The U.S. already has two types of marriage

Carleton Carroll noted his Jan. 22 letter that France and other countries worked out the church-state question of marriage by making the civil ceremony "the only marriage that counts." But the same is true in the U.S.! All couples must get a marriage license from the government. Ministers and other religious figures are authorized to sign the marriage license, and this is how confusion arises. The wedding itself is not what creates a legal marriage.

So two types of marriage already exist in the U.S. - civil and religious. The first is mandatory; the second is optional. Same-gender couples are allowed to have religious marriages in some denominations, but we are not permitted civil marriage, except in Connecticut and Massachusetts.

Even in Connecticut and Massachusetts, a same-gender couple does not have the federal rights of marriage. These include the option to file joint tax returns, receive a partner's Social Security benefits, and have our relationships legally recognized if we move to another state. That's because of a federal law called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Bill Clinton signed it as a compromise in 1996, when Republicans were arguing that same-gender marriage should be banned by the US Constitution.

President Obama has pledged to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, and he supports civil unions (not marriage) for same-gender couples. I wish he would take the next logical step and say that all couples should have a civil union, with "marriage" an optional addition for the religious.

Faith Reidenbach, Philomath

Take bold action: Nationalize the banks

Given the total failure of the first part of the financial industry bailout, it's time to nationalize the banks. Sweden had a similar problem in the early 1990s, including the main cause, a housing bubble. They nationalized their banks and were able to limit the downturn. They re-privatized within four years, significantly before the 12 for which they had planned. Good job, that. We need to learn from the mistakes and solutions of others and not simply keep repeating the same errors.

The government (us), contrarily, has allowed the banks to continue to do business as usual, including paying dividends while losing money (e.g., Chase), granting obscene bonuses and salaries to their executives (e.g, Merrill Lynch-B of A), and hoarding bail-out funds. They're essentially thumbing their noses at us, their rescuers. They've had their chance, and they've blown it. They've been protecting themselves in the short term and not working for the long-term health of the economy, which is what the bail-out was supposed to be about.

Nationalization would wipe out the investments of the shareholders in the banks. Too bad. If the banks had failed, they would have lost all their money anyway. "You pays your money, and you takes the risk." The shareholders made scads of money in the days of the bubble and now they have to accept the downside. If we are going to pay for the banks, we should own them.

Nationalize the banks now.

Martin R. Mulford, Corvallis

Climate skeptics should err on the side of caution

In her Jan. 26, climate-change skeptic Jean Nelson cites three scientists who doubt that climate change is human-caused. I wonder if she read the Gazette-Times article last week about the survey of hundreds of climate scientists. Ninety-seven percent agreed that human activity has been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Perhaps a simple analogy can put the issue into perspective: If you were considering buying a car, and 97 percent of auto-safety experts said Model X was dangerous, would you buy it? After all, they might all be wrong!

Perhaps it's Ms. Nelson and other deniers who need "open minds and more research". The free OSU climate-change lectures would be a good place to start.

Christine Robins, Corvallis

Resettle 'innocent' Gitmo detainees here in U.S.

President Obama recently signed an order to close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We know this is a complicated process, in part because of the challenge of relocating "innocent" detainees. Our government is currently looking for new homes for these men in Europe and elsewhere. But few countries have indicated willingness to accept them. Not in my backyard (NIMBY)?

I have a suggestion.

Many of these innocents fear return to their home countries because of the potential for reprisals and prosecution. Why not enroll those that are willing in the U.S. witness protection program?

We could settle them in areas where other fellow countrymen have legally immigrated and settled, such as the large Pakistani-American populations in various parts of the country. There they would find, for example, Urdu speakers, Muslims, and other cultural similarities to ease their adjustment.

I don't feel it's right to ship these unfortunate victims of our abduction and cruel treatment to other countries. We should take responsibility for guaranteeing them a safe and secure future.

Bart Bolger, Corvallis

Treasurer needs to take refresher in Investing 101

Oregon College Savings Board drops the poorly performing Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund! What is the logic to doing something like that at a time when the market is in the tank? Let us think about that. When the stock market drops, as it currently has, everyone invested takes a loss on paper. If the bond fund lost 38 percent of it value on paper, there is no harm done. The harm comes when you sell the bond fund and realize the actual loss.

Our new Republican/Independent/Democratic State Treasurer or the Oregon College Fund Board do not seem to realize that they now have actually taken the 38 percent loss and say they moved the money into an index fund which should be more stable.

The question is: Why did they not move the money before if they thought it to be at risk?

My dear old dad always said, "Buy low and sell high." That still makes sense to me, but not to the Oregon College Savings Board and our newly elected treasurer.

Gary P. Beck, Corvallis

Media stifled anti-abortion speech by MLK's niece

In order to control people's thinking and opinions, the media should not report the following and guess what? It didn't!

So you probably did not know that Dr. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King Jr., at the Jan. 19 Walk for Life Rally in San Francisco, speaking to 32,500 people, said, "Dr. King said that the Negro cannot win if he is willing to sacrifice the future of his children for personal comfort and safety," King said. "So, here we are on behalf of the children, the future generation."

At the same rally, Pastor Clenard Childress, an African American, said "I now have a face to put on black genocide. He's released hard-earned tax dollars to kill babies." Pastor Childress was referring to President Obama, who supports abortion, more than 30 percent of which are of African American babies.

Paul Carlson, Corvallis