|
What is this?
Save & share this article |
May 17: Same-sex marriage ruling and the Constitution
Letters to the editor for Saturday, May 17, 2008
Allow me to remind lawyer John Stewart that those "four people in black robes" are justices of the California Supreme Court, and that it is their job to determine what is constitutional and what is not ["Marriage redefined despite voters' will," May 16].I am sure that if they had upheld the obviously unconstitutional Proposition 22, (defining marriage as being only between a man and a woman) he would have applauded their actions and congratulated them on properly performing their duties. Unfortunately for those like Stewart who wish to legislate their religious beliefs, voting for a ballot measure is not enough. It must actually be constitutional.
I am a church-attending straight Christian, and am ashamed that so many in my state voted to deny marriage to same sex couples. Don't think it is right? Fine, don't do it. Practice your religion in freedom and stop trying to vote away the rights of others in conformity with it.
The fervent seeking to define marriage as only between a man and a woman (and some further emphasize that it is for procreation, so where does that leave the infertile and otherwise childless?) reminds me of a time when the constitutional right to vote was defined by localities as being for white people only. I am sure they felt God was on their side too. It took rulings by "people in black robes" to settle that question, too.
I am fed up with zealots accusing judges who uphold others' constitutional rights of "legislating from the bench." In actuality, they are refusing to uphold laws that would, in effect, establish conservative Christianity as a state religion. Constitution, anyone?
–Elise Power of Garden Grove
I am a straight male who believes in the word of God as so stated in the first book of the Old Testament, Genesis, Chapter 1 when God said, "Go ye and propagate." I abhor the thought that people of the same sex have pushed our weak, so-called judges of the state Supreme Court into allowing them to live in sin. Now they are allowed to marry, which is described by God as a union between a man and a woman.
I also pray for my homosexual and lesbian brothers and sisters, since they shall have to answer to a higher court on their day of judgment.
–Edward T. Graney of Dana Point
The voters of California voted by a 61 percent margin that marriage should be between and man and a woman. Now we see that the California Supreme Court legislates on their own and decides marriage can be between same sex partners. This is happening all over the United States courts making legislative decisions. Voters don't count, so why bother to make the effort to cast your vote?
–Willa Miller of Huntington Beach
Sadly, the once proud American judicial system has failed the people. Proposition 22 was passed in 2000 by 61 percent of the voters of California. The passage of the proposition essentially stated the following, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Whether someone is for or against gay marriage is not the issue. That issue was decided eight years ago by the voters. The far, far greater and more frightening issue, is that four arrogant California Supreme Court justices over ruled the will of the people … again.
–Jeff Sebek of Irvine
I am not opposed to gay marriage, but I strongly oppose the California Supreme Court overriding our popular sovereignty.
–Kurt Parker of Huntington Beach
So does the recent Register editorial supporting same-sex marriage mean you will soon support people's sexual orientation that leads to hybrid marriages incorporating polygamy, underage relations, bisexuality, ect.["Marriage ruling a win for fairness," Opinion, May 16]?
–Gus L. Towers of Orange
State-approved exploitation of taxpayers
A tiny news item blossomed into a lead editorial, "Cautionary tale of union dominance" [May 11]Forget radical Islam and al-Qaida. The biggest danger facing America today may well be "union dominance."
Unions in government have proven to be a growing economic disaster, but, to be realistic, unions themselves are not to blame. Unthinkingly, the tiny flame that was lit to permit government employees to unionize has now burgeoned into a potential conflagration.
Ironically, the unions can't be blamed. As they entered the public field, they found themselves in wonderland. The resistance they encountered in private business was totally absent, and they soon learned that public officials were no obstacle to new ambitions. At one point, they even attempted to unionize the military.
In Vallejo, California, as stated in the editorial, their demands reached impossibility and bankruptcy was declared. No doubt other solutions that would be fair to both taxpayers and the unions were explored by city officials to avoid such drastic action, but the end conclusion was a declaration of bankruptcy. Ordinarily a bankruptcy proceeding puts everything to a stop, and one would assume that union contracts would be included. The editorial cautions otherwise, however, stating: "The big question, even with bankruptcy, is whether cities can legally get out of ... compensation packages for union members. The courts will decide." Thus there is the possibility that bankruptcy will join Antitrust, RICO, as well as many other immunities, both written and unwritten, that are enjoyed by unions.
Blaming politicians is futile. Yes, there are some brave souls in politics, such as O.C. Supervisor John Moorlach, who speak out against union dominance, but there are not enough of them. Thus, there remains only one solution to the ugly likelihood that organized labor is going to consume us all. That solution is to awaken a giant – California's body of active and retired nonunion workers. These are Democrats, Republicans, Independents, liberals and conservatives all with a common bond in that they have never gotten so much as a dime, forcibly, from fellow Americans. The only question is whether they can be organized into a cohesive enthusiastic body, outraged at being the victims of government-approved exploitation.
