In response to Daniel Lazzari’s Feb. 18 letter, as a gay

Christian I am very offended my religion has been used so often as

a basis for discrimination against GLBT people. Many Christian

denominations no longer follow the doctrine of homosexuality being

a sin. Many openly GLBT ministers are out there and some seminary

schools even have GLBT student organizations for their GLBT

ministers in training. One of our seminary schools in Denver has

such a group. So claiming the “Judeo-Christian religion is

blatantly anti-homosexual” is untrue.

Secondly I’d like to answer his question, “So why do they need

the recognition of ‘marriage’?” Our country decided years ago that

separate but equal never works. If you look at rights given under

marriages and civil unions, you’ll see there are more than 1,000

rights denied to civil union couples.

As a gay Christian, I want the right to marry not only so I can

enjoy those rights that would be denied to me under civil unions,

but also because marriage is an important part of my religion. I

don’t see why some people need to interfere with my religious

practices and civil rights because they believe civil unions are

just as good. The First Amendment clearly gives me the right to

practice my religious beliefs as I see fit. It’s not up to anyone

else to tell me I don’t have that right because it goes against his

or her religious values.

Robert Steele

Junior, accounting and political science

In response to Kellie Keelan, who complains about the

Halliburton recruiter being pied: Simplistically I agree with you,

but in a larger context I disagree.

I don’t know why the pie was thrown, but I know Halliburton

suffers much more criticism than you mentioned. Halliburton is

being investigated in France for bribing government officials.

There is growing condemnation of Cheney’s Halliburton as a war

profiteer — type “Halliburton felony” into your favorite web

searcher. You say that so-called civil communications are not being

heard.

Many times “civil” communication is insufficient. Women and

African American people wouldn’t be able to vote if those movements

were only “civil.”

Seventy percent of our country in “civil” polls consistently

wants national health care and nothing happens.

The complaints and character of your letter reminds me of the

complaints some made more than 200 years ago. It seems that some

cowardly, immature people masked their identity and threw a great

deal of tea into Boston Harbor. People who supported the

British-crowned status quo objected to the rudeness. After a

certain revolution I bet they felt, um, different.

What analysis would you have to make before stepping past

“civil” speech to smearing a pie on someone, knowing they aren’t

themselves completely responsible for a wrongdoing and that you

might go to jail? Could that be the question the pie-er asked them?

Is your judgment of them as childish and immature the judgment you

would have others do unto you?

Paul Bame

Fort Collins citizen