Dear Editor,
The following are some startling ideas that may offend many
people. However, these ideas explain why many educated and
thoughtful people voted for Proposition 8. After reading this,
perhaps more people will understand better what happened Tuesday
last.
Prop 8 passage about gay infidelity – it’s certainly not about rights
Dear Editor,
The following are some startling ideas that may offend many people. However, these ideas explain why many educated and thoughtful people voted for Proposition 8. After reading this, perhaps more people will understand better what happened Tuesday last.
When interviewed in Massachusetts on questions that no one would dare ask in California, 85 percent of just-married, same-sex couples indicated that they had no intention of staying sexually faithful to their new spouses. This means they are far more likely than married heterosexuals to get sexually transmitted diseases and bring them into the marriage. Any person concerned about rising health care costs should care about this because when more “spouses” with chronic, often incurable STDs are added to the company health plan, then the cost of that company’s plan rises faster than it would have.
These higher costs come back on the employee group. Put another way, it comes back on YOU. Could it be that some get “married” to gain legal protections like spouse-earned health care, that you may have to forfeit a pay raise to pay for? That possibility cannot be ruled out. Perhaps when we hear that “couples marry for love,” we need to find out this same-sex couples definition of love, and ask why marriage is even required. And what of the “right” to get married?
Let’s clarify a few concepts, and then get to the answer concerning “rights.” Marriage has two parts; religious, and legal. Couples of any sex can have a church marriage without a license at a church that will perform the religious ceremony. There is no law that forbids this, and Proposition 8 does not forbid this and cannot, based on the United States Constitution. It is the right of any same-sex couple to find a religious leader who will perform such a ceremony. There are many.
What is lost in a religious-only marriage are the legal privileges of a married couple. What are the distinct differences between privileges and rights? We are all born with rights, but other humans grant us privileges. Proposition 8 has everything to do with granted privileges, and nothing to do with human rights.
The intent of Proposition 8 is to restrict the licensed privileges of married couples, just as other licenses confer privileges on physicians, lawyers, and peace officers. No one has the right to perform surgery in a hospital, the right to practice law, and the right to be a peace officer. These are privileges conferred by government issued licenses. Licensed marriage confers privileges. This is what the voters for Proposition 8 meant by voting Yes.
Same-sex couples are free to achieve religious marriage, but in California, are denied the government-granted privileges of state licensed marriage.
Tony Weiler, Gilroy
All that proposition money and what good was it used for?
Dear Editor,
It was with great interest that I watched the election, especially the propositions. I wa interested not only for the issues, but more so because of the amount of emotions and money that was raised to support a candidate or a position on a proposition.
Propositions 8 and 2 were of particular interest. My point is not to argue either side, but to marvel at the interest generated by each proposition, and to question why this energy and money doesn’t (or maybe it will) transfer to other issues in our society.
If one was against Prop 8, part of the argument would center on a concern that all people would be treated equal, that care and compassion would be given to all those interested in marriage. If one was for Prop 8, one of the concerns I heard was that there was a fear of moral decline in our society – i.e. we are on a slippery slope to real troubles if gays are granted equal status.
In either case, motivation for both arguments is based on a deep care and concern for people and our society. I can certainly see the arguments on both sides, but what fascinates me is why we don’t apply this same concern to the other less fortunate and marginalized in our society.
With Prop 2 it certainly makes sense to care for animals in a humane fashion, but how nice it would be if we were concerned with treating humans in a humane way. How many people could we feed for $70 million and for how long?
George Hinn, Gilroy
Red Phone cowards and campaign sign laws the city won’t enforce
Dear Editor,
I am an avid reader of The Dispatch, but there is one section, however, that really irritates me. That is the Red Phone.
Now, I realize that there might be a legitimate need for a hotline like Red Phone for someone who is illiterate and unable to string two words together. Then there is a more sinister reason in that the person calling is intent on commenting about someone anonymously or is a coward who doesn’t possess the huevos to put their name to their opinion or accusation.
Illiterate, or cowardice whatever the reason, an unidentified person made several inaccurate charges against me. First, this person said, “Since Mark Zappa is the self-appointed election campaign watchdog.” I am not sure where this came from since I have had little or nothing to do with campaign watching. This person then attempts to educate me on campaign signage law.
First of all, as far as I know, there was no organized committee formed or registered with the Fair Political Practices Commission opposing either Measures F or P. Only a recipient committee is required to publish their FPPC number on campaign items. I saw the signs mentioned on the corner of Santa Teresa and another across from Nob Hill on First Street. Someone must have stolen them because they were gone within a week.
If I had been a watchdog, I would have reported the illegal placement of campaign signs by the enthusiastic proponents of Measures F and P. For instance, there are two four feet by eight feet YES on P sign on the fences of the residence on the corner of Welburn and Wren and again at Orchard and 10th street. That is a clear violation of the city ordinance, yet I could care less. It is only for a short time.
I do have a problem, however, with people defacing or stealing signs from either side of an issue. When I was campaigning in 2004, someone repeatedly slashed my signs doing thousands of dollars in damage to the signs and the large real estate signs underneath. I had permission from the owners of the large signs to place my signs temporarily over theirs.
I want to end this letter on a positive note. Recently, one of the Yes on 8 signs I placed on Santa Teresa was tampered with. Unfortunately for the coward doing the tampering, an off-duty assistant police chief from the San Jose Police Department caught the perpetrator in the act.
Gilroy PD responded and cited the individual. I was asked by Gilroy PD if I wanted to prosecute. I responded in the affirmative. It’s rare to catch a coward in action. It is a joy to watch them squirm.
Mark A. Zappa, Gilroy
