Letters for October 23, 2008

Editor’s note: For letters supporting local candidates, click here.

‘Very reason Prop 2 is on the ballot’
Re: “Opposing views on Proposition 2” (Letters, CN&R, Oct. 16):

To say that the hens that lay their eggs are able to spread their wings and turn around is a bold-faced lie. This is the very reason why Prop 2 is on the ballot. Denying animals their natural basic instincts all for economic gain is not justification for cruelty.

As far as California not having a veal industry, take a drive to Petaluma, California, which has the largest veal industry in California.

Mass production of animals forces large quantities of hormones and antibiotics, which is the antithesis of safe food.

Christia Funkhouser-Ruckel

Prop 8 response from the Scriptures
Re: “Righteous stance” (Editorial, CN&R, Oct. 16):

Last week’s editorial led off its opinion against Proposition 8 by citing the words and story of Geoffrey Farrow, a Catholic priest, who recently “came out” as openly homosexual. Here’s a concise (and austere) orthodox Christian response.

Despite the tortured exegesis of “liberal” theology and its pastoral advocates, the Bible and the historic Christian tradition derived from it recognize marriage as a monogamous, covenanted union between one man and one woman per the creation order (Genesis 1-2). Any other sexual relations are illicit and sinful (Romans 1:18-32), and celibacy is the standard for unmarried persons.

Although political “progressives” have rightly claimed biblical mandates for social issues such as racism and poverty, they neglect those commanding traditional morality, piety, and faith in God/Jesus Christ. Furthermore, throughout the Bible, God threatens both collective and individual punishment for sinful behavior.

Obviously, if the Bible is not God’s inspired word, but an ancient collection of myths and fabrications, both it and Christianity can be disregarded and consigned to the dustbin of history.

But what if it’s true? If so, moral relativists and apostates such as Geoffrey Farrow should heed the warnings against false teachers (2 Peter 2:1-22) and passages such as Isaiah 5:20: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil, who change darkness into light, and light into darkness!”

H.C. Jamieson

Quite simply a distraction issue
It is a sham and a complete waste of time. I refer of course, to Proposition 8 on the California ballot. A sham and a waste of time because how could anyone in their right mind really give a rat’s ass to whom someone else marries or lives with?

I have two elderly family members who have been in a same-sex lifestyle for decades. These two people have had long-term careers in public service and government. They are good citizens, an example of the true backbone of America.

The only answer to me about this initiative at least is that of a diversion, a stalking horse, an issue to divert attention and to try and to rally the legions of conservative faithful, a clarion call if you will.

We certainly have enough other important issues on our plate, from global peace to the economy, to name just two. Do we really need to deal with this “sanctity of marriage issue"? If two people love each other, then let them marry. And as long as a couple are good neighbors, keep the front of their house clean and do not disturb the neighbors, then just who can give a flying fig?

John M. Bilinsky

… a scary one, at that
The ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, yet it is again being offered up to California voters. Consider: If there were a grass-roots movement to reinstate racial segregation at water fountains and on buses, would such a decision be constitutional—even if it were to pass on Election Day by a clear majority? Just because one group of people demands something of our government, giving it to them does not necessarily make it legal.

Still unconvinced? Try this: Swap out the phrase “same-sex” for any other ethnic or minority/sub-group and see how moral/ethical/ legal it sounds.

If we tried to pass Propostion 8 off on California voters with the word “interracial” instead of “same-sex,” there would be a public outcry. “Vote yes on 8—keep marriage sacred between whites and whites.”

Sound familiar? If that doesn’t make the hair on your neck bristle …

Carrie Watson

It’s just semantics
Let’s be clear about Proposition 8. It does not remove any right to same-sex marriage. That was Jerry Brown’s fabrication. There is no right to marriage.

Proposition 8 is about a clear definition of terms. You do not need to be in love to be married. Same-sex couples are incapable of marriage, as well as sexual intercourse. Marriage is the recognition of the merging of bloodlines, not the affirmation of affection.

Reserving the label “marriage” to recognizing blood-bond responsibilities is a step towards protecting the rights of children to be raised by a natural father and mother. “Bride” and “groom” have defined marriage, not by mere tradition, but by biological fact.

Ignoring the terms ignores what defines marriage. Anything less is mere political ranting that makes “equity” into nonsense.

Bill Jackson

‘No’ twice over
There are many difficult questions on the ballot this November. As a drug court supporter, I urge a no on Proposition 5. This is a dreadful, expensive and unworkable mess. As much as we need criminal-justice reform, and treatment dollars to flow, this is a disaster.

Proposition 36, statewide, has a 75 percent failure rate. This will be worse. It is the wrong thing at the wrong time.

In addition, I urge a no on Proposition 8. Enshrining blatant discrimination into the California Constitution should be beneath us.

Helen Harberts

Rhetorical answer
Re: “W.” (Film Shorts, CN&R, Oct. 16):

You asked, “Who isn’t going to go see this?"—referring to the new Oliver Stone debacle. I am sure you would like an answer. The answer is “me,” along with any other self-respecting citizen of this great country that is soon going to go down the toilet to President Hussein—are middle names of presidents acceptable to use?

Katie Douglas

Isn’t that special?
Wally Herger’s campaign flyer states, “I work for you, not the Washington special interests.” In fact, Herger strongly supports special interests.

From 2001 to 2008, while Exxon-Mobil profits increased from $7.9 billion to $36.1 billion annually, and pharmaceutical company profits increased from $30 billion to $80 billion, Herger supported legislation giving these industries billions in additional incentives.

Fortunately, Herger didn’t succeed in promoting the Bush scheme to privatize and dismantle our Social Security system. If Herger had succeeded, much of our Social Security retirement would now be lost to the Wall Street robber barons he supported.

Bush’s presidency has accomplished much, with Herger’s unwavering support. According to U.S. government statistics, from 2001 to 2008, the number of billionaires has increased from 186 to 415, and the net worth of the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans increased from $186 billion to $816 billion.

Now, the top 5 percent of Americans earn more than the bottom 40 percent combined. The national debt has increased from $5.7 trillion to $9.2 trillion, not including the Wall Street bailout.

Herger has helped facilitate the largest redistribution of wealth, from the working middle class to the rich, in our nation’s history. Good job, Wally. Mission accomplished.

Ron Sherman