The following is a letter I wrote that appeared in the Grand Forks Herald on August 17th, 2010. The title it was given (not my choice) is, "Show me the evidence against gay marriage".

YURIHONJO, Japan — In his Aug. 16 column, Herald columnist Lloyd Omdahl makes the same mistake Proposition 8 supporters made in the trial ("Judge missed the compelling state purpose," Page A4).

Omdahl says that bans on gay marriage ought to be constitutional because they promote a compelling state interest — "safety of the public" — but he presents no facts to back that up.

Omdahl writes, "[Judge Walker] went far afield with a number of unfounded suppositions and conclusions without recognizing any compelling state purpose for protecting the benefits of traditional marriage."

But to be constitutional, Prop 8 needed to have a basis in something other than a private moral or religious belief.

At the trial, Prop 8 supporters argued two key points: that Prop 8 promotes stable relationships because men and women naturally produce children, and that Prop 8 promotes optimal households for raising children properly.

But expert witness testimony showed that these claims are mere guesswork, unsupported by evidence.

Thus, the judge struck down Prop 8.

Here, Omdahl briefly mentions "public safety" but never says what that means. If gay and lesbian couples get married, are they going to do something dangerous? Omdahl never explains how gay marriage is a public safety issue — probably because it isn't.

In fact, evidence in the Prop 8 trial showed that gay and lesbian parents are as good at raising children as heterosexual parents. Also in the Prop 8 trial, even the star witness for Prop 8 admitted, "Gay marriage might contribute over time to a decline in anti-gay prejudice [and] a reduction in anti-gay hate crimes." This is the exact opposite of Omdahl's claim that legalizing gay marriage threatens public safety.

States can't discriminate based on sexual orientation without a "compelling state purpose." Religion doesn't qualify, and neither do vague and unfounded assertions of "safety of the public."

If Omdahl wants to oppose gay marriage, he might start by looking for a reason grounded in fact, not thin air.

Douglas Perkins

The following is a letter I wrote that appeared in the Grand Forks Herald on June 10th, 2010. The title given was, "Court left EPA with no choice on CO2".

YURIHONJO, Japan — Scott Hennen dislikes the Environmental Protection Agency, but his reasons are not grounded in reality ("Will senators stop EPA’s assault on N.D.?", Page A4, June 5).

Hennen says the EPA is "out to regulate" tons of things; but in fact, the EPA has not announced any such plans. Hennen simply is repeating empty propaganda, probably created by people who don’t want the Clean Air Act enforced.

He also claims the EPA is a rogue agency making a "power grab," but this is just not true. The EPA is considering rules on CO2 for two reasons: First, the agency is required by law to protect our air resources for public health, and second, the Supreme Court ordered it to. Regulating CO2 is the EPA’s only reasonable course of action.

Regarding the economy, the Clean Air Act has been around for 47 years. It didn’t stop business growth before, and there’s no reason to think it will now.

Does Hennen believe in regulating dangerous pollution at all? From his letter, it seems not. This is dangerous and short-sighted. Many studies show that if we don’t take reasonable steps to curb global warming, the cost to us and our children will be massive.

Douglas Perkins

The following is a letter I wrote that appeared in the Grand Forks Herald on August 15, 2008. The title it was given is, "Lower oil prices are no longer an option".

YURIHONJO, JAPAN — The August 12 Herald carried an editorial about a supposed tradeoff between lower gasoline prices and reduced dependence on foreign oil ("Energy policy has a question at its core," Page A4). In reality, there is no tradeoff. No matter what we do, gasoline prices will keep going up. The world is running out of oil, global demand for oil is increasing, and there's nothing we can do to stop it. The resources in Alaska, North Dakota and offshore seem large, but in fact the amount of oil in those places is just a fraction of global demand. And developing those resources takes a decade, so they certainly won't help us any time soon.

On the other hand, there are many good ways to deal with high oil prices. They all involve using less oil.

Douglas Perkins

The following is a letter I wrote that appeared in the Grand Forks Herald on April 27, 2008. The title is, "World can't sustain continued growth".

YURIHONJO, Japan — Brett Narloch of the North Dakota Policy Council wrote, "Sustainable development is nothing more than socialism by another name." ("'Socialism by another name' at UND," Page A4, April 22). Narloch is wrong. I don't know the group he mentions at UND; it doesn't matter. What matters is this: when you have increasing demand for resources that are running out and can't reasonably be replaced, you're setting yourself up for disaster. That's a simple fact.

Sustainable development says to develop along lines that work with this fact. For instance, continued growth is not sustainable. You run out of things such as oil, farmland, water and clean air. Unsustainable development is ... unsustainable. That means it won't work later, even if it does now. Let's face development with our heads on straight so we don't get surprised at where we end up.

Douglas Perkins