Letters to the editor: Oct. 31 - East Valley Tribune: Opinion

Letters to the editor: Oct. 31

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Friday, October 31, 2008 6:52 pm | Updated: 8:51 pm, Fri Oct 7, 2011.

 Phillip Moon’s argument in favor of the Protect Marriage Proposition (Perspective, Oct. 26), was a great exercise in sophistry. As Moon boils down his view, in a spectacularly inept piece of logic, “Since traditional marriage produces kids, and since today’s youth are tomorrow’s society, it is in the government’s best interest to encourage traditional marriage.”

Submit your letter to the editor

PROPOSITION 102

A sorry argument

Phillip Moon’s argument in favor of the Protect Marriage Proposition (Perspective, Oct. 26), was a great exercise in sophistry. As Moon boils down his view, in a spectacularly inept piece of logic, “Since traditional marriage produces kids, and since today’s youth are tomorrow’s society, it is in the government’s best interest to encourage traditional marriage.”

Submit your letter to the editor

And since same-sex marriages “by and large” do not produce kids, ergo, the government should not sanction same-sex marriages. Ugh.

Here’s why Moon’s is a specious argument: If, in his worst-case scenario, gays could actually marry, the government still encourages traditional marriage. How many different financial ways do governments at all levels give financial breaks to marriages with children? Evidently, Moon doesn’t know of the tax deductions the state and national governments afford married couples with children.

Beyond that, Moon conveniently ignores one other point: Even if the state did sanction gay marriage, traditional marriage would remain. He neglects to explain how a gay marriage hurts his marriage. Moon doesn’t tell us how my marriage or his marriage will need protection from gay marriage. If a gay couple weds, I will still be married to my wife. I assume Moon’s marriage could weather the storm of gay marriages as well.

Finally, Moon’s house of cards argument falls apart when you consider the underlying argument: If you can’t produce kids — as he claims most gay couples can’t — then the government should not allow that marriage. Of course, that means the woman who’s had a hysterectomy is ineligible for marriage. The infertile couple? Don’t bother. A senior couple wanting to marry? Should’ve done it in your child-producing years — sorry.

And sorry is the right word in describing Moon’s attempt to foist his phony logic on readers.

MIKE MCCLELLAN

GILBERT

More legal protection

“There’s already a law on the Arizona books” says the opposition to Proposition 102, not mentioning that the marriage law on the books in Arizona is similar to that struck down in California. How long do you think that the gay-lesbian community in our state will leave the Arizona law unchallenged? The Supreme Court has already determined that they will not support the laws of states that do not meet constitutional scrutiny. So, this law must pass constitutional scrutiny.

Why am I so concerned? Look at the recent headlines from across the country: “Chicago to approve public high school for gay, lesbian and transgender teens,” and “First graders taken to San Francisco City Hall for gay wedding.” The homosexual community in California had sworn that it was not their intention that same-sex marriage would be taught in schools to young children and yet a first-grade class took a school-sponsored trip to their teacher’s gay wedding.

Every person, straight or gay, should have a living will to permit whomever he or she chooses to have hospital visitation, responsibilities for decisions and rights of inheritance. Insurance or benefits should be addressed by their employers.

Please vote “yes” for Proposition 102 for a constitutional amendment that would state simply that marriage between one man and one woman shall be the legal definition of marriage.

FLORA M. O’BARR

MESA

Wrong to deny happiness

“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness …” words that should be familiar to all of us. Words that define our rights, not just as citizens of this state and country, but words that should define our rights as human beings. However the proponents of Proposition 102 would have voters believe that these words are for them only. They would have voters believe that no one has the right to pursue a happiness that they see as different from the one that they believe is correct and good. I can only wonder what would happen if there was a voter initiative that would seek to take away their right to pursue happiness; how they would feel? What if there was an initiative to legislate the number of children in a family?

No one, individual or group has the right to take away these profound words and their meaning from another group of people simply because they do not like them. Arizonans should prove that we truly understand the meaning of these words. Vote “no” on Prop. 102.

KRISTINE TOLMAN

MESA

Stop stealing the signs

“Yes on Prop. 102” signs were recently stolen from my yard and almost all yards in my neighborhood. Once again, I find it so interesting that our “liberal” friends are intolerant of views that don’t align with theirs. I have tired of their ignorant behavior. I have every right to post signs stating my choice without fear of vandalism to my property, and I will take advantage of that right. Grow up, free thinkers!

GWEN EVANS

MESA

PROPOSITION 102

Forcing religious view on all

Contrary to what many who promote Proposition 102 say, it is definitely discriminatory and hateful. There is already a law on the books that prohibits marriage between two people of the same sex. The ad for Prop. 102 espouses marriage between a mother and father and the sanctity of marriage. Heterosexuals have done an outstanding job of demeaning the sanctity of marriage all by themselves. Look at the divorce rate. As far as a family being described as having a mother and father, how many families are headed by a single parent? This proposition is about religion and we don’t all have the same religion or beliefs. That is what diversity is all about. It’s time for the people of Arizona to recognize what they are being fed by the religious right and stand up for the human race and all families, regardless of who heads them. I don’t think marriage needs to be protected by another law. The people who engage in marriage need to keep their own families together.

