George Vanderbilt himself was an art collector and filled his house with many valuable works. A large canvas, “The Chariot of Aurora,” by Italian artist Giovanni Antonio Pellegrini was bought by Vanderbilt and installed in the ceiling of his large two-level library room. In doing so Vanderbilt preserved a work of art by a major artist from almost certain destruction in WW II, during which most of Pellegrini’s work perished.
Vanderbilt undoubtedly would have been proud to know his great house had been used to shelter some of the nation’s art treasures during a perilous time in its history. And today, many people visit that house and have the opportunity to see his own art collection he had the vision to assemble and preserve.
He would like that also.
Too few in numbers for public policy?
A recent letter writer states the proposed Indiana constitutional ban on marriage equality for gays will try to “protect an institution,” that being marriage. How?
Will any heterosexuals have to divorce if there is marriage equality? No. Will any be barred from marrying the person they love? No. Will their marriage or ability to marry, or the marriage of anyone or everyone else in the state of Indiana, be affected in anyway whatsoever? Of course not.
He also states gays are at a proportion of the population that “make it insignificant for public policy.” So they are both a threat to marriage and too little in numbers to be worth considering when it comes to marriage rights? There are more gays than Jews, Muslims or Hindus in Indiana. Are those groups too insignificant when it comes to marriage rights? I am sure the gay couples in Indiana would be surprised to know they aren’t significant enough on this issue.