Court's ruling on same-sex marriage
Regarding “State ban on gay marriage overturned” (SignOnSanDiego, May 15):
Let's see now how this works. California went to the time, trouble and expense of putting a proposition on the state ballot to decide whether gay marriage should be legal. And a handful of judges decided Thursday that our votes don't matter. Why do politicians and other special interest groups bother to draft proposals to be voted upon when the outcome doesn't count? Is this a great country or what? Probably not anymore because we've lost our way.
Write us
... and here's how
To encourage community dialogue on important public matters, The San Diego Union-Tribune welcomes letters to the editor. Space is limited, so we offer these tips and policy guidelines:
 Please be aware that lengthy letters reduce chances for publication. Our suggested maximum length is 200 words.
To allow as many letter writers as possible to be published, it is the policy of the newspaper to publish no more than one letter from the same author within 30 days.
Letters should be exclusive to the Union-Tribune. “Open letters” and submissions sent originally to individuals, agencies or other media outlets will not be considered for publication.
We prefer letters that reference items published in the Union-Tribune within the past month.
Letters may be edited for space, grammar, clarity or other reasons.
It is our policy to publish letters supporting or opposing a particular issue in a ratio reflecting the number received on each side.
All letters considered for publication will be verified for authenticity. Letters must include a full name, address, daytime phone number and, if faxed or mailed, be signed. E-mail submissions are preferred and can be sent to letters@uniontrib.com. Letters can be mailed to Letters Editor, The San Diego Union-Tribune, P.O. Box 120191, San Diego, CA 92112-0191, or faxed to (619) 260-5081.
Letters submitted may be used in print or in digital form in any publication or service authorized by the Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
|
|
BOB ANNETT
La Mesa
I applaud the California Supreme Court's recognition that the state's ban on gay marriage runs counter to the state's constitutional prohibition against discrimination. Moreover, the court's reliance on the “strict scrutiny” standard in this case further confirms that the state does not have a compelling reason to deny gay couples the right to marry.
This ruling helps ensure that same-sex partners can benefit from the same rights and legal protections granted to my husband and me, much as the top court's Perez v. Sharp decision cleared the way for interracial marriage 60 years ago. Still, the court's split decision reminds us that there remain many barriers to overcome in securing the rights of all loving couples to marry in California and across the nation.
EMILY BASS
San Diego
We are thrilled by the California Supreme Court's decision to grant equal marriage rights to same-sex couples. After eight years in a loving, committed relationship, we can finally marry the person we love! Most people remember their wedding day as one of the happiest days of their lives. We will remember this day as one of the happiest moments of our lives as this decision recognizes our love, our sacrifice and our commitment to each other. We are proud California has taken the side of fairness and equality.
KRISTI SHAW
LISA BERWYN
San Diego
Budget cuts and children's health
Regarding “Lawmakers take aim at budget” (A1, May 15):
In a state with the eighth-largest economy in the world, it is a moral outrage that the governor has proposed to balance our budget with Draconian cuts that directly and dramatically affect the lives of millions of California's children. One policy alone, a requirement that children re-enroll in Medi-Cal insurance every three months rather than annually, would result in more than 470,000 children losing coverage – increasing the number of uninsured children in California by 70 percent.
As senior policy associate for the Children's Defense Fund – California, San Diego office, I believe that with additional deep cuts to foster care, assistance for needy children and food programs, our children's health and ability to learn would suffer greatly. The governor proposes to balance the budget on the backs of our state's most vulnerable population: children. He can do better. We must do better.
LINDSEY WADE
San Diego
Some time ago I found out that the superintendent of Anza Borrego Desert State Park had used park funds and park staff to erect “Closed Area” signs on private property that is well outside the park boundaries. In addition, he has assigned park law enforcement rangers to patrol that private property. When I e-mailed the superintendent, he confirmed those facts. I e-mailed his superiors and got confirmation that the superintendent was doing so because the property in question may someday become park property, even though it is not even contiguous with the park.
If the budget of Anza Borrego is so large that it is spending money to place signs and patrol property that neither belongs to the park and doesn't even belong to the state, it would appear to be a great candidate for budget cuts in this time of very tight budgets.
Perhaps if we cut some of Anza Borrego's excess budget, a little less money would need to be cut from our children's education budget.
ROGER MULLINS
El Cajon
Regime change overdue in Myanmar
Regarding “Myanmar's army stealing relief supplies, officials say” (News, May 15):
If ever a nation was in need of regime change, Myanmar is it. Struggling with an attempt to instill a shred of democracy, the disaster could not have come at a worse time. Continuing with the elections and falsifying the sources of humanitarian aid, the regime cements itself as a “benevolent” force for the people. With such dishonesty, why wouldn't our government take steps to promote democracy, and let the people decide their fate by removing the current leaders and replacing them with a provisional authority. Oh, yeah. There's no incentive for nations in need; only the ones with resources we can exploit count.
KREG KEARLEY
Spring Valley
School field trips fill a need
Regarding “Sightseeing not part of school's role” (Letters, May 14):
I don't know what decade Judy Bruce's children (if any) attended school but it must have been before Proposition 13. I doubt the school paid for the field trip she cited. My children have attended San Diego city schools since 2001. Every field trip was paid for by the PTA, foundation funds or the parents, or the field trip was free.
JENNIFER JERTBERG
North Park
Nowhere in her letter does Judy Bruce mention being part of the educational system as a teacher or administrator. Thank goodness! She says it is not “the school district's job to make sure that kids get to sightsee.” It is, however, the school district's job to make sure all students are exposed to the opportunities that await them if they get an education. It is the school district's job to try to even the playing field between the haves and the have-nots just a little bit. If underprivileged children never leave their poor neighborhoods, how will they know what their possibilities are?
A huge part of educating children, especially those who have not grown up in an educated home, is helping to open their eyes to the world that can be theirs if they study hard and stay in school. If that education means a field trip or two, it is money well spent.
DENISE OUELLETTE
San Diego
