The Blog

Top 10 Letters

Kuwaiti conspiracy theory, a New York Times contributor defends the practice of lying to reporters, and more.

12:00 AM, Jul 21, 2003
Widget tooltip
Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts

THE DAILY STANDARD welcomes letters to the editor. Letters will be edited for length and clarity and must include the writer's name, city, and state.

*1*

Jonathan V. Last writes: "So here the Times is, acting no better than a flailing dot-com or a middle-rank member of Congress. They obfuscated. Then they lied. And now they're spinning and refusing to answer questions.

"Just something to keep in mind the next time the newspaper of record goes in pursuit of the truth." (Truth and the New York Times)

Wow, thanks for the info. I'm definitely gonna keep an eye on those shiftless hacks at the New York Times now. Who knows what lies they're cooking up even as I write? I mean, the transitive property goes, that if your publisher and chief spokesperson are obfuscating, then every reporter, editor, and deliveryman must be up to no good. God Bless, you Mr. Last, for delivering your probing and thoughtful account.

Give my regards to the non-obfuscating, non-spinning Mr. Murdoch!

--Jonathan Miller, Freelance Reporter (and sometimes New York Times contributor)

*2*

Let's place overused terms like "moral decline" and "moral relativism" aside and address the underlying issue Lee Bockhorn is getting at in A Few Good Men: Fear. More specifically, men's fear of failing to perpetuate their genetic line. It is very real and has manifested over centuries of human history in social customs and law, both religious and secular. The Texas sodomy law provides an excellent illustration. By outlawing acts of "sodomy," it, by definition, outlaws male-to-male homosexual intercourse without, of course, having to explicitly say as much. However, female homosexuals do not per se "sodomize" one another, and are conspicuously unaffected by laws that were put in place under the pretense of morality. If these laws were truly toward some noble pursuit to protect the sacred institution of the nuclear family, then the laise-faire attitude toward female homosexuality, from a legislative perspective, is left thoroughly unexplained.

This is as clear a separation of church and state issue as ever there was--a point conspicuously absent in the national discourse. One need only point out that the word "sodomy" is itself Judeo-Christian in its origin. We have a long-standing tradition of protecting other belief-systems from oppression. Why do we continue to tolerate it in this case? The answer, as previously stated: Fear.

--Steve Kling

*3*

I agree with Lee Bockhorn that we need a clear, unapalogetic voice for marriage as it has historically been defined. I spoke to a reporter from NPR this morning who seemed surprised when I disagreed with the assertion that legalizing homosexual marriage is inevitable.

--Ron Crews, President, Massachusetts Family Institute

*4*

As a gay man hoping that homosexual marriage does become legal in my lifetime, I cannot understand the uproar this topic generates. In particular, why can sex not "be severed willy-nilly from its ties to male-female complementarity, procreation, and marriage without doing tremendous harm to our social fabric"?

How would having the same legal rights husbands and wives enjoy cause "trmendous harm to our social fabric?" Would millions of straight men and women suddenly realize that they could leave their current heterosexual spouses to form a "marriage" with their best friend of the same sex? Would millions of gay couples flood churches and courts making it impossible to heterosexual couples to marry?

It looks to me like a lot of people fear this change simply because it goes against long-standing social mores and tradition. Given the tiny fraction of the population that we homosexuals represent (between 1 percent and 10 percent, depending upon whom you believe), I doubt that legalizing homosexual marriage would have much effect at all on our social fabric.

--Curtis Littlegreen

*5*

Hugh Hewitt is right: Likleks is just great (The Bleat Goes On). I consider it a miracle that our local newspaper, the Patriot--which is slightly to the left of Pravda--has been running his columns for years.

I like to think of Lileks as Maureen Dowd with a sense of humor . . . and a point . . . and depth . . .and so on . . .

--Charlie Talmadge

*6*