In a recent article printed in this paper, you noted the occupation of the writer as if somehow their occupation lent some kind of credibility to the specious arguments about homosexuality that the writer was trying to justify. The author then told us of what the Bible says about homosexuality. Wouldn’t it have been much more informative if you were to tell us what the person’s religious background was, and what it was that led to his being better equipped to interpret the Bible than the rest of your readers?

In your correspondent’s article the correspondent noted that “the primary purpose of the gay rights law is to give legal and social approval to homosexuality, and to pave the way for gay marriage. That is what gay rights laws did in Vermont and Connecticut (where they now have gay civil unions) and in Massachusetts (where they now have gay marriage).” Having been raised and educated in the state of Massachusetts and that state’s schools, I can assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. The General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the Commonwealth’s legislature), did not and probably will not ever pass legislation authorizing gay marriage and therefore could not have done so as a result of having been influenced by an anti-discrimination law.

If your correspondent had checked the facts of the matter, the Commonwealth’ s current position with regards to gay marriage was NOT due to the enactment of a law or due to their being influenced by a non-discrimination law, but rather was the result of an interpretation of the Commonwealth’s constitution as a result of a lawsuit entitled Goodridge et al v. Department of Public Health in which the court held that forbidding gays the right to marry would be in violation of the state’s constitution.

It should be noted that much of the Commonwealth’s constitution was written by none other than John Adams, and is a constitution that predates our own federal Constitution, and is the basis upon which much of the federal Constitution was later written. Thus, the Supreme Judicial Court, through it’s interpretation of the various provisions of the Commonwealth’s constitution, concluded that to continue to ban gay marriage would be in direct violation of the Commonwealth’s constitution.

Efforts are currently under way within the Commonwealth by various religious and intolerant hate groups to amend the constitution, but that requires several sessions of the General Court to accomplish, and ergo it is something that will not be happening anytime soon, if ever, due to the size of the hurdles that must be overcome to amend the original document.

Literal interpretations of the Bible and its supposed infallibility certainly should not be used as the basis for the writing and passage of laws. If we were to do so, then certainly we could reinstate slavery, the stoning of women, turning people into pillars of salt for having looked over their shoulder etc., not to mention our having to contemplate exactly how DID Noah get the polar bears and penguins to Israel for loading on the ark yet somehow he overlooked the taking on board of the dinosaurs? Religious beliefs are just that, beliefs, and something better left to one’s church and home and not used to write civil laws meant to subjugate the non-believers, or those who believe in different religions, many of which are not based on Christianity at all.

I have been happily married for going on 36 years, and have served in this county’s military for a very long time. I take both my marriage vows and my pledge to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States VERY seriously. That being the case, I must admit that I get quite frightened personally, and for my country, by those who would seek to impose their religious beliefs through the enactment of civil laws on the rest of us. To that end, I certainly will vote NO on Question 1 and certainly implore that the other Christians who believe in God as a God of love, peace, and understanding will join my wife and I and do the same.

Dan Dwyer

Scarborough