Wednesday, March 17, 2004

Surely it’s not best to vote on all amendments

In your March 10, 2004, editorial, you write that the “high school teacher missed your point entirely.”

Your point appears to be that you want our representatives in state government to vote for passage of the gay marriage amendment, solely for the purpose of allowing the citizens to decide the issue by referendum.

I hope that you are not suggesting that our representatives vote for passage of ALL amendments? If that were the case, then there would be no need for our state representatives to vote at all. We, the people, would decide on ALL proposed amendments.

I can’t imagine that a person of your intellect would suggest that you want to do away with representation, even in the limited context of constitutional amendments. Or would you?

Ernie Curtis

Fayetteville, Ga.

[The editor replies: Since I and all other Georgia voters received the high honor of voting on a constitutional amendment involving the issuance of a license plate to raise money for the spaying of stray dogs and cats just two years ago, indeed I would like for the people of this state to be allowed a vote on the nature of marriage. We all know how that vote would turn out, which is all the more reason not to deny the voters their decision. Political careers of those who supposedly represent the people, of elected judges, even the continued viability of current political parties, will hinge on this one issue and on whether we the people get any direct say in maintaining one of our culture’s most basic and cherished institutions.]