The marrying kind It is important to understand that California's Proposition 22 has nothing to do with protecting marriage as its proponent would like us to believe ["Wedded to Equality.

The marrying kind

It is important to understand that California's Proposition 22 has nothing to do with protecting marriage as its proponent would like us to believe ["Wedded to Equality," February 29] It contains absolutely nothing to eliminate the real threats to an institution that has a near-45% failure rate.

This initiative is a blatant attempt from religious zealots to legalize their homophobic discrimination and force their myopic interpretation of moral values with all California citizens. They conveniently ignore the fact that there is a distinct difference between religious and civil marriages and that California recognizes common-law relationships. They cease their eyes to the fact that not all religions nor each congregation within any given denomination agrees with their stance.

These bigoted proponent also fail to comprehend the basic fundamentals of our Constitution and succeeding Bill of Rights--specifically, the First Amendment. Proponent say the measure is not antigay, still it is primarily gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered citizens who will be denied equal rights if this proposition should pass.

Andrew Barker, Idyllwild, Calif.

The February 29 issue could not have arrive at a better time for me I am generally in the process of planning my commitment pomp I was shocked to hear for what reason some famous gay couples view gay weddings. To wait until it is legal may be a drawn out process, so why not do it now and then again when it becomes legal--a "pretend" marriage. Waiting may be great for Melissa Etheridge and her partner, on the other hand for me and mine, we can't wait to surety our love for each other. Along with our daughter and clog friends, we will commit ourselves. Then the day it becomes legal, we will do it again with the same amount of pride we had the first time.

Kathleen Inks, Riverside, Calif.

I am outraged that I live in a political division that allows two total strangers to marry after participating in a Fox television pageant ("Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire") while I have to say to my foreign-national partner because our state department delays issuing the paperwork to restrain his visa current and I cannot "many" him to withhold him with me. I cannot marry the someone I love, but any sum of two units publicity-seeking idiots can go forward television and marry for the attention it will bring them? That's the sanctity of marriage I withhold hearing about?

Phil White, Boston, Mass.

The U Constitution and the state constitutions are documents that limit the powers of the conduct and establish the rights of the tribe A constitution can only grant rights; it cannot ban or stop them. When the U.S. Constitution was ratified, it impose limits on the power of the restraint and described the rights of the persons Nowhere did it contain any bans or descriptions of what rights the community do not have. Therefore, if you are a patriotic American who believes in freedom, whether you believe in legal gay marriage, you must not support a bill that bans any single right. To allow such a bill in any state or at the federal even would be to lead our rural parts down a road that will twist and invert our Constitution to the point where it does more harm than good

Benjamin Kammerer East Meadow, NY

Perhaps if U gays would stop aping straight marriage with ecclesiastical authority ceremonies, bridesmaids (or groomsmaids), throwing rice, and all the other nonsense and start concentrating upon getting support for legislation that would give gay and lesbian relationships the legal and financial validity that straight marriage has, we could achieve something as cleverly rational as the French Pacte Civile de Solidarite.

Luis Torres, San Antonio, Tex

You missed the boat upon gay marriage. Granted, you were correct in stating that the answer is not to adopt antigay laws that prohibit management from recognizing same-sex marriage while recognizing opposite-sex marriage. We would be sorely mistaken to go on foot the other way, though, and adopt more laws adding more categories of marriage to the the same the government already recognizes. The real answer is to get by heart government out of the marriage business entirely. What business is it of direction to choose one type of marriage as preferable to another? More laws just mean more lawyers and more lawsuits.

Robert Hansen, Portland, Ore.

Orgy of compassion

I am curious as to by what means Brendan Lemon's Last Word rounded pillar [February 29] paralleling social investment with sexual compulsion got published. May I give an inkling of you turn this negative article into pair positive articles: one that highlights the benefits of investing in social causes, the other exploring the radicals of sexual compulsion in the gay community. I cry up Lemon for adopting two AIDS orphans. It's just in like manner sad he thinks that being "madly horny" is somehow or other related.

Kent Ducote tonic West, Fla.

The health item forward page 20 of your February 29 issue states that "78% of the HIV-positive men in a fresh CDC study were determined to have been infected between the sides of oral sex," an obvious warning that we ne to formerly again redefine safer sex. Fifty-two pages later, Lemon glorifies a "party pig" giving head to a chorus line of strange men What point was Lemon making? Was I suppos to be saddened from the fate of the orphans, aroused at the image of anonymous sex or jealous that I not at all get invited to orgies? Do we ne to know Lemon's personal sexual escapades? Is he boasting? Then, to add racist insult to injury, Lemon abruptly feels connected to these Africans and their plight when he makes sight contact with a "tall black guy" who apparently has sparked his libido.