I was thoroughly outraged after reading Joshua Minott's letter, "Line drawn in Eden, same in government" (SN 11/14). If his goal was to outrage readers, then he succeeded. However, if his goal was to persuade or justify his own line of thinking, I am going to attempt to rebut him.

To clarify the issue, I assume his underlying argument is that our government should take a stand against same-sex marriage. I will address both his religious and legal arguments.

First, his religious argument that "Jesus might not cut health benefits, or intrude (into) our private lives." Minott argues against his own point. If these are things that Christ would not do, how can they be justified by a Christian? Even if the religious argument was at one time legally applicable, it is not by today's American standards. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."

Next, for his legal argument, "Although it is not the government's place to set a precedent in civil matters, such as same-sex marriage? ." Contrary to what Minott might believe, it is the government's role to establish precedents in civil matters. Were it not for the forward thinking "activist judges," African Americans would not be allowed to vote, attend integrated schools or marry interracially. Although all were controversial in their day, these rights are now thought of as basic American freedoms.

These rulings have all been put forth by judges adhering to the basic principles laid out in our Constitution. If Minott disagrees with these principles, I suggest he contact his state representatives and express his opposition to our nature as a secularly governed nation. For consistency, he should also demand prohibitions against cotton, shellfish and pork, all of which are biblically abhorrent.

Ben Rubinstein
professional writing sophomore