In response to Friday’s letter (“Double standard,” Nov. 7) and Tuesday’s Opinion column (Michelle Lamont, “The wrong kind of change,” Nov. 11): advocates of homosexual marriage rarely use valid arguments to advance their cause. They point out that courts “forced people to comply with unpopular [racial desegregation] changes”, but ignore the fact that the court was fulfilling its purpose by enforcing law, not personal opinion. Segregation was wrong because it restricted Constitutional rights for arbitrary reasons. Interracial marriage is acceptable because marriage is not defined by race, but by gender. When terms like “religious tyranny,” “second-class citizens,” “subservient” and comparisons to racial inequality are hurled by activists, it is inaccurate and insulting, especially to those who bled for racial equality.
Equal rights already exist because marriage laws are applied equally, regardless of sexual orientation. When someone cries for “marriage equality,” the burden of proof is on them to justify the redefinition of the law and marriage as it is currently defined (whether explicitly or implied through common law and practice). This is especially true considering the centrality of the family unit to our society, history, identity and younger citizens, who would be inherently affected. While marriage draws its meaning from religion, history shows that marriage can be independent of it, which (in practice) is how a great many Americans treat it, including atheists who oppose homosexual marriage.
Also, it is not surprising that Lamont is disillusioned after projecting her hopes for this issue upon a “blank slate candidate” with a one-word campaign slogan.
Travis Dennis
CLAS 2012
Read More
A statement from 191 concerned faculty to the new Board of Visitors
By Concerned Faculty | February 20, 2026Critical questions of process regarding the appointment of Beardsley remain unanswered.
A statement from 201 concerned faculty about U.Va. President Beardsley’s appointment
By Concerned Faculty | January 16, 2026By acting in bad faith, the Board has flouted its fiduciary duties to the University and has violated its own bylaws calling on it to protect the University from outside interference.
LETTER: When everything is labeled hazing, nothing is
By Scott Gleason | January 4, 2026Worse still, over-policing benign practices risks driving genuinely harmful behavior underground.
