This letter is regarding your June 20 editorial titled, "The correct gay marriage ruling."
I have close heterosexual and homosexual friends. I love and care for all of them equally. I know homosexual couples who have been together in meaningful relationships for many, many years - some of them longer than heterosexual couples I know. I know fairly intimately their hopelessness, pain, loneliness, and their feelings of anger as a result of intended discrimination or unintended discrimination.
My hope is that readers will discern my opinion on this topic by the time they finish reading. If this happens, it will be a successful exercise in looking at the facts instead of being seduced by rhetoric or someone's unsupported biases.
We appreciate the effort made to address this subject. This is a sensitive and personal topic in our country and needs to be addressed respectfully, accurately, and lovingly. That the paper had the courage to speak out about it shows a certain amount of courage.
We must conclude that the intent of the editorial was to bait a few readers to respond to the topic. In my case it worked! Congratulations. The other possible reason for the way the article was written is a bit disappointing: That the authors were actually serious about their opinion even though it was one of the poorest examples of professional and responsible journalism that I've read in a long while. Even those who have never taken a journalism 101 class inherently know that if you are going to make a claim you should do your readers the courtesy of divulging your sources.
There was much emphasis by editorial writer on the role of the court system.
Proponents of gay marriage, predictably so, have now shifted their argument to the venue of the courts after finding that they could not sway popular opinion. It was clear in 2000, with Proposition 22, that the small group of gay activists could not win their battles by going directly to the people. They would have to find a way to circumvent that legal process. As courts across our nation hear arguments on both sides, we hope that decisions are based on facts and not political pressure.
The editorial stated that "A recent field poll showed that a majority of Californians favor same-sex marriage." This could be true, even though the editorial writer doesn't list the source. Even though in 2000 through Proposition 22, 61 percent of Californians voting said they supported marriage defined as a union between man and woman, it is quite possible that things have changed in the last eight years.
What field poll? Where's the reference? Who did the poll? How broad was the cross-section? We could just as easily say that "A recent field poll showed that a majority of Californians oppose same-sex marriage." Without even substantiating my claim I could sway a certain number of readers who would simply take my word for it. The danger inherent in such statements coming from your newspaper is that many people assume that if it gets printed and sounds authoritative, it must be true. We should be able to trust you, but hopefully most people know to use discretion - even as they should with what I write.
LeVay's studies (LeVay S, 1991. A difference in hypothalamic structure between homosexual and heterosexual men. Science 253:1034-1037) on homosexuality are a prime example of such media manipulation. But he himself says, "It's important to stress what I didn't find. It did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain." His own conclusions were not published as the first, more sensational findings. Levay himself is openly gay. He also stated that, "if I didn't find anything, I would give up a scientific career altogether." Gelman et al. (Feb. 24, 1992). Born or Bred? Newsweek His research was inherently flawed and biased. In spite of this, his research gained momentum from activist groups, resulting in prime media coverage. Eventually, through a trickle-down effect, this research was taken as fact and resulted in swaying an uneducated public to believe, for generations, that the "gay gene" had been found. The human genome project certainly would have found the gay gene, but didn't (www.trueorigins.org).
Editorial: "A lopsided majority of this newspaper's water cooler panel supports the court's ruling."
It is probably true that, as it becomes more difficult to defend the idea of heterosexual marriage, more and more people will feel that homosexuals should be given the right to marry as well.
Let's not forget that the water cooler they are hanging out at is in a small town, in a newspaper agency, in the Bay Area of California. Let me be clear about my insinuation here: The water cooler in the offices of the Morgan Hill times is not a good representation of most Californians. To suggest that it does represent us is irresponsible journalism. The suggestion is inherent in the fact that the statement was published.
Editorial: "Same-sex marriage opponents often point to Bible passages to justify their position." "Arguments that marriage is 'traditionally' between a man and a woman are also flawed."
It is true that if you Google the marriage debate, invariably you will come across pretty "non-scientific" conclusions about the debate drawn from interpretations of the Bible. Because our society's beliefs and social structures evolve, justifying heterosexual marriage based on Biblical grounds probably won't work.
Either it was a lack of space in the paper, or it was another (intentional?) move on the part of the editorial writer to list only two of the many arguments against gay marriage. Again, a simple Google search would have enlightened the writer. Other arguments (which there will be no space to discuss at this time) include: 1) Societies disintegrate when heterosexual marriage does not exist; 2) Procreation is essential to any society; 3) Children need both a male and female parent for healthiest development; 4) Redefining marriage will to mean love between to consenting people will weaken the institution; 5) Marriage is in many ways a public institution in addition to a private one (when a marriage succeeds or fails it has a huge impact on those around them, economically, emotionally, and also in the greater society), therefore, the public has a right to define marriage.
Editorial: "Just because something has always been done a certain way doesn't make that way right: Ask slaves, victims of segregation and women who couldn't vote."
