Letters to the Editor

Readers weigh in on Proposition 8

Editor: The Yes on 8 proponents are using scare tactics by proposing resulting dangers to religious organizations. Proposition 8 is not about religious marriage, but about civil marriage, which should be available, by our government, to all citizens. The courts have already ruled it unconstitutional to discriminate against gays, and this proposition is trying to override the courts and has giant advertising monies – primarily from out-of-state coffers – to push this bill. Separate-but-equal laws enacted before the Civil Rights days made blacks feel like second-class citizens. Not being able to marry makes gays feel second-class as well.
Defeat Prop 8 and discrimination.
Peter Hall
Sonoma

Editor: What Proposition 8 is not: It is not a matter of equal rights, as both heterosexuals and homosexuals have equal union rights now. It’s not a matter of prejudice. It’s not a matter of discrimination. It’s not a matter of tolerance.
One sentence in the California Official Voter Information Guide succinctly describes it all: Gays and lesbians have the right to live the lifestyle they choose, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else. Gays and lesbians need a proper word and definition to describe each of their lifestyles because both of these lifestyles and heterosexual marriage are all three quite different from each other. This precludes anyone forcing their beliefs on anyone else, changing definitions in the English language, and would most accurately define and clarify all three types of unions.
Everyone has a right to an appropriate word to describe a specific lifestyle, and the respect and dignity that goes along with that specific lifestyle.
Vote Yes on Proposition 8.
Gary Germano
Sonoma

Editor: I was disappointed to read you chose to support discrimination by failing to stand up for equality and the defeat of Prop 8. The arguments you cite are simply rationalizations for prejudice. The desire for equality is much more than symbolic. The Supreme Court ruled on the matter of “separate but equal” in the 1954 case, Brown v. Board of Education. The court recognized that “separate but equal” opportunities created a feeling of inferiority for the minorities being segregated, and that this feeling of segregation could cause permanent emotional injury. While marriage is well understood, domestic partnership is not, and real people have been denied equal access to insurance and the ability to make medical decisions for their partner during crisis due to this lack of understanding.
Your argument of preserving the meaning the word has held throughout recorded history implies the concept of marriage has not changed. If that were true, inter-racial marriage would still be illegal and women would still be considered property. Tradition has been used to justify slavery and other social ills, so the argument that “it has always been that way” is a weak one at best, and not even true. And if you are truly concerned about religious freedom, you should realize that some religions support love and commitment, including equal marriage rights, so for one religious group to have their beliefs written into law prevents the other religious groups from exercising their religious beliefs. And if it is the fear that some religious group will have to perform marriages for people who don’t follow the teachings of that group, that is totally false. No religious group has to perform any marriage they don’t want to. So changing the constitution won’t protect anyone.
It also seems you may not understand that the role of the court is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The constitution was written to protect the rights of all people, and to change the constitution to discriminate against one group goes against the ideals America was founded upon. Equal rights for a minority should not up for a popular vote. But since they are, I hope you will reconsider and realize Prop 8 perpetuates intolerance and hate against a long-suffering minority.
Help America realize its promise of liberty and justice for all by voting No on 8.
Ted Unlis
Sonoma

Editor: An open letter to St. Francis Solano Church and School: I am appalled that you would have a Yes on 8 sign posted outside of your church seeking to legislate hate and inequality. If Jesus still had a tomb, he would be rolling in it!
To post this on the grounds of a “school” teaches a new generation hatred of those who God himself/herself/itself created. Do you not remember, “love your neighbor as yourself,” or that one of Jesus’ main lessons was teaching love and acceptance? Jesus accepted everyone. Period.
The Bible was a book written by fallible men, attempting to do their best to record the history of their time. Given your church’s history, with your bishop not reporting Father Ochoa’s sexual abuse of minors within the prescribed amount of time required for such matters, (not to mention the pathetic history the Catholic Church has with turning a blind eye to priests abusing minors within the church) and the fact that he is still out there running loose, I hardly think that your church is in a place to place judgment on the love which some of God’s own have for one another. The last time I checked God did not leave churches in charge of judging on his/her/its behalf.
How about loving your neighbors as you would want to be loved, and giving all of God’s creations equal rights under the law? Leave the judging to God.
Yes on 8 = Yes on hate and discrimination.
Leslie Sheridan
Sonoma

