Letters

National Review, Sept 1, 2003

--Many things might have made a difference in the outcome of the Center for Individual Rights cases challenging preferences at the University of Michigan, but surely not the fact that CIR didn't attack the claim of the educational benefits of diversity, as John Miller suggests in "'Diversity' D'oh!" (July 28). There was more than ample evidence in the record concerning the university's alleged "evidence," and at no point did we concede on this issue.

Unfortunately, the trial courts, the court of appeals, and the Supreme Court were not the least bit interested in even hearing our evidence, but at every stage took the position that this was a legal question, not a factual one.

Terence J. Pell President, Center for Individual Rights Washington, D.C.

--NR's editorial "A Necessary Amendment" (Aug. 11) is wrong about the reach of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment: It is more radical than the editors imagine, and could even be interpreted to prevent state legislatures from granting same-sex couples a modicum of legal protection, since such laws would have to be "construed" by courts to be enforceable.

The FMA is a far-reaching intrusion on federalism. It is not in the least conservative.

Dale Carpenter Prof., Univ. of Minn. Law School Minneapolis, Minn.

--Ramesh Ponnuru's "Pick Your Poison" (Aug. 11) reminds me that almost all proposals for health-care reform avoid the most basic premise of insurance: It should protect against catastrophic costs. By addressing single aspects of health care (e.g., drugs), one avoids the common denominator: dollars spent.

Ninety-eight percent of the growth in health-care costs over the 40 years prior to 1993 can be accounted for by a single variable: the percentage of these costs borne by the consumer. Control this, and one controls costs.

The fairest way to define catastrophic is by a fixed percent of income. WFB used this in a recent column. A person with $10,000 in income would be responsible for up to $1,000; one earning $100,000, up to $10,000.

John E. Reith Wilmington, Del.

--In his What's Right column ("The North Goes South," July 14), David Frum wrote that "children need mothers and fathers, their own mothers and fathers." My daughter lives with her mother and father, but is not biologically related to either of us. She is adopted, and we are no less her parents because of the lack of biological connection.

Adoption should be near to the hearts of those who favor conservative principles. It is an alternative to abortion, single-parent families, and hastily arranged, unwise marriages in the setting of pregnancy. It is also a central Christian metaphor (Ephesians 1:5).

Lacey Washington Milwaukee, Wis.

--Having just read Rob Long's otherwise excellent article "Hearing America Singing ." (July 14), I must protest his use of the inclusive "we" in describing fat Americans.

I don't believe that Mr. Long is fat at all. First, he hails from L.A. Second, no fat person would ever admit to stopping for pork ribs and following that up a half hour later by downing a pork sandwich at a different place.

I get the underlying metaphor, but the piece would have been better had you included a photo of the author.

Jonathan F. Keiler Bowie, Md.

--It took warships off the coast of Liberia to get Charles Taylor to leave. In California, it may only take bad poll numbers to get Gray Davis to quit.

--The Episcopal Church, U.S.A., at its triennial General Convention, elected the Rev. Canon V. Gene Robinson to be the next Bishop of New Hampshire. Bishop-elect Robinson is openly-and, he has told the world, actively-homosexual. He divorced his wife and abandoned his two young daughters 18 years ago to follow his sexual inclinations. Two days after this vote, the Convention endorsed the practice of blessing same-sex unions, though it declined to authorize the writing of a liturgy for this purpose. Conservative bishops registered a dignified protest at Canon Robinson's elevation; over two dozen walked out of the proceedings. The American Anglican Council, an organization of conservative clergy, will meet in Plano, Texas, this October to decide a course of action. Anglican churches in other countries, especially in the Third World, have also protested the Convention decisions, obliging the Archbishop of Canterbury, head of the worldwide church, to summon their prelates to a different conference, also in October. Bishop-elect Robinson is serene amidst all the consternation he has caused. Following the Convention vote, he declared that "I don't think you can get to Easter except through Good Friday," thus apparently comparing the event to the Resurrection. He further told the assembled bishops that his "relationship" with his "partner" was "sacramental for me." Leaving aside Robinson's cavalier attitude toward his family obligations, his divorce ("A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife"-1 Timothy 3:2), and his ongoing extramarital sexual activities ("Go, and sin no more"-John 8:11)-for which he displays no repentance ("Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish"-Luke 13:3)-is narcissism not a sin, one manifestation of the sin of pride? Is anything a sin any more?