PATRICIA ABRAHAM

MESA

Needed to stop judges

A vote for Proposition 102 protects the definition of traditional marriage in Arizona. A vote for Prop. 102 protects a valuable and long-standing cultural institution. A vote for Prop. 102 protects us from a handful of judges imposing their will on this important issue. First in Massachusetts, then in California, and just Oct. 10 in Connecticut, a small group of judges told the majority of the people that what they believed about traditional marriage didn’t matter. Judges have imposed their opinion regardless of what the people thought. Judges have blatantly ignored how the people had previously voted. Prop. 102 is your opportunity to prevent such judicial activism from occurring in Arizona. Opponents wrongly claim Prop. 102 would restrict rights, prevent hospital visitation, forbid inheritance to a partner, etc. Present law has not done this and neither would Prop. 102. Protect marriage, protect your rights and vote “yes” on Prop. 102.

RICHARD H. RUTKOWSKI

FOUNTAIN HILLS

PROPOSITION 200

Payday loans make no sense

I am a poor graduate student that is especially concerned when it comes to payday lenders. I have followed this bill closely and am appalled by two things: The first is the deceptive nature in which the proposition is written. The second is that voters see this proposition as an issue of choice.

Propositions should be written to be understood and make clear the consequences. Prop. 200 does neither. The proposition, ultimately, is not reform. A payday store will still have the ability to charge almost 400 percent interest rates, and allow them to stay in the state forever. The media advertisements are extremely deceptive and target people’s sense of vulnerability. In the midst of an economic crisis, I’m not sure how high interest rates are “reform,” it doesn’t make “cents.”

As a student I value my choice but I should be able to choose from logical and fair options, not “last resort” options that create more debt for me and Arizona. Through this proposition we actually eliminate our ability to choose whether we want payday lenders in Arizona in 2010, 2020, or 2050.

Right now there are payday lenders on almost every single corner; imagine what that would look like in 20 years. There has to be a better way to create “cents.”

We need viable options; we need credit unions and banks to step-up and offer solutions and alternatives to payday lending. We need to vote “no” on Prop. 200. We can’t let payday lenders continue to take advantage of us amidst the struggle of deficits and home mortgage shortfalls.

MELISSA JENSEN

CHANDLER

MARICOPA COUNTY ELECTION

Vote for Brock’s experience

I support Maricopa County County Supervisor Fulton Brock because he has a great track record not only in supporting the environment but also in financial efficiency in government, which is so important especially in this day and age. He has headed environmental clean-ups and community projects over the last 10 years all over Maricopa County, in Sun Lakes, Queen Creek, the Gila River Indian Community, Tempe and Scottsdale. In government, we are the only large county in the entire country that is debt free. Maricopa County is rated the best county in America because of Brock. His opponent has never had a job unless one counts political appointments. Let’s go with experience and re-elect Brock!

NATALIE GERMAINE

CHANDLER

Hermes reaches out

Often times when I go to vote I don’t recognize half of the names on the ballot and sometimes leave them blank. Maricopa County supervisor would probably be one I would normally leave blank if it weren’t for knowing what a great candidate Ed Hermes is. Ed has personally contacted me to discuss issues in this year’s county supervisor race, yet I have not heard one word from the Fulton Brock campaign. Ed not only has the experience to oversee the county’s $2.3 billion budget, but has the enthusiasm to tackle the issues affecting our county: reducing traffic gridlock, improving air quality, and promoting real public safety. Hope and change are dominating themes in politics today, and Ed is the candidate that is going to deliver that to us. I strongly encourage you to join me in voting for Ed Hermes.

AARON THURINGER

TEMPE

Brock addresses island concerns

Supervisor Fulton Brock has a proven track record of serving Maricopa County. As a resident of south Chandler, I have been impressed with his willingness to work with both city and county residents where issues have arisen because of the patchwork of county islands in our city boundaries. As someone employed in the Sun Lakes area, I also know Brock does an excellent job of representing the area’s interests to the county as a whole.

Maricopa County was not voted one of the best run counties by happenstance. Hard work on the part of individuals like Brock is why this area is an outstanding location in which to live and work. District 1 needs Brock. Please vote by mail or on Tuesday, and vote to keep Supervisor Brock!

CHRIS STAGE

CHANDLER

  • Discuss

Facebook

EastValleyTribune.com on Facebook

Twitter

EastValleyTribune.com on Twitter

Google+

EastValleyTribune.com on Google+

RSS

Subscribe to EastValleyTribune.com via RSS

RSS Feeds

Spacer4px
Your Az Jobs