Mar 19, 2004   | COMMENTS     

Still supporting Bush despite marriage
To the Editors:
In the March 12 issue, I was quoted in “On the Record,” as having said, “I am still a respected member of this administration from all I can see,” in an interview with the New York Times. Your paper went on to say that I said this on why I have not considered resigning and still support the president’s re-election.

While the quote is, in fact, accurate, the context in which you suggest I made the comment is totally inaccurate. I told the Times reporter that I will continue to support the president as long as I am a member of this administration. The Times reporter indicated, appropriately, that I have publicly disagreed with the president’s decision to endorse the Federal Marriage Amendment. This is true.

I have further indicated to senior White House staffers that I do not intend to be an apologist for the president on this issue, and I have been told I am welcome to indicate that I disagree with his decision on the anti-same-sex marriage amendment.

Whether I am respected (or not) in the Bush administration has nothing to do with my decision to remain a part of the administration and I have said nothing about my intentions concerning support for President Bush’s re-election. When I do, I’ll make sure your newspaper is among the first publications to know.
SCOTT EVERTZ
Washington

Editors’ note: The letter writer is the former Bush AIDS czar and current assistant to the secretary of health and human services. The Times reported as follows: “[Evertz] said that despite his open opposition to the amendment he supported the president. ‘’I am still a respected member of this administration from all that I can see,’ Mr. Evertz said.”

Civil unions aren’t enough for bi-national couples
To the Editors:
Jennifer Vanasco’s column (op-ed, Feb. 27) defending the sufficiency of civil unions as opposed to the “moral victory” represented by full-fledged marriage was both disappointing and, if I am allowed to say, rather insulting to many gay and lesbian couples.

Vanasco seems to believe that all gay and lesbian couples in the United States should be content with adopting a limited approach to fighting for equality, by defending civil unions that would guarantee them a certain degree of economic stability while they wait (even longer) to “eat the cake.”

What she forgets is that in this country there are couples — like my partner and me — where one of the members is a foreign national. I am a doctoral student; the Immigration & Naturalization Service has granted me a student visa only for the duration of the program of study.

But federal regulations do not allow me to work off-campus, and my salary, on which we live, is barely enough for us to make ends meet.

I fear the day I may have to leave this country — and our relationship — because I will have graduated, otherwise a rather merry occasion. Only full-fledged marriage will work for us, and this Uncle Tom mentality certainly doesn’t help.
VANESA CASANOVA-FERNANDEZ
Alexandria, Va.

Marriage by defiance deserves to lose
To the Editors:
The decision by the mayors of San Francisco and New Paltz, N.Y., and elsewhere, to marry same-sex couples despite contrary state law threatens to undermine the case for gay marriage. As a community, we cannot support local officials taking steps outside of the constitutional order simply because it helps us advance our policy objectives.

There is a right way to win battles, and there is a wrong way. Defying the law is most certainly the wrong way.

In the 1960s, our nation was horrified when local officials in the South decided that they, not the courts, would determine what was constitutional in regards to racial segregation. More recently, Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court decided that he would interpret the First Amendment as he saw fit and install a display to the Ten Commandments in a local courtroom.

How are these situations different from San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom deciding that the state initiative banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and ordering city officials to defy the law? Newsom had a responsibility to turn to the courts to overturn the law that he felt was unconstitutional before deciding to break it.

We do ourselves a great disservice and create the appearance of hypocrisy when we tell our opponents that they must turn to the courts as arbiters of the law and Constitution, but we will not expect the same from ourselves. If the only way we can win is through anarchy and defiance of our nation’s constitutional order, we deserve to lose.
DAVID LORD
Arlington, Va.