I was very interested in letter-writer Stephen Bannon's response, "Gay marriage: Sacrificing society in the name of fairness" to Pastor David Rosales's letter, "Debunking the gay agenda" [June 22], regarding gay marriage.

Contrary to Bannon's assertion, we no longer live in a constitutionally limited society, as our judges have become and undisciplined mob, imposing on the majority imagined rights nonexistent in our state constitution. It is for this reason that the majority of Californians are burdened by the need to impose legal limits on unbridled judicial activism.

It is clear that Bannon's standard of right regarding the issue of gay marriage is determined by a person's freedom "to pursue his or her own happiness," and that society has no right to impose restrictions on the pursuit of that happiness. This is such a silly, nonsensical notion as hardly to need defense. By that same argument all kinds of evils would be perpetrated on our society: marriage between children, between children and adults, bigamist marriages, incestuous marriages or bestial marriages. Now that the gate has been opened to gay marriage, we should soon expect efforts by these groups to expand the concept of marriage. After all, they are only seeking freedom "to pursue his or her own happiness."

Finally, I found it interesting that Bannon characterized Pastor Rosales's position on gay marriage as subjective and was offended that Pastor Rosales found the gay lifestyle to be immoral. First, it is clear to any open-minded person that homosexuality is contrary to nature. Second, it is equally clear that a child's mental and emotional health is optimized by having a mother and father in the home, not homosexual couples. That is the objective truth. What is clearly subjective, however, is characterizing one's standard of right by his or her pursuit of happiness. The error in judgment is with Bannon, not Pastor Rosales.

I don't believe that Bannon would take issue with the immorality of murder, rape, stealing, defamation of character, burglary, or personal assault. Bannon should consider what it is within him that determines that these actions are immoral. It is surely a conscience that is not the product of Darwinian evolution. It is in fact the conscience stamped upon his heart by God. In fact, these actions are defined to be moral in the Bible, which millions of people consider to be the Word of God. Also defined in the Bible as immoral activities are sexual acts outside of marriage, adultery and homosexuality. When examined with an open mind all of these immoral activities, whether sexual or otherwise, undermine the peace and well-being of society and the affected individual. For this reason, there is good reason for society to discourage these behaviors, irrespective of whether they are the product of the pursuit of an individual's happiness.

The attack on the institution of marriage is an interesting dynamic, in my opinion. On the one hand, the gay community means to legitimize, at least in their own minds, what is obviously an unnatural activity, while at the same time sticking it to the self-righteous Christians. Frankly, I lay more blame on the undermining of marriage at the feet of the heterosexual community in its general utter lack of respect or concern for the institution. How can the heterosexual community argue with a straight face the sanctity of marriage when the rate of divorce is so appallingly high? This is the height of hypocrisy unfortunately. How can the heterosexual community argue the importance of a father and mother in the home when divorce is so readily sought in the pursuit of individual happiness? Unfortunately, there is much blame to be laid at the feet of the heterosexual community regarding the undermining of the institution of marriage, including the! Christian community, sadly. However, it is not wise to stop bailing or attempting to repair a boat simply because it is leaking. Clearly, a healthy marriage between mother and father is the ideal setting for raising healthy children and promoting a healthy society. There are many things, including these goals, that are more important than one's pursuit of happiness. As a society, we should be promoting these ideals with great interest and not be lulled into thinking that we are bigoted or unreasonable in opposing what is wrong for our children and our society.

–Mario Manriquez, Jr. of Anaheim Hills

*************************************

In response to the letter written by Richard Helmold, "Sacrificing society in the name of fairness" [June 24]. I am sorry, just because you write a letter, and the Register publishes it, does not make it a fact. Gay marriage has not been the death of heterosexual marriage in Europe. In fact, if people bother to research this, it has had the opposite effect.

When Massachusetts extended the right to marry to gays and lesbians in 2004, many predicted the "demise of marriage". Conservative pundit Stanlye Kurtz claimed "to have proof that gay marriage destroyed marriage in Scandinavia, according to an article published in Slate, May 2004. Religious leader James Dobson warned that "Massachusetts is issuing a death certificate for the institution of marriage." According to articles found online, this is empty rhetoric spouted by religious leaders, conservative pundits, and uninformed readers such as Richard Helmold of Orange County. Consider the following facts:

"Despite what Kurtz might say, the apocalypse has not yet arrived. In fact, the numbers show that heterosexual marriage looks pretty healthy in Scandinavia, where same-sex couples have had rights the longest. In Denmark, for example, the marriage rate had been declining for a half-century but turned around in the early 1980s. After the 1989 passage of the registered-partner law, the marriage rate continued to climb; Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the highest they've been since the early 1970s. And the most recent marriage rates in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are all higher than the rates for the years before the partner laws were passed." (Slate, Lee Badgett 2004)

How about Bill O'Reilly's claim that in Sweden, "marriage between men and women declined drastically since gay marriage was legalized there?" Wrong. According to the September 2003 edition of the Swedish government's Monthly Labor Review, "marriage rates for people aged 15-64 years rose to 7.0 per 1,000 people in 2000 from 6.0 in 1995, having fallen from 7.4 in 1990."

Gay marriage has been alive and well in Massachusetts for 4 years now. Has heterosexual marriage collapsed? No. Not only did the state retain its title as having the lowest divorce rate in the United States, but in the two years since gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, the divorce rate dropped faster than in any other recorded time according to state statistics.

–Gary Wood of Santa Ana