Letters to the Editor
Wednesday, September 18, 1996


When will Hawaii
learn the lesson of tolerance?

Only decades ago, particular marriages were outlawed in the United States. State and church officials frequently forbade their followers to form families that crossed racial and religious boundaries. Is it too optimistic to think that in this day and age, after countless and immeasurable movements for racial and gender equality, American citizens would be able to see past their prejudices?

Even in Hawaii, a state where racial mixing is widely accepted and prevalent, its citizens cannot see that we are only perpetuating the prejudice that still thrives in America by blatantly discriminating against gay men and lesbians.

Would our state be what it is today if we were unable to see past our differences and realize that "different" does not necessarily mean "bad"?

Perhaps our state and its institutions will soon progress past their traditional perspectives on the family and realize that the real problem is their inability to learn from our past.

David T. Mayeda



Deviant behavior doesn't deserve
stamp of approval

Once again, Hawaii is leading the left-wing lunatic fringe of America in a manic charge to approve the latest politically correct cause celebre, same-sex marriage.

Militant homosexuals, with their gutless allies in Hawaii's Legislature and courts, are about to nullify more than 5,000 years of human social history. Marriage between a man and a woman has been recognized in every society as the norm and ideal. Society and government exist to protect the family - the family being a man and a woman and their children, whether natural, adopted, foster or step.

Two men or two women are not a marriage. Children raised by homosexuals will suffer damage, whether emotional, psychological or whatever. Why intentionally inflict more hurt on innocent children in an already harsh world?

Homosexuals claim that same-sex marriage is a civil right. This is wrong, and an insult to people who have been discriminated against. Homosexuality is a behavior, not a nationality, race, religion or disability.

Twenty-five years ago, it was an actively prosecuted crime. Although abhorrent to most people, society as a whole has decided it was time to decriminalize this behavior. Don't ask us to put a stamp of approval on it, not now, not ever.

Michael R. Morris



Let's shift our priorities from
drugs to real crime

Each of the candidates for prosecutor and mayor has his own explanation (drugs, gangs, etc.) and solution (more cops and prisons) to increased crime. Now Police Chief Michael Nakamura has joined the chorus (Star-Bulletin, Sept. 11) of blaming the lack of prison space for the rise in crime.

A recent national study published by the Independent Institute gives compelling evidence that the rise in property and violent crime correlates directly with increased policing resources committed to the war on drugs.

Based on a massive amount of crime statistics, the authors conclude, "The fundamental fact of limited criminal justice resources means that getting tough on drugs inevitably translates into getting soft on non-drug crime."

If the authors of this study are correct, and if our resources are limited, someone needs to decide which is the greater threat to society: people who use illegal substances and sell them to each other, or those who steal our cars, money, television sets and family jewels.

Once they are clear on that, they can decide how best to allocate the limited resources. We can't go on building prisons forever.

Donald M. Topping



Both men and women can
claim role of abuser

In Diane Chang's Sept. 16 column, she referred to "Anthony" as the batterer. But in her essay, she repeatedly pointed out that "Jane" is just as likely to fly off the handle and resort to physical violence as he is.

What if Jane, who is undoubtedly the smaller of the two, picked up a knife or gun and let Anthony have it? Would Chang still refer to Anthony as the batterer and Jane as the victim?

Both parties in a relationship have a duty to avoid physical violence. Women and men are both capable of dishing out serious emotional and physical abuse to their partners. Both should be held to the same standards of decency.

Clearly, a 260-pound man must be far more careful than a 130-pound woman by virtue of the strength differential. One mistake could be far more catastrophic if dished out by beefy Anthony.

But a woman who decides that physical violence is an acceptable form of conflict resolution (as Jane apparently did when she started whacking him on the back with her handbag or hit him in front of his co-workers) must share the unfortunate results, and the responsibility of the decision to become physically violent.

Khal Spencer



Want to write a letter to the editor? Let all Star-Bulletin readers know what you think. Please keep your letter to about 200 words. You can send it by e-mail to letters@starbulletin.com or you can fill in the online form for a faster response. Or print it and mail it to: Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 3080, Honolulu, Hawaii 96802. Or fax it to: 523-8509. Always be sure to include your daytime phone number.




Text Site Directory:
[News] [Business] [Features] [Sports] [Editorial] [Community] [Info] [Stylebook] [Feedback]