To answer this question it is instructive and even inspiring to consider the success of Proposition 13, passed in 1978. It has endured for 30 years, despite some fairly serious wounds (fees, instead of taxes.) At the time, a gruff, determined man by the name of Howard Jarvis spearheaded the task, considered impossible at the time, of halting the insane increase in property taxes that was threatening countless Californians. Prop 13 was fiercely opposed by a coalition of liberal politicians who were hungry for money to feed their interest groups and by organized labor, of course, who did not want to be cut off from such a river of cash.
Will another Howard Jarvis come along? Who can say, but it can happen, and when it does, 80 percent of this nation's workers will be saved from second-class citizenship and our country might be spared a possible revolution between economic classes.
–Sidney P. Anderson of Mission Viejo
Robbing the sick
Recently, the state Department of Managed Health care held a Public Hearing to study problems with "Balanced Billings." These are bills we patients receive from hospitals and other providers after insurance companies have paid them less than they feel they should get.
Last week, in The Orange County Register, an article, "Bills surprise Kaiser members" [May 8], quotes the owner of three hospitals, Dr. Prim Reddy who said, "We really don't want the patients to pay us." Absurdly, he says he wants patients to prod insurance companies into paying him more. We patients have no idea what a fair amount for hospital services should be. Sending out bills without expecting payment is a form of fraud. After reading Dr. Reddy's quote, I would be a fool to pay a Balance Billing. I'll simply make copies and e-mail them to the Department of Managed Health Care and let them figure out what is fair. Maybe that is what they are paid to do. Maybe there is a law.
Of course Dr. Reddy wants and expects some of us to pay. I must assume the Balanced Billings I have been getting recently are as fraudulent as the ones his hospitals send out.
Emergency rooms should be for emergencies only. In our universal health care, everyone is treated if they can get inside the Emergency room door. Mixing our universal health care with for profit hospitals, insurance, and drug companies has resulted in a costly, dysfunctional and broken system. There needs to be two systems. The one for profit remains. The other has nurses using computers and remote imaging 24/7 linked to doctors, students, and specialist throughout the country. Housing could be prefab with simple inflatable furniture
–Allen Wilson of Cypress
Still outraged over oil prices
Thomas Sowell is one of my longtime favorites, and always seems to show an abundance of common sense, logic and economic knowledge.
His column, "No melodrama in truth about gas prices" [Opinion, May 14], discusses the apparent need of the public to be "emotionally satisfied" with it's search to find the cause of those "obscene" profits being made by the villainous oil companies – supposedly setting aside the more rational – but unsatisfying – economic cause, related to the large investments necessary to find, extract and process the oil.
In defense of us in the "emotional" group, I'd like to ask what seems to be an obvious question. Why is the word "profit" used instead of "revenue?" Many companies have extremely high revenues, but if in fact their costs of doing business are equally stratospheric, they might be losing instead of profiting.
So if Sowell is intimating that the oil companies are not making obscene profits because of the equally high cost of drilling, etc., why are the numbers reported as profits?
If profit is still defined as the amount by which revenue exceeds costs, and if that excess amount is indeed equal to the oil company's bottom-line, then I'm all for supporting the "emotionally satisfying" outrage.
–Joe Read of Anaheim
A real rent-control ripoff
Jesse Gwinn's letter ["Rent control not a ripoff," May 14]would be laughable if not for the scary fact that there are many other equally clueless people out there who espouse the same misguided ideas on rent control and the free market in the United States. Gwinn asks the question, "If someone can afford more than someone else who has qualified for a rental, should that person get it because he is willing to pay more?"
Everyone in America should know the answer to that question is yes. For those who don't get it, consider this: If you are selling your car and I want to buy it for $5,000 but someone else offers $7,500, do you support a law that forces you to sell your car to me even though someone else was willing to pay more? If not, you have defeated your own rationale on rent control. As for Gwinn's concern that high rents would lead to a decline in California's economy, once again there is no need to worry. If the rents were so high that nobody was renting the units, owners would reduce the rents until someone rented the units. No need to fear, the market works that way all on its own.
It is likely that Gwinn is a renter, and probably does not like the amount of rent he has to pay to live in San Juan Capistrano. He certainly has the right to move to a less expensive area if he chooses. However, neither Gwinn nor anyone else should have the right to force a property owner to rent his property for less than what the market says it is worth.
–D. Scott Abernathy of Placentia
