Blade op-ed columnist Marilou Johanek fails to recognize that many adults love one another, but are not permitted to marry (“Why is Ohio wedded to its ban on gay marriage?”, March 29).
If love were the only requirement, what would prevent same-sex cousins or two sisters from marrying? Why couldn’t a grandfather and grandson marry? Why should we prohibit three or more people from marrying?
If love between consenting adults is the only requirement, why would we stop at gay couples or limit marriage only to romantic love?
The problem with changing the definition of a word is that it ends up having no real definition.
Accepting gays, up to a point
Marriage between a man and woman is God’s law, so only God — not a king, not a president, not a court —can change that law (“Dubious witnesses taint Michigan gay-marriage case,” op-ed column, March 14).
Everyone deserves respect, no matter what he or she believes. The Bible tells us to love one another. We don’t have to agree or like everyone, but we do have an obligation to be kind and respectful.
Early on, the claim was that gay people wanted to be accepted, but it seems that some now insist on endorsement. If a gay couple goes to church for Sunday service, a theater to see a show, or a restaurant for dinner, service should never be denied. But asking a church or a facility to be part of a gay wedding ceremony is another question entirely.
It is not fair to expect those who do not approve of gay weddings to be forced to participate. Forcing people to go against their conscience creates animosity and doesn’t solve anything.
MARY JO THIEMAN BOSCH
Noe’s cohorts left him out to dry
The Tom Noe saga is pitiful for many reasons (“Noe’s ex-wife sues to save Florida home; Complaint: Law firm conspired to hid his affair to secure lien,” March 8). He was found guilty of a contemptible scheme that affected Ohio taxpayers, but where were government officials while that scheme was going on?
Where was George W. Bush, whom Noe worked diligently to elect as president? Presidents often pardon their friends when they leave office. It seems Noe’s cohorts left him high and dry.
MARY JANE KELLY
Why not disable cell phone texting?
Sending text messages while driving is dangerous. Technology exists to disable a cell phone’s texting function while a vehicle is in motion.
Lawmakers should consider requiring cell phone manufacturers to have a disable-texting mode, not only for the safety of the driving public, but also to protect texting drivers from their own stupidity.
FRANK ALBERTS III