Marriage for all

EDITOR: Most of us take marriage for granted. I always have. But since becoming engaged last June, I began to realize that marriage in our society is not a right enjoyed by all; it is a privilege enjoyed by some -- a privilege which I am "allowed" but many others are not.


What do we preserve by keeping marriage between a man and a woman? Serial killers have been allowed to marry from inside prison, while honest and honorable Americans are denied this same right simply because their sexual preference is perceived as wrong and immoral.

There is no moral litmus test or creed that should deny people access to rights in this country. So, what is the legitimacy of denying marriage rights to same-sex couples?

Most of the leading Democratic candidates for president have not stood up and backed same-sex marriage, instead choosing to endorse "separate but equal" civil unions. I would encourage everyone who truly supports social equality to make a commitment to promote equal marriage rights for all people and to express these beliefs to our elected representatives, so that this blatant injustice may be undone.

BRIAN HALLORAN

Windsor

Rule of law

EDITOR: In December of 1787, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 25:

"Wise politicians will be cautious about fettering the government with restrictions that cannot be observed, because they know that every break of the fundamental laws, though dictated by necessity, impairs that sacred reverence which ought to be maintained in the breast of rulers towards the constitution of a country."

He and others at the time had a keen understanding of the need for respect for the rule of law. We have far too many examples today of lawmakers making laws they have no intention of sincerely honoring, or wording them in such a way that the law cannot achieve its stated objectives. Campaign financing and immigration reform are two good examples.

The alternatives to the rule of law are anarchy and autocracy, conditions that Hamilton and others experienced firsthand and were convinced must be guarded against.

DICK VEGSUND

Santa Rosa

Deja vu

EDITOR: In my experience, the amount of energy put into trying to sell me something is directly related to how useless it is. I can't remember the last time anyone worked up a sweat to get me to buy a nail.

Why am I being inundated with the evil and danger of Iran by the Bush administration and the corporate media? I didn't buy it with Iraq (and, I was right) and I'm not even renting it about Iran. I am, however, getting an eerie sense of deja vu.

Oh, but then I was educated at a time in our history when critical thinking was emphasized. We were encouraged to question and seek alternative perspectives on issues.

It seems that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has determined that Iran is not in violation of any standards in their activities pursuing the peaceful development of nuclear energy and fuel enrichment. By the way, this is the same agency that pointed out to the United Nations that the Iraq/Niger/yellow cake documents were forgeries -- before we went to war in Iraq.

Objective, Farsi-speaking observers state that Iran's president has never called for the elimination of the state of Israel, in any of his public comments. We, as non-Farsi speaking people, are dependent upon translations (whose?) to understand and interpret (spin) his remarks.

I would encourage my fellow Americans to not swallow the pabulum before they examine its contents and look carefully at the recipe.

CHAS. B. STARR

Occidental

Contract employees

EDITOR: While I can understand your recent editorial regarding the plight of Chrstine Wells-Groff, I cannot understand your conclusion that contract employees should receive benefits from the firm or government agency for which their services have been contracted. The purpose of contracting with an outside organization is to obtain work from this contracted individual for a specified amount of time.

Contractual employees normally do not receive any benefits.

This pilot knew, or should have known, that no benefits would be forthcoming should he lose his life while fighting a fire, as many pilots have done in the past, and that any insurance should come from his employer, not the government.

Where should the line be drawn with contract employees? They feel that if their employer does not provide life insurance and they themselves have opted not to obtain life insurance, you and I should step in and provide this insurance.

No, it is up to the individual to obtain coverage for this type of insurance through his primary employer or through an outside insurance broker.

JOSEPH MICHALEK

Santa Rosa

Gender violence

EDITOR: In a Sept. 7 letter to the editor, Suzy Marzalek of the YWCA states the Violence Against Women Act's (VAWA) gender-specific title is justified because women are four times more likely than men to be battered and nine times more likely to be killed by a partner, and she also says VAWA is otherwise gender neutral.

First, some parts of VAWA, such as its Native-American provisions, are only for women. Second, Marzalek's statistics are totally false.

Men underreport more than women in crime data, but sociological data consistently shows women initiate domestic violence as often as men and that men sustain one-third of the injuries, as Dr. Martin Fiebert of California State University, Long Beach shows in an online bibliography at www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

This was recently confirmed in the latest study by the Centers for Disease Control dated May 2007 and by a recent 32-nation study by the University of New Hampshire that found women commit partner violence as often as men and that controlling behavior exists equally in perpetrators of both sexes. And crime-based data cited by the Centers for Disease Control shows one-fourth of intimate partner homicide victims are men.

In any event, even if male victims actually were in the minority, this would not justify excluding them from VAWA's title. Men sustain 92 percent of job deaths, but I'm sure Marzalek would not support having a Men's Occupational Safety and Health Act.

MARC E. ANGELUCCI

President,

National Coalition of Free Men, Los Angeles chapter

Tourist labor

EDITOR: According to "Vineyard vacation" in the Sept. 28 issue of The Press Democrat, some smart folks have found a solution to the problem of reaping crops if illegal immigrants are kept on the other side of the border. Tourist packages are available. They cost $1,500 for three days, during which the tourists happily harvest grapes. Not only does that plan avoid paying immigrant workers, but it also fills the coffers of the tourist industry. Brilliant!

JEAN OLMSTEAD

Little River