Editor: I was disappointed in your inability to make a recommendation on Proposition 8. Silence should never be the answer when the rights of a group of people are concerned. Proposition 8 threatens the rights of people based upon their sexual orientation, and I encourage people to vote ‘no’ on election day.
The Constitution of California guarantees the rights and freeom of everyone under the Equal Protection Clause. Like race and gender, sexual orientation is a protected class. If Proposition 8 passes it will eliminate the rights of same-sex couples to marry, denying many California citizens a basic civil right. Saying that simply because a civil union is registered and a same-sex couple can enjoy all the legal rights as an opposite-sex couple that is married, does not make them the same thing. If interracial couples could not be married but only have a registered civil union, there would be outrage. Because a ban on interracial marriage denied certain citizens their rights, the California Supreme Court lifted the ban on interracial marriage in 1948. This is also why they overturned the ban on same-sex marriages in May of this year.
Contrary to what the “Yes on Proposition 8” campaign is leading people to believe, churches will not lose their tax-exemption statuses and cannot be required to change their religious policies with regards to same-sex couples. Religious officiates cannot be required to perform same-sex marriages if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Please join me in guaranteeing the rights of all California citizens, do not eliminate equality for anyone. Vote no on Proposition 8.
Vanessa Lombard-Hunter
Sonoma

Editor: First of all, let me say that I do love California. I love this great state that, right now, offers me the freedom to marry who I choose and allows all young women and girls the freedom to maintain a private relationship with their health care provider. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Second, I cannot express to you strongly enough the amount of anger and frustration I felt as I read your column, “Of the People, By the People” (Oct. 16, 2008).  While there is so much that I would love to discuss with you, I feel as though the issue of Proposition 4 is at the top my list. You state in your article, “… she needs the love and support of her parents; that can’t be legislated, of course, but why should the state deny the family that opportunity?”  By voting NO on Prop 4, you are not denying any communication among a loving and supportive family. By voting NO on Prop 4, you are saving many young women and girls from having to tell their families, which would result in shame, guilt, verbal, mental, emotional and/or physical abuse. Of course the best-case scenario is for all young women and girls to be able to talk with their parents and make decisions as a family, but too many young women and girls simply do not have that luxury.
While the cost and risk of Proposition 4 may not be initially monetary, the cost and risk of the lives of young women and girls is too high to ignore. Proposition 4 is just another piece of legislation that chips away at our civil rights, and I for one cannot sit by and stay silent. And shame on you for thinking this is either an emotional or political issue – because it is both, sir, it is both.
Marina Whitchurch, M.A.
Sonoma

Editor: I feel the need to take a moment to express my concern regarding Prop 4.  I am quite surprised to find this paper suggesting that people vote yes on this. It may not technically be about abortion, but forcing communication between family members is not something the government should be legislating. It is easy to say in an ideal world that a girl should have the support of her family when making this difficult decision, but not everyone has the ability to communicate about such issues with their families. Put yourself in the shoes of the pregnant teen. This is the biggest stress she has ever faced, and this proposition would allow the government to step in and force something upon her. She already has the choice to tell her family, we don’t need the government taking her choice and making it into law.
Stephanie Parsons
Sonoma

Yes on Prop 2 – not that radical

Editor: Prop 2 is an addition to Health and Safety Code, Article II Section 8 of the California Constitution. It does not say that animals can’t be in cages. It says “a person shall not tether or confine any covered animal, on a farm, for all or the majority of the day, that prevents the animal from lying, standing up fully, extending its limbs and turning around freely and completely without any impediment.”
To those who think the hens live longer and healthier in battery cage conditions … the hens can’t live longer than two years, because then they are sent to slaughter. Chickens can have a life span of up to 25 years.
Other states have passed such laws as Prop 2 – Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Oregon are a few. And to my understanding, Mexico doesn’t have factory farms.
In all fairness, I have to say that at least one factory farmer here is working on a plan on how to allow more space and better conditions for his hens. I would say by 2015 he will have it worked out according to the law.
Here is another thing: Most of the chickens in food production are not confined in cages, only egg-laying hens. So what about the diseases and all the stuff that is threatening the egg layers?
Doreen Proctor
Sonoma

Editor: SMART – spell it backwards and it says it all: a giant leap backward to a time of hoop-skirted ladies with parasols and TRAMS running on tracks. Don’t get me wrong – I love trains, the Skunk Train, Napa Wine Train, Rovas train in Africa, Canadian Pacific and so on.
But, trains have two big problems: They can only go where the tracks go, and only at the speed of the slowest train. They have a few other minor problems, like prohibitive track upkeep and station and parking lot maintenance. And worst of all, no pizzazz to get other than the Sierra Club folks out of their cars.
But the NWP right-of-way is a jewel and should not be wasted. How about a dedicated electrified roadway? Pave it over and install a third rail down the center that both conventional electric buses and the hybrids can hook on to. We already have electric bus technology, a half-dozen hybrids, with the GM Volt on the horizon. On the buses, add a battery pack and they can go off line to gather up and distribute their loads. No stations needed.
Dick Duste
Sonoma

