Marriage amendment: The real issue is money

Marriage amendment:The real issue is money
EDITOR:
I've been hearing a lot lately in the media regarding President Bush's proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. Many of the arguments have centered around the church (God doesn't approve of homosexuals) and the idea that gay marriages will destroy the "family."
No. 1, I'm pretty certain that there is still this little thing called separation of church and state. So, God really shouldn't be factored into this secular issue.
No. 2, even if you consider God's will to be a factor, there's this little idea in the Bible that I came across during my pursuit of a bachelor's degree in religious studies. I believe it goes something like, "Don't judge lest ye be judged." That's still in there, right? And, with the popularity of Mel Gibson's new movie, I would think that that catchy little phrase "What Would Jesus Do?" might be on the minds of a few of this nation's citizens. Would Jesus, who hung out with tax collectors and prostitutes, among other societal outsiders, judge? Would he have fought for an amendment?
No. 3, I can think of a thousand other things that are an even greater threat to marriage. How about spousal abuse, adultery, drug use, alcoholism, etc., just to name a few? And what about divorce? Gee, isn't that a threat to marriage? Should we ban divorce, too?
As for a constitutional amendment, I looked up the Constitution online. Lo and behold, there have been several amendments. What I noticed about them, and the Constitution itself, was that it seemed to be written to protect the people from the government. Imagine that? In fact, they named the first 10 amendments the Bill of Rights.
I'm thinking that the issue here is really money. Imagine all of the money Bush's friends will be forced to pay out if they have to extend benefits such as health care to the domestic partners of their employees should they be allowed to marry.
KELLY PRICE
Youngstown
Traficanti as commissioner?What were they thinking?
EDITOR:
Just when it seemed like the citizens of Mahoning County were moving forward and beginning to shed the negative image of acceptance of political corruption and crime, something happens -- like the primary election results for Mahoning County commissioner.
It's unbelievable that 26,573 voters (52 percent) elected Anthony T. Traficanti as the Democratic nominee for commissioner, and essentially placed him in the commissioners office simply by virtue of being a Democrat.
Did it not matter to these voters that for the 10 years before our illustrious former congressman James Traficant was sent to prison, Traficanti worked closely with him in Washington?
Did it not bother these voters that Traficanti was close enough to the convicted congressman that he lived on Traficant's boat in Washington and regularly worked on Traficant's farm?
Did the voters not hear recent comments made by Traficanti on WKBN Radio during a commissioner candidates debate that he was proud of his work with Traficant and that he thought that overall, Traficant had done more good than bad for this area as a congressman?
That's amazing! That's like saying that a person who robs banks for a living, but then helps other people, goes to church on Sundays and gives half the stolen cash to charity is really not all that bad of a person!
Traficanti's admitted and well-documented close personal relationship with Traficant, a convicted criminal, should have been reason enough for the voters of Mahoning County to reject his bid for commissioner.
Apparently, 26,573 voters either did not see it that way, or, even more worrisome, think that they have now found a politician who fills Traficant's shoes well.
CHUCK HILLMAN
Boardman