Without a doubt the editorial writer nailed these issues on the head. Who would want to go back to those times? Indeed, it is even painful and shameful to think about how humans have treated, and still do treat each other in some areas of the world.
Unfortunately, the argument has nothing to do with marriage. One of the main reasons marriage between man and woman is so important is because of the issue of procreation. Yes, the percentage of homosexuals in our society (an accurate number is 2-4 percent), suggesting that this low number of people not having children will not hinder a society's ability to subsist. That is a very valid point. It does not negate the fact, however, that when a society does not procreate, it dies. Take for example China and some long-term effects of its "one child" policy. The number of people born after this policy took effect in 1979 dwindled tremendously. This and future generations are supporting parents and very often grandparents. Health care in the country is improving, so people are living longer. The nation is prospering, but the wealth is quite uneven. Most will have little social security or pensions. Supporting a family and parents on a factory worker's salary will be difficult. See National Geographic magazine May 2008.
Another interesting point that the editorial writer is making here, albeit probably unknown to them, is the position that morality is relative. If we follow their reasoning to the extreme, then any past laws, societal traditions, and other mechanisms that keep society healthy and vibrant will eventually be debated. There are already many groups in existence that most of us, hopefully, would find disturbing: Men who love boys, people who feel called to murder in their God's name, child abusers, or swingers for example. While most of us instinctively know that these behaviors are only destructive, the people who perform the behaviors truly see nothing wrong with them. Moral relativism will destroy our state and country. Individual people must have the courage to protect the family and marital values that made our country strong. It is possible to still show love, respect, and compassion for homosexuals without bowing to political pressure. It is done on an individual basis.
Other thoughts: Nine European nations have had same sex marriage since the early '90s. Just 2 percent of same sex couples in these countries get married.
Opponents of gay marriage point to statistics which show that such marriages do not last and are unstable. "All couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for sexual activity outside of their relationships." (McWhirter and Mattison, "The Male Couple, 1984) "The model range for number of sexual partners was 101-500." )Van de Ven, "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research, 1997) Monogamy does not mean exclusivity. Homosexual men often have "open relationships," relationships in which the partners have sex on the outside, put away their resentment and jealously, and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners (Signorile, "Life Outside," 1997).
Homophobia: The "argument" that those who oppose gay marriage are homophobic is rarely heard anymore for good reason. At least the higher-ups in the gay activist movement have learned the lesson that crying "homophobia" is not really an argument. It is often used when those making the accusation have run out of reasonable responses. In switching their strategy to portray others as having an irrational fear of something (phobia) they seek to discredit the person rather than the argument.
Those who want homosexual marriages legalized want to redefine marriage. As it was, marriage was defined as a union between a woman and man. The definition being proposed suggests that marriage be based on whether two people feel strongly enough about each other to legalize their relationship in marriage. Instead of the foundation of marriage being gender and love, the foundation of marriage will simply be love between any two consenting people.
It tugs at our hearts to consider not allowing two people who love each other to marry. It doesn't sound right. It doesn't feel right. We pride ourselves on being fair, accepting, tolerant, and inclusive. It is easy to see how murder, incest, sexism and racism are wrong. We see the effects immediately. We hear about them in the papers. We hear stories from friends and relatives of the pain caused. The effects of redefining marriage will be much more subtle and long-term, but just as real and damaging.
Those who oppose gay marriage argue that once gay marriage is legalized, it is only a small step towards legalizing polygamy and basically any other type of marriage in which any two individuals could marry based on the fact that they love each other. Frankly I think this is a scare tactic. I don't think that brother would be marrying sister, or that polygamy is just around the corner.
Those in support of gay marriage often argue that marriage between a man and woman is not the best way to argue for such marriages, just look at the divorce rate.
Undoubtedly, marriage between men and women has deteriorated and is not the best "poster child" for the cause of man/woman marriage. It is also true that there is an unknown number of marriages in which partners do not divorce, but have separated or still live together unhappily.
Just because something isn't working does not mean it isn't right. We don't say, "Oh, the murder rate in Oakland this year is higher than ever, maybe we should just legalize it," or, "Oh, husbands in [such and such] a culture hit their wives all the time, it must be alright." It has not been proven that legalizing any type of "illegal" behavior acts as a deterrent to that behavior. Consider capital punishment, "no fault" divorces, the war on drugs, the effects of alcoholism on individuals and society, and the practice of teaching safe sex to minors. None of these practices has had a significant effect on stemming the illegal or harmful effects.
Soren L. Koldewyn, Morgan Hill
Editor's note: Due to space constraints, the print version of this letter was drastically cut, which changed its meaning. The Times' letters policy requires letters to be 500 words or less for the print version. The Times regrets having altered the main message of the letter, which is against same-sex marriages.
Thanks for thorough Web fire coverage
Dear Editor,
I would like to thank you for providing timely information about the Hummingbird fire on your Web site this past weekend. The Wildlife Education and Rehabilitation Center is located in the Watsonville Road area so we needed to have good information to determine if we should evacuate. We have many wild birds and mammals here that needed to be caught and kenneled for transportation. Our volunteers had to be kept informed in case we needed assistance. Food and supplies for the animals needed to be loaded up for transport. Saturday and Sunday were very tense days for us. The information on the Web site was appreciated by all of us here.
