Letters: The question of divorce

IDON'T support the ban on divorce that Sen. Fumo made even in jest because I'm the product of parents who stayed together for the kids.

I don't see the correlation between forcing children to grow up in loveless, disrespectful, sometimes violent homes and how that will keep them out of poverty. Adults do need to take responsibility for their actions, and I understand the point of trying to create a stable family, but I still don't agree.

I left home at 18 because I couldn't stand my parents' self-absorption with their marital issues and all the fighting.

This fallacy that the ban on divorce is going to help solve the issue of poverty in our city needs to stop. I don't have a solution either, but what I do know is that forcing people to stay in stagnant, unsatisfying relationships for the kids is a joke. Neither I or my siblings are impoverished or criminals, but, of three of us, only one chose to take a stab at marriage. I am not willing to spend the rest of my life the way my parents did, miserable.

Barbara Walter, Philadelphia

Royal conversion

On May 17, Peter Phillips and Autumn Kelly married in St. George's Church in England. Phillips is the grandson of Queen Elizabeth and 11th in line to ascend to the throne.

But Kelly had to renounce her Catholic faith in order to marry this royal. I wonder what her family thinks about this? And if the two of them were to divorce, would she then denounce the Church of England and return to the Catholic fold? This certainly gives new meaning to the word "opportunist."'

As a Catholic, I'm disgusted. I can only imagine if a royal fell in love with a Jew or a person of African descent. They would probably be sent off to the gallows.

The Windsors are nothing but a group of snobbish men and women living off the taxpayers of England. God bless America!

Bob Holmes, Bensalem