Writer’s words not evolved on gays

A guest column by Dr. Mark J. Tyler (“Civil union more fitting definition,” March 29) left me wondering about his actual intent. He would like us to arrive at an American consensus, that homosexual couples be accorded civil union status, but not marriage.

A kind man, guided by his faith, he is effusive in his praise of homosexual people he's encountered in his personal life and practice, and he confesses that his attitudes have matured to be more tolerant. Have they? He uses terms such as “lifestyle” and that he “tried to support them in their decisions and to not be judgmental.” This suggests that gender choice enters into homosexuals' partner decisions. I'm amazed that a physician doesn't understand the modern biology of homosexuality. There is a very good reason why homosexual people choose someone of the same sex for loving, permanent bonding - there is no other normal choice.

Also instructive: The only thing still really bothering Dr. Tyler is that the dictionary definition of marriage says it's between opposite sexes. What dictionary are you using, sir? My Oxford English Dictionary never mentions gender of the participants, only husband, wife, partners, parties, etc. If yours does, then some dictionaries are out of date.

Finally, the writer asserts that marriage and civil unions are separate, yes, but equal. They are not. See the current Supreme Court case on federal rules governing the Defense of Marriage Act.

Eugene Spaziani

Iowa City