Since the Advocate-Messenger does not publish any columnists who disagree with its editorial views, it has an even greater responsibility than most newspapers to avoid factual errors in its editorials. In two recent cases, you seem to have neglected your responsibility.
In arguing for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, you wrote that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U. S. Constitution means that marriage licenses issued in San Francisco to same-sex couples "will have to be honored right here in Kentucky." That is not true. The Defense of Marriage Act (1996) passed under President Clinton says that "No State. . . shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State. . . respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State."
The mayors that have issued marriage licenses to gay couples did so in the belief that laws banning such marriages violate the constitutions of their states. These cases are working their way through the court systems of California and New York. Presumably, these mayors will either submit to the decisions of their state supreme courts or be punished for failing to do so. Your editorial calls this situation "spreading lawlessness" that justifies a constitutional ban on gay marriage. I think heterosexual marriages and our legal system will survive this overblown "crisis." And the sky will still be up there.