Precisely the opposite is true

To the editor, Boston Metro:
It couldn’t be more obvious that your editorial bias is shared with your owner, the New York Times. First there was the one sided article about lobbying via ice cream socials. Following yesterday’s less biased article, you published an interesting but very one sided letter, caricaturing the arguments for restoring marriage to its constitutional, pre-Goodridge state. Choosing the sex of one’s marriage partners is a new right, period. One voted into existence in 2003 by only four Massachusetts citizens— all of them unelected, unaccountable judges. This action is intolerable in a democracy. Your letter writer claims some sort of religious problem, perhaps insinuating that those who disagree with her think that God hates gays. Precisely the opposite is true (try John 3:16 and hundreds of other verses of universal love and acceptance). Sadly, macho types have done shameful and cruel things, in particular to gay men. That is utterly inexcusable, as are the cruel things that gays sometimes do to one another. But what does that have to do with the Constitution of a democracy? All citizens, not just four, are empowered to determine which values society will honor. The exclusion of values that are linked to morality from Sinai, and God’s universal love, is the worst sort of religious discrimination, aided and abetted in the pages of Metro this week.