To discriminate or not
The July 16 Metro article "Same-sex marriage in D.C. is upheld" quoted Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defense Fund as saying that the D.C. Court of Appeals has denied District residents "their most fundamental freedom -- the right to vote."
Yet in this constitutional republic, the voters have no fundamental right to vote away the rights of politically unpopular minorities. Insofar as they ever had such a right, the constitutional doctrine of equal protection of the laws repealed it. Besides, if social conservatives care so much about the voters' fundamental right to vote, why do they not respect that right with regard to medical marijuana, which voters routinely support?
David J. Edmondson, Alexandria
The Post editorial board argues that federal benefits afforded to heterosexual spouses should be provided also to same-sex spouses ["A defense of fairness act," editorial, July 11].
Spousal health care, Social Security and pension benefits are not rights but rather encumbrances upon the unmarried to compensate those who bear the cost and risk of procreation, a task biologically impossible for same-sex couples. Public support is not a human right, and it is dangerous to equate the two.
Free people express sexuality as they choose, heterosexually or otherwise: That is their right. Public subsidy of that expression is not.
James Metcalf, Fairfax