Constitution protects minority from majority

Is James Roller (Letters, Aug. 10) aware that a number of conservative Republicans who oppose same-sex marriage, including former Georgia congressman Bob Barr, also have serious reservations about the federal marriage amendment?

Barr, who wrote the federal Defense of Marriage Act, said that the Constitution was deliberately designed to resist "the fickle winds of public opinion." He warned that the marriage amendment "would cheapen the sacrosanct nature of that document" and that enshrining a particular ideology in the Constitution now would facilitate "future meddling by liberals and conservatives."

Several religious groups have already suggested that the marriage amendment clashes with portions of the First Amendment and perhaps even the 14th Amendment.

The notion that politicians and judges should always cater to the majority makes sense only if the majority is always right. But the majority can be wrong, as when it opposed interracial marriage. What if a ban on such marriages had been implemented by amending the Constitution?

In real life, as in the classroom, the right answer, or the best answer, is not the one that is the most popular, but the one that is supported by the most powerful reasoning.

America's reputation suffers under Bush

Two days after the Iraqi prison abuse scandal was revealed, the president praised Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for doing a superb job. Rush Limbaugh compared the sickening acts of Abu Ghraib to a fraternity hazing. To this day, no senior officer or civilian executive has been held accountable for this disgraceful stain on American honor and decency.

Now we have a group of Bush supporters who are broadcasting vicious attacks against John Kerry. They mock his 1971 Senate testimony in which he truthfully reported what he had heard about atrocities committed by U.S. troops in Vietnam.

The message of the Bush campaign is clear. They believe that it is OK for U.S. troops to commit war crimes, and that those who demand accountability should be ignored and ridiculed. I disagree. I believe Americans must hold themselves to a higher standard.

Kerry's post-war acts aided the enemy

John Kerry a war hero? Yes, he is a war hero -- for the North Vietnamese Communist cause. Kerry's photo is prominently displayed in the war remnants museum in Ho Chi Minh City. The photo taken in 1993 (a mere 11 years ago) was of a meeting Kerry had with Vietnamese leaders, such as general secretary of the Vietnamese Communist Party Do Muoi.

It was heartbreaking to hear testimony from a soldier who was captured by the North Vietnamese and while being tortured was forced to listen to Kerry's anti-war propaganda over the loud speaker.

It's not hard to figure who is a hero

Regarding "Who is a hero?," (Insight, Aug. 26):

Who is a war hero? A hero is every soldier in a war zone, who puts his/her life in harm's way of enemy attacks!

A war zone? That is where real bullets, bombs and hostile enemies come to every soldier!

Medals? Medals should be given to every soldier who enters a war zone!

Who is a hero between Bush and Kerry? Figure it out!

Kerry was in a war zone in Vietnam, where 58,000 U.S. soldiers died!

Bush? Where did he go?

Republican Party has abandoned its roots

The current Republican Party has nothing to offer a person who believes in equal rights, truth from their government, the Constitution or the idea that "equality and justice for all" applies to everyone. I have been a Republican for far too long. I joined the party because Republicans told me they were the party of the big tent, but that is a lie. They are, in fact, the party for sale to the highest bidder. Today the highest bidder is the irrational right.

The GOP was once the party of Abraham Lincoln and Susan B. Anthony, but today these great people would be ashamed of their party. They fought for equal rights, not for enshrining discrimination in our governing documents. The GOP has forgotten this fact, and it was highlighted when the GOP passed its most offensive and small-tent platform to date.

There is a big difference between loyalty and blind allegiance. This is what we are seeing today from members of the GOP. They are following George W. Bush just because he happens to be president. This is a man who turned a majority of the world against us and ran up a crippling deficit all on lies. And we are supposed to believe that he has our best interests at heart? Come on, we are the last thing on Bush's mind.

I have resigned from the GOP with the hope that one day it returns to its roots -- the fight for civil rights.