Editor|
|Wednesday, 12 September 2007 02:26|
A state Senator from Bettendorf, Linda Miller, asks why we do not have a vote on banning gay marriage in Iowa. We do not need a "Defense of Marriage" act. Marriage does not need to be defended from all the wonderful, caring, loving gay and lesbian adults I know in the eastern Iowa who are in long-term relationships, many of them raising children, and simply living their lives as are heterosexuals.
As a heterosexual Catholic person of faith, I strongly believe they have the same legal rights to marital protections and benefits (insurance, inheritance, health-care decisions, planning funerals) for their partners that I do and that Linda Miller does and that Governor Culver does - both of whom oppose the court ruling striking down the ban as unconstitutional. This is not a religious matter. Churches can continue to decide whom they will marry and not marry. It is a profound moral question. Are all Americans equal under the law? The District Court said they are, and I expect our legislators leaders to follow the Constitution.
Le Claire, Iowa
In the September 5-11, 2007, Reader, John W. Whitehead's article about "No More Cronies for Attorney General" was nothing more than another opportunity to bash Bush.
He made several statements of condemnation of the president and Mr. Gonzales, but no cast-in-concrete facts. My confusion began when he said what was talked about in a private conversation that he had no access to. Then follows a claim that the rule of law needs to be restored and put before politics. My question is: What law was broken? Then he recommends amending the Constitution to disallow the president to "make such overtly political appointments" and "political allies kowtowing to the president and circumventing the Constitution."
Mr. Whitehead either forgot or chose not to mention that one of the committee members that questioned Mr. Gonzales said that Mr. Gonzales had done nothing wrong. He just handled a situation badly.
My recommendation would be that Mr. Whithead read the book Betrayal by Bill Gertz and then write another article explaining which of the two men - Mr. Gonzales or the one talked about in the book-- had the most negative impact on the welfare of our country.
Tags See All Tags