Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

To the Editor:

In “The New Era Begins With Cuba” (editorial, July 21), you acknowledge: “It would be naïve to expect that the Cuban government, a dynastic police state, will take big steps in the near future to liberalize its centrally planned economy, encourage private enterprise or embrace pluralistic political reforms. In fact, in the face of potentially destabilizing change and high expectations at home, Cuban officials may be tempted to tighten state controls in the short term.”

That, in fact, is what has been occurring since President Obama’s Dec. 17 announcement of a policy change, and, given the regime’s totalitarian proclivity and apparatus, the state’s repression of dissidents and civil society, and its control over the lion’s share of the island’s economy, it is likely to continue into the distant future.

As an academic and policy consultant specializing in Cuba, I came to the conclusion several years ago that the United States faced a moral and political conundrum in its Cuba policy: how to help the Cuban people without helping the Castro regime. Unfortunately, the president’s new engagement policy now makes the United States complicit in propping up the regime both economically and politically, while leaving Cuban society even more isolated and defenseless vis-à-vis the all-powerful, coercive state.

If so, we are “back to the future,” whereby Washington coddled or looked the other way toward the Somoza, Trujillo and Batista dictatorships in Latin America—only in the case of today’s Cuba, the longevity of the regime may now be assured.

EDWARD GONZALEZ

Malibu, Calif.

The writer is professor emeritus of political science at U.C.L.A.

Here are scenes from today's stage of the Tour de France. Today's stage winner, Romain Bardet of France, averaged 22.89 miles per hour for 115.8 miles. The Tour ends Sunday. Chris Froome leads Nairo Quintana by 3:10.

Here.

Here.

Rick Perry is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. What would possess him to attack Donald Trump? What can be gained by this? What he's doing is alienating Trump's supporters and thereby ruining his (Perry's) own electoral prospects. Does he think that if he earns the Republican nomination, the people he alienated and insulted will vote for him? That's laughable. They'll stay home, as many did in 2012. Another thing Perry ignores is this. Suppose he earns the nomination. Trump may decide to run as a third-party candidate, which would ensure Perry's defeat. I don't see a single benefit, for Perry, of running Trump down. He's a moron.

Addendum: Why is Perry not attacking Barack Obama with the same vitriol? This is precisely what conservatives hate: a Republican who attacks other Republicans but won't say a word about Obama, who is a disgrace to the office of the president and who has done more harm to this country than all previous presidents combined.

To the Editor:

Whenever someone starts the slippery-slope argument in discussing same-sex marriage, as William Baude did (“Is Polygamy Next?,” Op-Ed, July 21), it’s hard to keep still.

There is no new route to legalized polygamy (or other horrors). Polygamy is a choice, ruled taboo by most societies over the past millenniums. Try as they might, those same societies could not prevent gay people, because being gay isn’t a choice. We’ve always been here, always will be.

Polygamists cannot say the same. Gays didn’t seek to change the institution of marriage, but to gain admittance; not to open floodgates, but to affirm an existing concept.

Gay couples in this country lucky enough to fall in love had no access to legal sanction of their commitment. Now we do. As Justice Antonin Scalia said about Bush v. Gore, “Get over it.” Drop that phony polygamy scare, too.

ROBERT LEININGER

TIM SMITH

Baltimore

To the Editor:

William Baude argues that same-sex marriages have judicially paved the way for polygamous ones. He’s right. For years, I argued with gay leaders that if Tom and Dick can marry, on what principled basis can Harry be excluded? They all said such a scenario was nonsense.

Mr. Baude concludes by saying that “once we abandon the rigid constraints of history, we cannot be sure that we know where the future will take us.” It would be more accurate to say that once we abandon the logical constraints of natural law, we cannot be sure what the future holds.

BILL DONOHUE

President, Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights

New York

Note from KBJ: To put it in philosophical terms, the argument for homosexual "marriage" proves too much. It proves not only that two men or two women may marry, but that three or more adults may marry. If you don't believe me, read the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). Here is Justice Anthony Kennedy, speaking for the Court (boldface added):

Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.

Compare:

Under the Constitution, polygamous groups seek in marriage the same legal treatment as monogamous couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.

If one argument goes through, so does the other.

Here is a review of Ann Coulter's latest book.

Here are scenes from today's stage of the Tour de France. The stage winner, Simon Geschke of Germany, averaged 23.79 miles per hour for 100.0 miles. American cyclist Tejay Van Garderen, who was third overall, abandoned the race. Don't be surprised if it turns out he got a bad blood transfusion yesterday. Having read books by Tyler Hamilton and about Lance Armstrong, I can assure you that a whole lot of doping takes place on rest days. I don't believe for a moment that the riders are clean.

Here.