Dear Editor,

The article on the same sex marriage case ("Gay marriage arguments head back to high court" by Britte Marsh, 2/28/08) contains a number of factual errors that need to be corrected – for the sake of the readers as well as for the writer of the piece.

The article credits a court decision as legalizing same-sex marriage. That never happened. Four years ago, Mayor Newsom ordered the county clerk's office to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The City was ordered to stop in March 2004. In 2005, one year after Newsom acted, Judge Kramer issued a decision in favor of same sex couples, but the decision was held pending appeal.

In October 2006, an appellate court in California reversed Kramer's decision. The case will finally be settled by the California Supreme Court.

Later in the article, Marsh contradicts herself in two consecutive paragraphs. First Marsh states, "…the Court of Appeals overturned his verdict, which nullified the marriage licenses granted." In the next paragraph, Marsh writes "….it will be the last verdict given to determine the validity of the marriage licenses issued…in 2004 and 2005."

To be clear - the licenses were annulled in August 2004, six months after they were issued. No marriage licenses were issued to same sex couples in California in 2005. The outcome of the Supreme Court hearing next week will have no effect on the marriages conducted in 2004. Those licenses are not valid and will not be resuscitated.

Also worthy of mention is the use of the inflammatory term "gay marriage." The court case is not about the establishment of a different version of standing law. It is a hearing about the State of California enacting laws to restrict the constitutional rights of same sex couples by not issuing marriage licenses to them. Unless we are also going to begin using the term "straight marriage," it is more appropriate to refer to this story in terms of marriage equality instead of perpetuating biased language.

In response to the remark made by James Kincaid that "…(marriage) is a religious ceremony and so the religious bodies that oppose (same sex marriage) shouldn't be denigrated either" - I think he is making the same mistake many others routinely make. If marriage is a religious ceremony and religious concerns deserve as much consideration as the legal claims of same sex couples, then I think we need to have an honest conversation regarding the repeal of divorce laws. I don't know of any religious institution that supports the right of couples to divorce, yet the accepted laws of our country provide that right – without any uproar from the religious zealots. If same-sex couples should be denied the right to marry because it conflicts with religious tenets, then surely there should be no right to divor ce.

Unless, of course, there is another reason to deny marriage to same-sex couples…like institutionalized heterosexist bigotry.

Speaking of bigotry, there are petitions being circulated by religious groups to place an amendment on the California State Constitution that would restrict the rights of LGBT citizens by permanently barring them from marriage and domestic partnerships. If enough signatures are gathered, the amendment will be on the ballot this November, during the upcoming Presidential election. This is a story that should augment the continuing coverage of the Supreme Court decision that may come before the end of the semester.

I appreciate the attempt to cover this historical event. Please try harder next time to accurately represent the facts. I realize this is a long letter, but I hope you will consider printing at least part of it. This decision will have enormous impact on hundreds of thousands of Californians and it deserves full consideration.

Sincerely

Patrick Connors

Senior - English Literature