Critic overlooks $587B worth of US patriotism

To the editor:

Re: "Here's why we question patriotism of liberals" (Aug. 12):

How dare you make this asinine statement about my patriotism, or that of 168 congressman, Republican and Democrat who opposed this insane venture, or the 23 Senators who voted against this unilateral invasion including one poor Republican, Lincoln Chaffee, who the Republicans hung out to twist in the wind. People that are a lot smarter than you or I saw this as a risky gamble. For one thing, there weren't enough troops to cover what they wanted to do. Generals cautioned about the invasion. Paul O'Neil quit before the illegal use of force began. Lawrence Lindsey was fired by Cheney/Bush/Rumfield for telling them the cost of the war would exceed $200 billion.

After the first strike in New York on Sept. 11, 2001, have you ever wondered why the USA hasn't been struck again or controlled by a occupying force of foreigners? Pretty easy to figure that out: Four airplanes sent this country into a "fear factor" Homeland Security, which is a disastrous joke. Our shores, ports, aircraft are not safe. I can not understand when you say the leaders of our country are not in support of our military achieving their objective in a war. Our leaders have given your thirst for blood and war $587 billion.

Bob Lipsett Sr., North Attleboro

Same-sex marriages lack legal sanction

To the editor:

In my first debate letter with Thomas Naughton about same-sex marriage, I explained that for same-sex marriage to be a basic civil right, homosexuals must pass the legal litmus of possessing both an unchangeable and distinguishable characteristic. Homosexuals possess neither. Mr. Naughton's response was to attack me personally, and offered no response to my point. That's not a very good debating tactic.

In this, my second debate point on same-sex marriage, I would like to address four points from the Goodridge Decision, which started this whole thing.

First, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts rightly acknowledged that our law does not recognize same-sex marriage.

Second, the court also acknowledged that the legal definition of marriage for many hundreds of years is the union of a single man and a single woman.

Third, it said that by its decision, it was changing the definition of marriage.

And fourth, it said that its decision was only an opinion, and that only the Legislature could change the marriage laws of the commonwealth. The court gave the Legislature 180 days to change our marriage laws, an order the court had no authority to express. The absolute fact of this matter is simply this. The Legislature ignored the court and never made any new law. The very same wording on the books, that the court said prohibits gay marriage, is still there. Not one word has been added, removed or changed.

Same-sex marriages are being performed in Massachusetts today with absolutely no legal sanction whatsoever from our laws. And, in fact, are being performed contrary to the laws now on the books. The court has no authority to change them, and our elected representation did not change them.

The first person with the legal means and courage to challenge this travesty will surely have a very powerful legal case against it.

Supporters of same-sex marriage, you have a very serious problem. You have no law!

Harold F. Crowell, North Attleboro