Letters to the Editor

Religion at Princeton has been covered before

Regarding 'No faith in the 'Prince' ' (March 9):

While I in no way argue that the 'Prince' always does a perfect job (though I know its editors and writers seek to do their best) I would like to point out that Emma Soichet '02 wrote a series on religion at Princeton in February and March of 2000. The youngest 'Prince' writers to read the series are only now about to graduate. Of course, the campus has changed a lot over the last four years, and now that a full cycle has passed I'm sure this new board will address the issues accordingly. Jessica Lautin '03 Former 'Prince' managing editor

Marriage is about more than raising children

Regarding 'Reasonable reservations about gay marriage' (March 8):

Everyone agrees that promoting marriage is a positive thing, even in the absence of childrearing. Why? I'll hazard a quick guess. Because promoting marriage promotes stable relationships among couples who love each other, and that love is beneficial to society. It reminds people that there's more to life than crass materialism or selfish hedonism. It promotes a bond that is anathema to totalitarianism, and is the bread and butter of the good life.

So what could the argument be against broadening the institution of marriage to include another class of people in love?

I can think of only one: the thought that homosexual love is somehow inferior to the heterosexual variety. Robinson offers no argument to support this point. That's telling, because no such argument will be forthcoming. It finds no support on purely conceptual grounds.

And as anyone who's had the pleasure to witness a homosexual relationship will tell you, it turns out that two people can be in love and deeply devoted to each other regardless of their gender. It is for this reason that extending the franchise of marriage to homosexuals will only strengthen marriage and society, and it is for this reason that I'm baffled when homosexuals are denied opportunity to sincerely exhibit this sort of devotion. Colin V. Klein GS

It's not fair to just police potential gay marriages

Regarding 'Reasonable reservations about gay marriage' (March 8):

I understand some of the reservations many have toward the institution of gay marriage, but how can we suddenly adopt the "police" attitude toward marriage in this country when we've never called into question the moral standing of a man and a woman getting married?

It is inevitable that many heterosexual couples are not fit to raise children: Look at abusive fathers, alcoholic mothers or pedophiles. But the state has never taken any preemptive action to determine this ability or fitness to raise a family. Why are we taking that stance now?

If we are going to suddenly "examine" a couple's values and moral standing in determining if they are allowed to marry and raise a family, we should treat it as a universal examination. Man-woman pairings can equally as easily have problems.