Tenson Robinson's conclusions are faulty
published: Monday | April 19, 2004

THE EDITOR, Sir:

I WISH to respond to Tenson Robinson's questions. Robin-son's conclusions are faulty because Robinson's interpretation of the argument for gay marriage is incorrect. In fact it is a prime example of reductio ad absurdum, creating fear in the minds of anyone who reads Robinson's article. This is evident by Robinson's need to link homosexuals with incest and animalistic behaviour.

The argument for gay marriage is not that marriage should be open to two people who love each other, but that homosexuals under substantive due process of the 14th Amendment are guaranteed the same liberty as heterosexuals. This liberty includes the right to marriage, privacy, etc.

These are fundamental, universal rights and any state regulation which infringes on these rights must be met with strict scrutiny. I challenge Robinson, or anyone for that matter, to read, with an open mind, the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court's interpretation of liberty, and to make a valid argument that the right of homosexuals to marry is not included in the liberty of substantive due process.

I am, etc.,

AILEEN G. HENRY

aghenry11@aol.com

Mukwonago, WI

Via Go-Jamaica