It's a long way down to the conservative high ground

This letter the editor appeared in today's Tribune

There are two main objections to same-sex marriage. One is the conservative objection: The concept of marriage applies only to man and woman, but that doesn’t mean that same-sex couples shouldn’t have equivalent civil and legal rights as committed couples. Marriage is much more than a mere legal institution, but the legal part of it should be available to gays.

The other is the mean-spirited objection: Same-sex couples should not share the same civil and legal rights as married couples, because only opposite-sex couples should have those rights. Homosexuality is wicked and disgusting. Gays should have no rights at all.

I hold the first view. How many of us hold the second?

Bangs Tapscott

Salt Lake City

 Very sweet of you to show how warm-hearted and open-minded a conservative such as yourself is, Bangs, but there are a couple problems with your reasoning. The concept applies only to a man and a woman? Says who? Are you on the marriage board? Can the public just not conceptualize  two people of the same gender marrying one another, and therefore it cannot happen? Is this an argument from tradition? Traditions are not justice. Traditions are not law. Breaking from tradition is not a legal infraction.
Let me review your ideas on the topic. Marriage is  "much more than a mere legal institution" but "the legal part of it should be available to gays". This would seem to imply that you believe the parts of marriage that you think exist outside of the legal system should remain illegal for homosexuals. This is of course a problem. Every part of marriage, including the word itself, that can be governed by the law is within "the legal part of it" and, by your own reasoning, should be available to gays. Any part that is outside the law is of course not subject to it and cannot be included in a policy debate.
What it comes down to is you think heterosexuals own the semantic part of marriage and should not share it with the lower-class homosexuals. They should have their own institution, seperate but equal to the dominant culture and religious views. How very gracious of you.

Just ignore it and it'll go away

So it seems Pastor Terry Jones has cancelled his plans to burn a big pile of Qurans on Saturday. I'm happy about this, because it was just an example of American Evangelical dumbassity, but I really don't care that much. The best thing that could have been done, in my opinion, would be to ignore him. Let him spend his and all his followers' money on Qurans, stack them up into a big ol' pile, cover it with gas and set it on fire. They can even roast marshmallows. If nobody shows up to watch, it's just a bunch of backward losers in Florida doing something stupid; nothing really new. It only becomes dangerous or meaningful if the press and everyone else falls for this ploy for attention.
Should anyone build an Islamic culture center or mosque in lower Manhattan? No. Should they build it anywhere else? No. Should anyone build temples, cathedrals or megachurches? No, in my opinion, they are a waste of resources better spent on things that benefit everyone.
Should people burn Qurans? No. Should they burn Bibles? No. Should they burn flags? No, no more than they should worship them. But can they? Yes, yes, you bet your ass yes. In this country, everyone is entitled to free expression. That doesn't obligate you to give two craps about it. If someone came to me and and said "I'm going to burn a big pile of Qurans on September 11." I would say "You are pretty stupid. It would be much better to recycle them and print copies of Candide or the telephone directory on them." I would then walk away and and pay no mind to what they did after that.
The  mere fact that I know Terry Jones' name means too much attention has been paid him. Like an annoying sibling or mosquito bite, just ignore it and it'll go away.