Letters to the Editor

A trial-lawyer twosome

The idea that medical malpractice reform would ever appear on the agenda of a Kerry/Edwards administration is as likely as hearing a yodeling concert at the Metropolitan Opera (“Malpractice maelstrom,” Editorial, Wednesday).

The Democratic Party, a wholly owned subsidiary of theAssociationofTrial Lawyers and the primary beneficiary of its political donations, will not bite the hand that pays it. The silver-tongued Mr. Edwards, a personal-injury lawyer who specialized in medical malpractice cases, earned his multiple millions in time-honored lawyerly fashion, by telling a slightly better story to the jury than opposing counsel.

As vice president, he will be well-situated to block tort-law reform, no matter the price to society as a whole.

PAUL BLOUSTEIN

Cincinnati, Ohio

The real Romney

It was with profound surprise that I read your glowing profile of Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (“Romney seen as a star for future by party leaders,” Page 1, Tuesday). As the president of one the state’s largest pro-family groups, I can honestly say that the governor you profiled bears no resemblance to the one we actually have in Massachusetts.

While Mr. Romney is trying to boost his national image by pretending to be a champion of traditional marriage, those of us in the state who fought in the trenches know the truth: Mitt Romney did as little as he possibly could to prevent same-sex “marriage” from occurring. He was involved in the issue late, and despite numerous meetings and strategy sessions, he declined to support any of the numerous options presented to him to thwart the attempts by the pro-homosexual lobby to deny the people of Massachusetts a vote on this issue. Mr. Romney opposed the original marriage amendment cosponsored by me, in which more than 130,000 signed the initiative petition.

Mr. Romney’s double talk should not come as a surprise — he has done it before. As a candidate for governor in 1994, Mr. Romney claimed he had undergone a conversion and had become pro-abortion. When he returned to Utah, he claimed he was actually pro-life — in fact, he even sent a letter to the Salt Lake Tribune saying that he “does not wish to be labeled pro-choice.”

Yet when Mr. Romney returned to Massachusetts to run for Governor in 2002, he ran as ardently pro-abortion and in favor of embryonic stem-cell research. Mr. Romney even went so far as to announce his support for RU-486, the abortion pill.

Before The Washington Times and other media attempt to build up Mr. Romney’s credentials as a viable candidate for the future, conservatives should know the truth about his record.

LAURIE LETOURNEAU

President, Life Action League of Massachusetts and Mass Voices for Traditional Marriage

Shrewsbury, Mass.

Marriage matters

I was shocked to discover the great likelihood that the same-sex “marriage” amendment proposal was designed by the administration to prey on the morally shortsighted (“Marriage amendment stopped,” Page 1, Thursday). Many of our great citizens are so isolated from social dynamics and real people that they would equate a politician voting against the measure with someone trying to destroy the fabric of society.

I can live with the isolated and one-dimensional. I can stand with the religious right. I can vote in the booth next to the man who will not listen to anything but his God and his rules. He has his opinions — and usually a few good jokes. I cannot forgive leaders who will manipulate democracy. Our great leader threw up a constitutional amendment, without any hope of its passing, just for political fodder. President Bush’s job is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, not to change it and abuse it.

TIM COLLARD

Seattle

•

It does not appear that the Federal Marriage Amendment to the constitution will be voted on. Is this a victory for homosexuals or the Democratic Party? No, it is a victory for states’ rights, where principled conservatives found common ground with the unprincipled.

Leaving the definition of marriage to the state level, without changing the Constitution to make marriage a federal responsibility, allows the country to function as the founders envisioned. States can legislate those things their constituents wish, so long as they are not proscribed by the Constitution. Other states can do differently as their constituents wish. The people of the country eventually will vote with their feet on these matters.

Those states with activist judiciaries can implement “marriage” covenants between men and men, women and women, men and sheep, women and horses, bedbugs and their hosts, etc. Once a state embraces one perversion, it must embrace them all. However, it will be up to the people of states with activist judiciaries who do not wish to be dictated to by judge-devised laws to rein in their judiciaries. It will be up to the rest of us to ensure that our elected national representatives keep the perversion of one state from infecting us all.

Therefore, it is necessary to remove marriage from the purview of the federal judiciary and ensure that it is left for the states. The states can do their thing individually, and what attracts people the most will make some states more successful than others. That is called competition, and it is a very effective way to try different concepts and let the people make their choices.

WAYNE HEMBREE

Bowie

•

Marriage is no longer a sacred institution in America — and for that, you can thank Maryland Sens. Barbara A. Mikulski and Paul S. Sarbanes. By voting against the Federal Marriage Amendment cloture motion, Miss Mikulski and Mr. Sarbanes have paved the way for a radical redefinition of the institution on which civilization has been based for 5,000 years.

The defeat of the FMA means that states are free to define marriage any way they see fit: It might be same-sex “marriage” in one state, unions of six men and three women in another. Now that the basic definition has been tampered with, anything goes. Is that what we hoped Miss Mikulski and Mr. Sarbanes would do for our state and our country when we elected them? Of course not. That’s a truth we shouldn’t forget the next time they ask us to support them at the ballot box.

LAURA CLARK

Martinsville, Md.

•

I wholeheartedly agree with William Hutchinson’s article “Judges vs. marriage” (Commentary, Thursday) concerning “those constitutional amendments … members of Congress talk about but never seem to pass.”

Although I hope the Federal Marriage Amendment passes eventually, it has gone nowhere fast in the Senate. Its eventual passage likely will follow a long, hard road. In the meantime, I hope those who support marriage in the House will support both the amendment and H.R. 3313. The latter would strip federal courts of the jurisdiction to hear cases related to the Defense of Marriage Act. This would be a monumental constitutional blow at the heart of judicial tyranny in the United States.

If Americans awaken from their lethargy and understand that the framers intended for Congress to limit the powers of the courts from time to time (especially when the latter exercise raw judicial power having nothing to do with the consent of the governed), it would set an extraordinarily powerful precedent — one that could go far beyond even the current same-sex “marriage” debate.

H.R. 3313 would do just that, strongly defending marriage as an institution and bringing the federal courts down a peg or two. No, it wouldn’t immediately stop same-sex “marriages” at the state level, but neither would an FMA that never makes it out of Washington. Besides, the real and lasting action is in the federal courts anyway, not the state courts or legislatures in Massachusetts or elsewhere. The federal courts eventually will trump anything the state courts or legislatures do, for good or ill, on every significant issue of the day.

Roe v. Wade taught us that lesson.

JIM MELANIC

Heartwood, Va.