Fortunately, evacuation was not necessary. The fire crews, stretched so thinly due to the many fires in the area, did a magnificent job under difficult conditions. We are grateful for all of their efforts.
Having the Times Web site updated with the most current information can be a great resource for the community. Please keep up the good work.
Teresa Stephenson, Morgan Hill
Outreach Coordinator
Wildlife Education and Rehabilitation Center
Tom Berghoff made a difference
Dear Editor,
As a person who drives past the "Tom Berghoff Median" multiple times a day I want to express my gratitude to Mr. Berghoff. This small portion of my daily commute has been made more pleasant by the work he did more than 20 years ago. We can all make a difference in the world one small step at a time. Mr. Berghoff saw a need and took action. Many thanks.
Renee De Villez, Morgan Hill
Police didn't violate law by witholding rape information
Dear Editor,
In its May 23 issue, the Morgan Hill Times addressed what it believes is an "inexcusable delay" in Morgan Hill Police Department's reporting to the media of a recent sexual assault. The editorial claims the department violated state law by withholding information from the public.
In fact, state law (Government Code Section 6254 Subsection F) says that law enforcement should release some information on certain crimes (including rape) unless the disclosure would endanger the safety of a witness or other person involved in the investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation.
The Morgan Hill Times was given several reasons for the delay in reporting, the most important being that the investigation was ongoing and would have been hindered if information was released. Based on the information we have, the department was well within its duties by not releasing information to the media.
In our experience working with the Morgan Hill Police Department on sexual assault cases, we have no reason to believe that they were in violation of state law. This department has always prioritized thorough investigations while protecting victims' safety. In some cases, both of those priorities can be threatened by premature media coverage, causing the police to rightfully err on the side of caution.
Furthermore, as a sexual assault victim advocate, I would argue that it is not always in a victim's best interest to have the story of her assault printed in the local newspaper. Victims are often threatened by their assailant to not report and, although the story is redacted to not contain identifying information, we live in a small enough community where conclusions can be reached easily. In those cases, the victim now has to worry about the rapist (who may still be in the area) causing her further harm in retaliation for the report. As I explained to the reporter covering this case, victims of sexual assault often suffer from a "branded syndrome" where they feel that everyone knows of their assault. I have had victims tell me how emotionally trying it was to read of their sexual assault in the newspaper a few days after it happened. To paraphrase one, "I was sure everyone knew that it was me and that he knew I reported it."
I believe The Times' editorial neglected to include the perspective of the most important person in rape cases - the victim. There is no procedure that " ... requires law enforcement to take the victim to the hospital ... to conduct an examination and make a determination about the veracity of the charge" immediately after the report. In fact, the victim determines if they want the exam and law enforcement has a 72-hour window from the time the assault took place to order an exam. It is true that all victims of sexual assault have the right to have an advocate present during a police interview or forensic exam. In our experience with the Morgan Hill Police Department, the officers consistently inform victims of this right and they contact an advocate with our agency as soon as possible.
I want to remind our community - and survivors of sexual assault in particular - that nobody deserves to be assaulted, that you are not alone, and that there is confidential support available to you through our 24-hour crisis line (408) 779-2115.
Perla Flores, program director
Solutions to Violence Department, Community Solutions
Tree removal was sad but warranted
Dear Editor,
I am writing regarding the recent article about the oak trees that were removed near downtown Morgan Hill near the old flea market site, and in response to the letter to the editor written by Patrick Standifer.
While I agree that it is sad to see some of the heritage oak trees removed from this and other development sites around town, I believe that if the trees really posed a safety risk as cited in the arborist report then the city had the responsibility to make sure that those trees were removed. Main and Butterfield is a busy intersection and there are many pedestrians that use that sidewalk that passes beneath those trees, including many children on their way to and from school. If the trees were not in good health and had fallen or lost a branch and injured someone, then that would have been more of a tragedy than the removal of the trees.
While Mr. Standifer failed to state what his personal level of expertise is regarding trees, he was quick to criticize the arborist and question his integrity by insinuating that he possibly worked for the tree removal company in an attempt to discredit the arborist and his report. I am not sure how the health of the trees can be judged by some small pieces of the remains as Mr. Standifer indicated.
Garrent Jax, Morgan Hill
The Community Got a question or a comment? Send us an email.
Although the Morgan Hill Times does not have any obligation to monitor this board, the Morgan Hill Times reserves the right at all times to check this board and to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to the Morgan Hill Times in our sole discretion and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. The Morgan Hill Times also reserves the right to permanently block any user who violates these terms and conditions. All threats to systems or site infrastructure shall be assumed genuine in nature and will be reported to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. Submission of any comments will be considered permission to use online or in print.