Editor: I recently attended a showing of the documentary entitled “A Man Named Pearl,” sponsored by the Sonoma Valley Film Society. It was filmed in a small town that was clearly no longer thriving and was, in fact, in great trouble. A local minister was asked why the town was failing. The first reason he thought of was, “There is no hospital here.” Don’t let that happen to Sonoma. Vote yes on Measure P.
Janice Stites
Sonoma

Editor: Gotta love California! Anyone with a newspaper and an opinion can print whatever they want. I get the newspaper as a SOURCE of information. I do NOT want to be given my own opinion, NOR do I want to be told how to vote. To say that I am shocked or appalled at what I read in last week’s issue would be an understatement. I opened the paper to find that I am to vote a certain way on the propositions facing us on this November’s ballot. When did Big Brother come to town? Was I out of town the day that we lost our democratic right to choose our own vote?
How is it that you came to the conclusion to print your (yes you, editor, last say in what goes into print) ideals in the hopes that our little community would follow in your thought? Did you figure that we just do not care enough about what is happening in our state to take the time to do a little research and determine what we feel might be best?  Gee, I wonder … who backs the paper? What special interest group(s) do you support?
Kory Jakobs
Sonoma

Editor: The economy is foremost on everyone’s mind. These are indeed tough times that require strong leadership. Valerie Brown is the only candidate with proven experience in solving large, complex issues to the benefit of our community.
Let us remember that it was Valerie Brown who negotiated keeping the Indian casinos out of the southern end of Sonoma Valley; fought to protect over 70,000 acres of open space; and took a leadership role in the effort to make the SMART rail happen
She is currently working on promoting forums to address gang violence, spearheading the creation of the domestic violence court, and tackling drug issues as a member of the county’s Meth Task Force.
We have both personally known Valerie Brown for 25 years and have the confidence that she will continue to do an outstanding job for the people of District One. We urge you to vote for Valerie Brown.
Jill Kamahele
‘Zanne Clark
Sonoma

Editor: As a passionate advocate for public education, I heartily second The Sun’s endorsement of John Musilli for school board. John is a 36-year Sonoma resident and the father of four Sonoma Valley High School graduates. He has given 16 years of service to ensure the high quality of Sonoma County schools and is deeply knowledgeable about the educational needs of our Sonoma children. As a successful local businessman and an experienced trustee, John has the fiscal understanding to guide our schools through challenging economic times. He has been a consistent advocate for parent choice in public education, and his support has ensured the quality educational choices that Sonoma currently enjoys.
I ask you to join me and The Sun in supporting John Musilli for Sonoma County Office of Education Trustee in Area One. Our children need his wise and reliable advocacy.
Chip Romer
Sonoma

Editor: Of all the cockeyed nonsense that comes out of our political class, the recent City Council decision to remove 91 parking spaces from West Spain Street in order to provide for a bike lane, is near the top of the list.
Where are the people who live on this street going to park? I live on West Spain Street in a condo with off-street parking, which will soon be filled every day with non-resident parkers as it often is on days of big events in the Plaza.
Business office workers on Second Street West will have even further to walk from cars they will have to park blocks away.
All this when there is an existing bike path just one block north of Spain Street.
What were they smoking?
Gregory B. Smith
Sonoma

Editor: Thanks for the paragraph and partial list of Sonoma Valley medal winners from the commercial wine competition at the Sonoma County Harvest Fair, held three weeks ago in Santa Rosa. While obviously not a huge media event, this wine judging is important to north coast grape growers and wineries who await the results to compare their wines to those of their neighbors from Mendocino to Marin. As a point of clarification, Leveroni Vineyards was awarded one double-gold and two silver medals for three wines entered in the competition. My compliments to The Sun for attempting to publish a list of local winners, unlike Sonoma’s other news outlet, which indifferently directed readers to a website. Are these the same people who blame the Internet for the death of print media?  Ironic.
Joe Leveroni
Sonoma

Editor: On behalf of WillMar Center’s board, staff and volunteers, I am writing to express our sincere and heartfelt thanks to the community of friends who attended the Guardians’ Gala on Oct. 11.  It was truly gratifying for all of us involved with WillMar Center to experience the generous support that was so evident that night, all the more remarkable since it happened to follow one of the worst weeks in stock market history!  These are challenging times indeed, and WillMar’s annual fundraiser has never been more mission critical to its ability to continue to offer services to the children and families of Sonoma County.
The spirit of WillMar’s mission was felt by all who came. For those of our friends who were unable to attend, you missed a great party, but we promise you it won’t be the last!
Ann Bauer
Interim Executive Director
WillMar Center for
Bereaved Children
Sonoma